Forgive this post if posted in the wrong forum but I couldn't find the proper forum. I posted here because it pertains to the U.S.

What are the different policies regarding miles after death? I think it's a lot of trouble so maybe burning miles is the best strategy so there won't be that many miles upon death. Opinions?

How about money? Is it realistic to build a multi-generation family understanding where money is inherited but one should try hard to live within one's means within their lifetime? (This would also require individuals to have strict discipline and values). For example, they may "borrow" money from family wealth for a home but eventually save up the equivalent of that "loan" to pass to the next generation (in other words, build on family weath, not spend it)? I heard that if you spend only 1% of your retirement nest egg per year, it will likely last forever (but if you spend 3-4%, you will eventually use up all your retirement savings).

If this is the case, then living off of 0.5% to 1% of family wealth will be sustainable. However, this is not easy because there's estate tax, which wipes out a significant chunk. I am not sure if wiping out 40% of your wealth can be offset by lifetime investment gains so that the net (after inflation) gain to the family wealth pot is positive. What do you think?

Doing the math, each generation might live 30 years beyond the previous generation. In 30 years, $10M could become $30M, get taxed down to $20M, be reduced by inflation to $10M, which is no net loss or gain. $10M could yield a useable, spendable income of $100,000. If there are 2 kids, then $50,000/year each. However, this calculation is based on strict discipline to invest wisely, a 30 year or more lifespan over the previous generation, and inflation not being too high. Some problems include that inflation might cut the $20M to an equivalent of $5M and also $10M is very, very hard to accumulate, much less grow to $30M in 30 years.

The alternative plan is for every generation to start from zero. If they are not successful, tough luck, get food stamps. If they are successful, the fruits of their success ends at the next generation.

In some ways, I think that every person cannot start all the way from zero. If so, they would have to re-invent the wheel and fire or die. In reality, some stuff, even knowledge gets passed on, which benefits future generations. Why not family money?

(ha ha, the next thing is to figure out how to begin family wealth and how to have the next generation or two follow a master plan)

One partial solution might be to live a long time. If generation zero starts family wealth and successfully grows it between age 30 and 85, that is 55 years of growth. If they have kids late at age 40 (and those kids live to 85), then those kids will have 40 years of growth of family wealth until they die and estate taxes levied.

In contrast, if generation zero starts a family at age 18, they will probably not start building wealth at age 30 (but lets assume they do). They would have 55 years of wealth growth but then the next generation would only have 18 years of wealth growth before estate taxes are levied (since they are only 18 years younger than their parents)

Conclusion? Maybe that having many kids early in life condemns you to poverty (but you get to have kids when you are not yet old and tired).

Very interesting questions posed.

May be more suited to OMNI, but the OP isn't OMNI qualified. I do see that it pertains to US taxes and economy so that's some justification for it being here.