MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Do you give cash to just one of your kids?

elcoline

He should give it all to the female child.

Even if the male does not die before she does, he will not be financially competent enough to look after his father in his dotage anyway. Much more savvy investment to treat the daughter better and reap the benefits later in life.

Alternatively you could just be a NORMAL HUMAN BEIING and treat the kids equally...

Dorrie

This is not as clear cut as people think - if you read the quote carefully you will see that Mick 'promised' to help his son clear his debts. If Mick has any integrity at all he must honour that promise. It does make him an idiot for promising in the first place, but there you go.

Personally I would never promise to bail any of my children out financially, especially when it is their own fault that they are in a mess. I would point Gavin in the direction of a CAP (Christians Against Poverty) Money-coaching course, which will help teach him how to manage his money better!

meames_2

I think the difference is "help" not completely solve the boys finanicial difficulties. That way he can give both equally a share

thursday

Mick should give it all to his son to get him out of debt, but on the condition that he pays back half of that amount to his sister with an average interest rate applied to the money owed at the moment.

jud!th

give it all to Stacey and tell Gavin to read the parable of the talents...

(might help him more in the long run)

... or maybe not

Cerisa

Equally. If he doesn't help Stacey as well, Stacey will learn that being competent, intelligent and money savvy isn't rewarded, wheras Gavin will be bailed out yet again. the flip side to that is that it isn't good for Gavin either, because he will constantly feel infantilised - it'll stop him learning to be capable of sorting himself out.

tim_n

Everyone makes mistakes. Money makes and breaks relationships.

Split it 50:50 and as a parent, sit him down and try and help him review his finances and sort out a plan to deal with his problems. That'll help more in the long run.

purplegaily

I would always treat my children fairly, but as the dilemma states - he's promised to help the son out of debt - which his daughter obviously has no need for at the moment.

Mind you, I suppose if he is a traditional father, and she a traditional daughter, there may be a wedding to pay for in the future - which Mike should probably start saving for now!!!

My parents saved money, and as I had student debts to settle on leaving Uni, they gave me some of my portion to help clear that when I left. My brother didn't get his share on leaving Uni, as he didn't need it at the time - he got it a few years later when he was looking for money for a deposit.

Swings and roundabouts - as long as both children are treated equally in the long run, and appreciate that it will even out over a period of time.

millema

From reading this thread it seems my feelings are controversial . I have one brother who's useless with money, and a sister who simply doesnt have much - so i have never , ever felt jealous that on the odd occasion my parents have a little extra money they have chosen to spend on the other two . I dont agree at all that just because they are not financially savvy that they should be left without in order 'to teach them ' . Some people are just made that way . I dont have a DIY bone in my body , and no matter how many times i try its as if my hand has an affliction but my wife doesnt just let me keep on relentlessly attempting in vain to master it . She accepts it and just happens to be a dabhand at such ventures , ts horses for courses !
You can publish all the mass of great saving information on this website but to some its just gobbledygook .

RolyRoly

Give it to them both equally. It's a no-brainer isn't it?
Yes the one needs it more than the other, but that's his fault and he must learn from his mistakes. The daughter's thrift should not be punished.

Obviously the UK government would throw all the money at the spendthrift and swipe some of the thrifty one's cash to chuck in too, but we're not talking about the government in this dilema, are we? ;-)