My sons rent

Oldernotwiser

I just cannot see how people think it a good thing for a young adult to have several hundreds of pounds spending money per month whilst the parents scrape by and subsidise them.

Of course "family" is important but by the time your children are in their twenties and out of education it becomes a much more all round concept, with children helping parents quite as much as the other way round. Infantilising your grown up children by continuing to see the parents' role as always being the "helper" in the family does no good to anybody.

Idiophreak

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I just cannot see how people think it a good thing for a young adult to have several hundreds of pounds spending money per month whilst the parents scrape by and subsidise them.

Hardly anyone on here is suggesting parents should subsidise their children?

Quite the opposite: Most people are suggesting that children should subsidise their parents' lifestyles by paying them more than costs...

Oldernotwiser

Idiophreak wrote: »

Hardly anyone on here is suggesting parents should subsidise their children?

Quite the opposite: Most people are suggesting that children should subsidise their parents' lifestyles by paying them more than costs...

But it comes down to your definition of costs! I think adult children should, ideally, pay for all their food, their share (third/quarter whatever) of utilities and something towards room rental. That's not at all the same thing as people getting them to pay a bit towards the extra cost gas/utilities or food. It's a question of paying their share of the running of the communal household; that's not subsidising the parents, that's paying your own way.

Idiophreak

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But it comes down to your definition of costs! I think adult children should, ideally, pay for all their food, their share (third/quarter whatever) of utilities and something towards room rental. That's not at all the same thing as people getting them to pay a bit towards the extra cost gas/utilities or food. It's a question of paying their share of the running of the communal household; that's not subsidising the parents, that's paying your own way.

I think you've nailed it there.

I, and my parents, consider costs to be things my being there *costs* them.

Other people will, as you do, consider costs to be a percentage of the total "household" cost.

In the first instance the child's better off (cheaper living) and the parents remain as they were.

In the second case the child's better off (although not as much) and the parents are better off.

I guess it's down to individuals to decide whether it's the parents that need that extra money more, or the child...

Oldernotwiser

Idiophreak wrote: »

I guess it's down to individuals to decide whether it's the parents that need that extra money more, or the child...

It comes down to individuals to decide whether we are actually talking about a "child", as you put it, (regardless of how advanced in their twenties they are and how much they earn) living in someone else's home in a state of dependance, or an adult sharing a home with other adults, on the basis of equality and mutual respect. What on earth is wrong with ALL parties being better off? Isn't that fairer?

I would be ashamed to be the parent of someone in their twenties who didn't want to be financially independent, even if their circumstances didn't allow them to have a place of their own at that particular time.

Idiophreak

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It comes down to individuals to decide whether we are actually talking about a "child", as you put it, (regardless of how advanced in their twenties they are and how much they earn) living in someone else's home in a state of dependance, or an adult sharing a home with other adults, on the basis of equality and mutual respect. What on earth is wrong with ALL parties being better off? Isn't that fairer?

I really think thinking of it as "an adult sharing a home with other adults, on the basis of equality and mutual respect" is kinda backward - *that* kind of thinking is not going to help anyone move on or encourage the child to be independant. When you start talking about it like that, that makes it a whole different kettle of fish...then you're talking about it *being* the child's home not just emotionally, but fiscally as well...Thinking of it as "I'm living with my parents for now" sounds much healthier...it shows that it isn't *your* home.

Furthermore, I don't know how many parents would be OK with "sharing a home with other adults, on the basis of equality and mutual respect", come to think of it...I come home from uni and say "yeah, I'm living here on a basis of equality, so I'm going to need to assess what we're spending our money on, I want a say in any redecorating of communal areas...blah blah blah". I'll tell you what my parents would say "It's our house. We'll do what we want with it, thanks". And I think a lot of people would feel the same way. A lot of parents will be happy to have their child come and stay with them a while so they can sort themselves out, less would sign on to having their child become "equal" to them in their own house....that's just weird.

The inequality in the household is key. Sure, there's inequality in the amount each party pay - but there's also inequality in other things...I have no say over the general running of the house, I have to more or less do what my parents tell me to do, when they tell me to do it, I don't get any equity in the house for the payments I make...and it's this "second class citizen" feeling you get that drives you to move on - you want to be lord of your own manor, calling the shots for yourself. If you're "equal" in your parents home, I don't see what would drive you to move on with your own life at all, really...

And finally, I think I slipped up with the "better off" thing. I mean sure, in black and white, all are better off. But say you calculate the cost of the child living elsewhere to be £1000. You calculate the cost to the parents of the child staying with them to be £500. Now, the parents charging the child £999 does *technically* make all parties better off. But to say it's fair seems a stretch to me...

