Even if its only 10% (and 10% of a billion is still 100 million dollars) do you really think its reasonable that 100[1] years after my death my family should st

Even if its only 10% (and 10% of a billion is still 100 million dollars) do you really think its reasonable that 100[1] years after my death my family should still be spending the money that I myself earned? To put that in perspective, people who died in 1916 are: Hetty Green - the 'witch of wall street' one of the first ever successful women investors Charles Taze Russell - the creator of a religion that would later be called 'Jehovahs Witnesses' Saint Albert Chmielowski - a Polish religious leader who was made a saint in 1989 Grigori Rasputin - a faith healer and friend of the last Tsar of Russia Nicholas II So we are talking about the modern day descendants of these people, still holding 10% of any wealth amassed over 100 years ago. If you honestly think it would be reasonable for the descendants of these people to still be living off the wealth amassed by their forebears, I guess I just disagree. [1]Wikpedia says a generation is in the low 20's in years, i'll assume 20 to keep from being seen as inflating the numbers