Daniel Craig’s ‘distaste’ for inheritance is galling for those who do have to worry about their kids’ futures

Reading Daniel Craig’s comments about inheritance makes me wonder if he’s had one too many vesper martinis. The actor’s doing the rounds on the No Time to Die publicity junket and, while he makes a brilliant Bond, his comments on inheritance are less dazzling.

Hot off the back of topping this year’s list of highest-paid Hollywood actors, earning a reported $100m (£73m) for the Knives Out sequels, Craig – who has a child from a previous relationship, a stepson and shares a daughter with his wife Rachel Weisz – explained to Candis magazine that he wouldn’t be leaving his vast fortune to his kids. “I don’t want to leave great sums to the next generation. I think inheritance is quite distasteful. My philosophy is: get rid of it or give it away before you go.”

Craig is notorious for his fierce protection of his family’s privacy, which seems odd against this public financial disclosure. At first glance, his comments might sound sensible, admirable even, given that the children of some megastars seem to lead troubled lives. Perhaps that’s why so many super-wealthy celebrities have seen fit to inform their public of their intentions when it comes to inheritance – to convey their parental proficiency and to remind fans that their favourite celebrities are just ordinary people with extraordinary bank balances. They’ve been through the rough and tumble of life, attended the school of hard knocks and graduated with a gilded career and an engorged current account.

By withholding their fortune from their kids, celebs allow them to live a life unhampered by the corrupting influence of wealth – or what business executive and TV personality Karren Brady describes in her column in The Sun as the “double-edged sword of the super-rich”.

Brady suggests that when building his stratospheric career, Craig’s “drive and motivation was unfettered by the burden of a massive inheritance stunting his ability to know what he wanted to do in life”. Personally, I wouldn’t mind being fettered, burdened and stunted by a massive inheritance but maybe I don’t understand the horrors of inherited wealth. If anyone is interested in a social experiment, then I’m willing to put myself forward as a human subject. Yes, I’m that selfless.

At a time when approximately 31 per cent of children are living in poverty in the UK,  it seems more than a little distasteful to speak of inherited wealth as if it isn’t an enormous privilege and significant life advantage. Then again, the super-wealthy discussing the hazards of being super-wealthy is always unpalatable. Craig’s amassed his fortune – I can’t bring myself to use the word “earnt” for someone who’s been paid hundreds of millions for their job – and good for him.

Great for him that he doesn’t need to worry about the financial future of his kids (and probably his grandchildren). The lofty idea of expressing “distaste” for inheritance must be galling for the majority of the population, though, most of whom can only dream of leaving even a modest amount to their families.

For most, to leave an inheritance means making sacrifices and denying themselves material comfort at a time in their lives when they need it most. But Craig is speaking the language of the elite rich where money becomes a matter of taste rather than basic security.

For most people reading his comments as he starts flogging the latest instalment of the Bond franchise, Daniel Craig’s rarefied world will likely seem as fantastical as 007’s.