Sting has a reputation for long, passionate lovemaking sessions (which he has always claimed to be exaggerated or false). He has 6 kids. He also boasts a net worth of over $300 million dollars. With all this money, you'd think Sting's 3 sons and 3 daughters would have it made, but you're wrong. The rocker insists that his kids will not inherit any of his money, calling trust funds "an albatross" around the necks of his children.
Citing his struggles coming from a working-class background in England, and working as a pub singer for as little as $20 a night, the singer wants his children to understand and appreciate the value of a dollar and to appreciate hard work and it's rewards. Citing pop stars like Justin Beiber, Sting (born Gordon Sumner) says that if he had everything handed to him, he doesn't think he'd appreciate what he has now and doesn't want this "affluenza" to affect his kids.
Sting isn't the only one who says he won't leave his vast fortune to his kids. Bill Gates and Simon Cowell have both gone on record to say that their millions (billions in Gates' case) will not be handed down to their kids.
Does this mean that these kids want for anything? Absolutely not. What it means is that while these kids are afforded luxuries, they must work hard for their futures and not rest on the laurels (or wallets) of their famous parents. I, for one, think this is a pretty great thing.
We all want better for our kids than we had, and I'm sure that people like Sting or Bill Gates aren't any exception. The difference is that these people tend to have millions of dollars more than I probably ever will. Their kids are well taken care of, get to go on vacations, don't have student debt and live in wonderful houses growing up. But, these kids are expected to figure out what they want to do with their lives and how to achieve their goals, much like us "regular" folk teach our kids.
Sadly, this attitude seems like a breath of fresh air in the face of the idea of the "poor little rich girl" or the son-of-a-billionaire-playboy who don't do anything other than waste their parent's money. It seems to me that stars like this are just trying to give their kids some semblance of a "normal" life in the wake of a not-so-normal upbringing.
What do you think? Is Sting's declaration over dramatic, or right on the money?
Want to read more about celebrity parents? Check out Tori Spelling Spends $6,000 on 6-Year-Old's Birthday or Just In Time For Father's Day, It's Hollywood's Worst Dads.
Printer-friendly version