If she's old enough to work without shame, she's old enough to go on the game!
Under what circumstances should your son/daughter start contributing?
- Thread starter Things change I've changed
- Start date
If she's old enough to work without shame, she's old enough to go on the game!
No, I haven't missed the point. Your method is equally valid - whatever works best for your family. However, one side is being criticised here (those asking for the money) by the other (those that don't believe that should be the case). Both methods are appropriate for some families so why is one side being so critical of the other.
As soon as they get a job I'd expect them to start paying rent. I certainly had to. I'd have been kicked out if I didn't pay my way. As with LeeUK, I probably only paid about £10 a week to start with, but as I was on YTS earning a measly £30 ish, that was still a fair chunk.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,718
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
The youngest moved out at least 3 years ago but has just bought her own house. The eldest will hopefully be moving into her own house at the end of the month.
And 100% this.
Stuff around by you is still priced quite reasonably so they are fortunate in that regard and there are some nice areas around (despite what most people think).
And you, too, are missing the point.
One point is that there is no right, or wrong, way. That you did it one way and your kids turned out fine doesn't mean they'll be a wreck if it's done a different way. Mine turned out fine as well, and are well-adjusted, successful people with families of their own.
The second point is that quite a few posters have suggested that "charging rent" is about needing money from the kids to make do. For some people on very low incomes that may be true. And if such parents are struggling to make ends meet, and grown kids are working full-time and earning, why on earth shouldn't they contribute?
But that's not the only reason for charging rent. And the notion that kids are somehow a money-generating project is just utterly hilarious. I've lived in a number of countries over the years but for most of it was US-based. If you had any notion of the cost of putting four kids through university, especially if you want top-end uni's, and most certainly when two of them trained as doctors, you'd know just how daft the notion of them somehow being hard done by to pay rent once working full-time was. The fact is, they didn't stay home long because jobs took them elsewhere fairly quickly in all but one case. If I was keeping a ledger on the costs of and revenue from raising kids, even as professionals earning pretty well, they'd be paying off that imbalance for years. Uni and especially med school is eye-wateringly expensive. But I'm not, and that's not what rent was about.
And as for having some money, I wondered if someone would jump on that. Yes, I'm not hard up. Not super wealthy either, but then, that's a subjective judgement too. But there always seem to be a few that don't like the notion that others have more money. I'm not sure what motivates the bitchiness. Maybe it's envy, Maybe it's plain old resentment. I don't know, and don't much care. I've run a fairly successful business for 40 years, and my wife is a successful professional. So we've done well. We haven't splurged it all on sxtravagant consumerism or fancy toys, and I'm not in here boasting about cars, watches or any of the other stuff so regularly boasted about, but we have managed to provide a good comfortable home for our kids, and beyond that, priority number one was getting them the best start we could, which happened to involve the best education we could afford, which happened to be extremely expensive.
We're well off enough to be able to give the kids that education, and I wish every else was too. But that's not how the world is. I'd also point out that I've met people that could, and indeed did, blow the kind of money that financed the education for all our kids on a shopping trip to a jewellers or a weekend in a casino.
But if anyone thinks I'm going to be embarrassed about us having worked hard and been successful enough to give our kids the best education we could, they're going to be sadly disappointed. I'm proud of having been able to give our kids the kind of head start we didn't get.
Which bring me to the final point. Charging them rent meant money "changed hands" strictly temporarily. It was, if you like, a mandatory savings scheme, but the object lesson was that living costs. Not that I told them that, as it would have defeated the point of the exercise.
Have you considered this? You said
Exactly. I'm not. So my kids have always been used to being around an affluent lifestyle where money isn't really a problem but they've never been the ones providing the money. The point was that there comes a time when they're adults and should expect to start behaving like adults. I'm not going to spoil them, and end up with them thinking that they're somehow entitled to exoect the world to cater for their every whim.
That means we have to strike a balance between doing everything we can for the kids, without raising a brood of spoilt, self-indulgent, entitled brats. If you're skint and have never had a well-paid job, that is at least one worry you've never faced. But I've seen the results of over-indulgent well-off parents spoiling kids and the results are not attractive.
I haven't criticised how you raised your kids, but without even knowing the circumstances others are in, you and some others seem happy to criticise decisions others, in different circumstances, make. Just because what worked for you worked doesn't mean it's the only way that would work in your circumstances, or that it would work in my circumstances.
Exactly.
Our concern about that was that at 18, not all kids are mature enough to make common sense decisions on priorities. We weren't prepared to risk one deciding that a flashy new car was a higher priority than getting on the property ladder.
But we also put sone money into an educational trust which paid the kids an income, a sort of stipend, while in full time education. It could also, with agreement of the trustees, pay out for certain one-off expenses. But on ceasing education, the trust stops paying out and reverts to capital growth. And the next recipients will be their kids when they get to the age to need educational support.
If we got this right, and I think we did, our kids kids, and future generations, will never need to worry about the cost of getting even a very good education. It's also a very tax-efficient way of doing it.
If that refers to me, then if you'd read what I said a fund to help towards a deposit is exactly what I did with their "rent", except that for every penny of rent they paid in, I added the same, which immediately meant they had 2x their "rent" in the fund. Then, the fund was invested and grew some more until they were settling doen and ready to buy.
