Rattler12 said:
O.G. said:
Tecolote said:
Canyon99 said:
BrazosDog02 said:
I have the opposite problem as old timers. I'm a "buy the right tool for the job even if it costs $200 and you will only use it twice."
If I did what the dude in the OP did, I'd probably be taking the pump apart for whatever damage was done inside. But if it truly was ok to heat it, I would use my induction heater for those bolts. It would shine in that instance.
Watching old people hack and pray through repairs drives me nuts.
My old man old would use literally whatever was laying around to make something work. And when he took off a rusted, damaged, and rounded off nut….he'd save it in a coffee can with others just like it just in case he needed it at some point. lol. They have never been used.
Same issue with my grandfather. Depression era farmer that started fabricating his own implements. Rubbed off on his son that took over the farm when he passed away and after decades left us acres of scrap and other crap to clean up after his health deteriorated. After that clean up project I vowed I'd never hold on to worthless items even if there was a fraction of a chance I could use it in the future. I don't get sentimental over material possessions.
You're over a decade younger than I am. My daughter is 21. She's an only child and grandchild on both sides. She's due to inherit four homes' worth of junk. And she wants NOTHING! She has no attachment to material things. Going to be a lot of huge estate sales.
There is a lot of this going around. I wanted absolutely nothing from my dad when he passed & I've heard from multiple Gen X to Boomers that their kids/grandkids dont want family ranches/farms/estates.
But they'll gladly accept the proceeds from the sale of such property. There was an old man down here that nipped that in the bud. His 2 sections of land had been settled by direct lineage family back in the 1850's. He had an only child and 2 grandkids. To prevent them selling it after he died, he left 7/8ths undivided interest to his son and directed the remaining 1/8 th undivided interest to be put in a trust he set up for his grandkids and any other direct lineage kids born in the future. I asked him why and he said "to prevent what's been in the family for the last 150 years plus from becoming a housing subdivision 3 weeks after I die."
I will never understand this line of thinking.
Sounds like a great way to leave an anchor around a child or grandchild's neck. No interest in living on or working the ranch/farm yet property taxes still due. And, of course, they can disclaim the inheritance, which then leaves a trust and the estate to deal with the consequences of a deceased decision.
Now imagine this in a dynamic where you have 4, 6, 8 or more children/grandchildren. Some of the "family land legacies" that people are so attached to will not survive the splits, reqardless of the tactics used by prior family members to prevent it.
I think you should leave your children and grandchildren with blessings and not anchors. The land should never be move valuable than your family name, and the actual family legacy which exists in children & grandchildren. The men that originally came to Texas to receive land grants or purchase land did so because they were pioneers seeking their own choices and adventures. Someone that uses a tactic to prevent a successor inheritor from what they deem is best is the antithesis of that same family pioneer.
Just my $.02.