Doom_and_Gloom

Idiophreak my parents and I are in a rare breed then. Yes they are my parents and yes it is their house but we are equal after that. I pay enough to cover my costs to them no more no less as they would have to run the house as it is. I am a lodger in respects to how we treat each other. I can call my parents 'mate' and get away with it due to this. They don't get in my business too much and I don't in theirs.

I'm allowed to do what I wish with my living room (that I share with my ex) even though it is their house (painted it to my taste etc as they allowed this even though it is their house) and I'm allowed to have people over just as they would. In a way this is a house share in the way we act towards each other. We all do our bit around the house and it works. I know for some this wouldn't though but if they were thinking they were above me I wouldn't respect them as I do and would walk all over them and expect them to do X, Y and Z as I would be their child still. The way it is I'm an adult that has responsibilities.

The equality has always been there and I first moved out when I was 16 (1 week before my 17th) into a flat share. I liked this way of living but the place fell apart so I had to come back with my partner at the time in tow. There are very few rules but they apply to all and not just my ex and I. We are both welcome here for as long as we need to be and I do want to go again when I can. They know this and understand it is nothing to do with them just as it wasn't last time that I went. I think treating me as an adult made me more open to the world beyond my parents the 1st time and I made a very good 2 years of that because of them.

Too many parents try and act as if their children are still too young for the world and do not treat them as adults; that is a big problem as the world beyond the parents will come as a huge shock this way. I see nothing wrong with equality in the home as adults. As I said though I can see it wouldn't work for everyone however a non-equal house doesn't work for all either.

bestpud

Idiophreak wrote: »

I really think thinking of it as "an adult sharing a home with other adults, on the basis of equality and mutual respect" is kinda backward - *that* kind of thinking is not going to help anyone move on or encourage the child to be independant. When you start talking about it like that, that makes it a whole different kettle of fish...then you're talking about it *being* the child's home not just emotionally, but fiscally as well...Thinking of it as "I'm living with my parents for now" sounds much healthier...it shows that it isn't *your* home.

Furthermore, I don't know how many parents would be OK with "sharing a home with other adults, on the basis of equality and mutual respect", come to think of it...I come home from uni and say "yeah, I'm living here on a basis of equality, so I'm going to need to assess what we're spending our money on, I want a say in any redecorating of communal areas...blah blah blah". I'll tell you what my parents would say "It's our house. We'll do what we want with it, thanks". And I think a lot of people would feel the same way. A lot of parents will be happy to have their child come and stay with them a while so they can sort themselves out, less would sign on to having their child become "equal" to them in their own house....that's just weird.

The inequality in the household is key. Sure, there's inequality in the amount each party pay - but there's also inequality in other things...I have no say over the general running of the house, I have to more or less do what my parents tell me to do, when they tell me to do it, I don't get any equity in the house for the payments I make...and it's this "second class citizen" feeling you get that drives you to move on - you want to be lord of your own manor, calling the shots for yourself. If you're "equal" in your parents home, I don't see what would drive you to move on with your own life at all, really...

And finally, I think I slipped up with the "better off" thing. I mean sure, in black and white, all are better off. But say you calculate the cost of the child living elsewhere to be £1000. You calculate the cost to the parents of the child staying with them to be £500. Now, the parents charging the child £999 does *technically* make all parties better off. But to say it's fair seems a stretch to me...

It is possible to share the financial burden and have equality in terms of household/personal responsibility but acknowledge who owns the house and ultimately holds the key to the door.

Really though, this guy is an adult and has a choice!! At present he wants to have his cake and eat it!!

It is his parents home and they are allowing him to save money by living there but they are not allowing him to take the p1$$!

Many a 20something year old would put up without 'equal rights' if they had money in their pocket/laundry done/house cleaned...!

Idiophreak

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

Idiophreak my parents and I are in a rare breed then. Yes they are my parents and yes it is their house but we are equal after that.

It's the "more or less equal after that" bit where it gets sticky though...

Your arrangement sounds very similar to mine with my parents...To say we're not "equal" doesn't mean they treat me with any less respect, or vice versa, doesn't mean they treat me like a child, doesn't mean they make demands on me - or vice versa...

Just means that I'm aware, at the heart of it, that I live in *their* house, not mine...As such, we can't be considered to be living there on an equal basis...

Idiophreak

bestpud wrote: »

It is possible to share the financial burden and have equality in terms of household/personal responsibility but acknowledge who owns the house and ultimately holds the key to the door.

Of course it's possible...but is it fair?