The point was to get them used to having to work for things and to appreciate what things cost, not just expect to get handed it, while at the same time, giving them every advantage we could. It's a policy we applied pretty much since they became teenagers, because the alternative was raising a brood of spoilt little 'princes" and "princesses". I've seen the type, and it's not a nice way to be.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,718
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Never mind, you missed my reply to Em3bb only 2 above yours.
Tut tut.
You posted all that for nothing.
I started paying as soon as i got my first job (16) - can't remember how much initially.
When i got my first full time job at 17 i started giving 10% of my monthly and kept that up until I also moved out at 24.
In this time I also saved my own money enough to get a deposit together with my GF (now wife). My parents did all of my washing and cleaning of the house and the weekly food shop so i was happy for it to go on whatever they needed, I atleast contributed with chores and £££.
If they are earning they should be contributing financially aswell as with chores.
When i got my first full time job at 17 i started giving 10% of my monthly and kept that up until I also moved out at 24.
In this time I also saved my own money enough to get a deposit together with my GF (now wife). My parents did all of my washing and cleaning of the house and the weekly food shop so i was happy for it to go on whatever they needed, I atleast contributed with chores and £££.
If they are earning they should be contributing financially aswell as with chores.
I only read the first few posts so no but having read your post I fully agree with what you've said. Mine is still a toddler but we've started putting money aside already. I'd be interested to know more about the trust you mentioned if you wouldn't mind?
Like the poster above me, I'd quite like to hear more about how you set this up if you don't mind
Not really. Some related to what you said, like there being other ways to do it without money changing hands. In your circumstances perhaps, but I've yet to see a credible alternative in mine, and then there's the rather condescending inference that doing it with money changing hands is either less effective, or is somehow exploiting kids because we "charged rent". That latter inference is one I entirely reject.
Also, while I quoted you, the points made weren't limited to responding to you, but to several people taking broadly the same line, where they either don't accept that charging rent is just as valid an option, or don't understand why it's a valid option.
That is because you aren't well off though. People that do have money, the children end up having things that many less well off families won't and as a result may end up having higher expectations. Making them contribute teaches them the value of money and that life isn't going to be a free ride for them.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,718
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Where did I say that?
And don't convert my 'Selfish parents' remark into something it isn't.
Last edited:
I hesitate to explain in too much detail, for a couple of reasons. One is that it's done under US law as that's where I was based at the time. Secondly, I've already been accused of "mentioning money" once, and can't explain without doing it again.
That said, here goes.
First, be prepared to have it cost quite a bit to do. Simple boilerplate trusts aren't that expensive, but this was customised. Specialised lawyers with both trust and tax backgrounds aren't three a penny and this took two senior partners and several paralegals quite a while to bolt together. That costs. Believe me, I still have the scars.
Secondly, you, or rather the trust, will be paying the costs of having such a trust managed, for a long time. Investment decisions need to be made, disbursements monitored to ensure compliance with the trust rules, etc, so there are ongoing costs.
Thirdly, it requires a large enough amount of capital to be irrevocably committed to the fund such that the disbursements for each generation can fund their education without depleting the fund capital to the degree that it cannot grow adequately to pay out the next generation without getting overly depleted. So you need decent accountants too.
You also need to build in provisions to handle exceptional circumstances. For instance, if your calculations assume each generation of eligible kids consists of a maximum of four kids, costing $x each, what happens if one generation ends up as six, or eight? Are the fund disbursements pro-rata'd or are there provisions for adding in extra capital to the fund from outside?
Does the fund cover step-kids if one of mine divorces and remarries? If one does divorce and remarry, is having his/her bloodline kids eligible but his/her spouses kids that aren't of my bloodline not covered risk putting undue stresses on their marriage?
What happens to the capital if our direct bloodline dries up with no natural kids? Does it just sit in a trust growing and providing jobs for trustees indefinitely, or is remaining capital paid out? If so, to who and how fo you prevent that being used to empty the trust? Pay out closure capital to charity perhaps, but as this is intended to be a permanent trust, it may be 50 or, who knows, in 250 years before that happens. If you name charities, will they still exist? If it's at the discretion of trustees to select them, that opens a huge opportunity for abuse.
How do you ensure the fund grows adequately to guarantee adequate growth? One way is relying on market values, but what about the odds of a stock market crash? What then?
Another is that beneficiaries of the trust are entitled to benefit but to do so have to contract to pay back in, rather like a student loan. That is, having had the benefit themselves, pay back in to pay that benefit forward to their kids, grandkids, etc. And if so, at what rates, over what timescale, and in what circumstances? And with what safeguards?
What should the trust do if a given child doesn't want further education, but to start up a business? Should the trust help, or is it purely for education?
These sorts of questions and issues are why it was expensive to set up, and requires expert legal advice and work.
What would, I expect, be far simpler and cheaper is a simple trust to cover your direct children. Mine is designed to cover future generations too, which is where the more taxing questions come from, as it's trying to predict entirely unknown possible situations. If you don't handle them in advance, the risk is that unanticipated events end up causing legal challenges and the fund ends up making lawyers loads of money and emptying the fund as they argue it out.
Trusts don't need to be horrendously complicated or expensive, but my view is that none, imclyding simple ones, are cheap or overly simple, and the only way to get it right is to get competent legal advice up-front. Cutting corners up front can be expensive in the longer term, so the only real advice I can give is to get good legal advice. And I really stress the "good" bit.
Inference, as I said.