Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis are making headlines after resurfaced comments about their plans to donate their inheritance instead of leaving it to their children has sparked mixed reactions online.
The actors, who met playing on-screen couple Michael Kelso and Jackie Burkhart in That's 70s Show, began dating in 2012, got married in 2015 and welcomed two children: daughter Wyatt, 10, and son Dimitri, eight.
Speaking on Dax Shepard’s Armchair Expert podcast in 2018, Kutcher revealed that the couple has no plans to set up trust funds for their children, instead pledging their $275 million fortune to charitable causes and “various things.”
The No Strings Attached star added that while they won’t receive direct inheritances, he and Kunis would financially support their kids if they came to them with a well-thought-out business plan, adding: "But they’re not getting trust [funds]," per The Independent.
Kutcher explained that the decision comes from wanting to ensure Wyatt and Dimitri grow up without entitlement. “They’re living a really privileged life, and they don’t even know it,” he said. “And they’ll never know it, because this is the only one that they’ll know.”
The Friends With Benefits actress has echoed that sentiment, telling Elle UK in 2017 that her goal is to avoid raising “a***oles," quipping: "We don’t need to contribute."
That same year, the couple skipped Christmas presents for their children to avoid excess. “We're instituting [no presents] this year because when the kids are [younger than] one, it doesn't really matter," she said.
"Last year when we celebrated Christmas, Wyatt was two and it was too much. We didn't give her anything - it was the grandparents. The kid no longer appreciates the one gift. They don't even know what they're expecting; they're just expecting stuff," she added.
The couple's approach resurfaced this week when celebrity news account Pop Tingz tweeted about it, garnering more than 100,000 likes and over 26,000 retweets.
"Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis reveal they will donate their $275 million fortune to charity and not leave anything for their children," the post read. "They say they don't want their children to become spoiled and entitled, and want them to be motivated to work hard."
Reactions to their comments were divided as some people praised the decision in light of ongoing conversations about “nepo babies” - the term for children of famous or powerful parents whose family connections give them an advantage in their careers.
“What’s the opposite of a nepo baby?” one person wrote, while another joked: "I would get rid of my parents before they had the chance."
A third user said: "I understand the motivation, but set up a trust with some guidelines in place. This decision seems kinda terrible, frankly," and another questioned the point of having wealth: “It’s selfish to make loads of money while you’re alive spend a bunch of it on yourself and then give it away when you die and leave your children with nothing. Why even have kids?"
However, supporters of the couple’s stance noted that their children would still have access to the best resources and opportunities possible and wouldn’t need an inheritance to succeed.
"Good for them. Just with the famous family name they will have a lot of opportunities anywho," one commenter argued.
What do you guys think about their decision?