MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Terry and June charge their son rent?

CarineG

I think it is fair that they charge him a reduced amount of rent. It will teach him to be careful with his money and to budget for his expenses.

A colleague of mine whose son lives at home but is in full time employment charges his son rent.
The money goes straight to a savings account and he will be giving the money back to his son when he is older and plans on leaving/buying his own place.
His son doesn't know anything about this.
I think it is a great way to do it. The parent don't make any money out of their son and he will find himself with a considerable amount of money saved up in order to start in life...

t_fairy

I don't see any problem with them charging their son rent, you can't expect to live in London for free! I am sure they would charge him less than the market rate which he should appreciate and I think is fair.
I would suggest he pays a monthly rate inclusive of bills, he will learn the value of money, and then perhaps look at giving some of this back to him when he comes to move out so he can use it towards a deposit on a place of his own. By doing this you can ensure he won't stay there forever and you can begin renting out the flat again at the market rate.
:T

BFG_2

Charge the sponging little git the full whack.

armoured-smiler

So just goes to show you. Don't go and work and pounce of your parents as a student as you get more.

If you pounce on your parents and stay as a student(or unemployed) you get a paid life and if you go and try to stand on your own two feet and go to work instead you have to pay (IE get no concessions just like the government is doing). So why are people only complaining about the government when it is doing the same and not parents as well?

geri1965_2

It's ponce, not pounce.

christian138

Most of this has already been said but this is my take.....

He should definitely pay rent, but these factors should be considered

how important was the rent they were getting from commercial rent?
how much will he be earning?

I would probably charge him percentage of his income at say 60%, with a ceiling of what the commercial rent was after agents fees. This might have a tapered start so starting with 30% and then moving to 60% over 6months.

Then i would put aside a proportion of this rent (depending on my own financial circumstance) so that at some stage he would have a deposit to put down on his own place.

Soulful820

Their son needs to start to learn the value of money and pay his way in the world!
I would suggest however that Terry and John only cover costs of the property and dont make a profit on their son but he should contribute something

bobb1985

I think it's crazy that mum & dad let his brothers live in the house rent free whilst they were students!!!
When I was a student my mother charged me £50 a week to live at home over the summer and easter holidays.

swinstan

Of course he should pay. He's a grown up, living in the real world. This is not a case of profiteering at the son's expense. Many of us are trying to do what we can to build up savings or pension for old age. Why should the parents take a hit on their income just to subsidise him? They may well need that money.The case for the other sons was different, they were still in FT education.

We all want to do our best for our offspring but isn't teaching them how to manage their own money one of the most important gifts we can give? If the parents are lucky enough not to need the income, they might choose to return some or all of it later, maybe towards a deposit, but it should be that way round - as a gift and not as a right.

echelon101

If his parents NEED the money then he should pay 100% rent and all the bills (utility, council tax etc)

If his parents DO NOT need the money then should pay 80% rent and all the (utility, council tax etc). The rent goes to charity, of parents choice.

The argument for the kid paying full rent and parents getting the profit is that the average cost of raising a child is about £200,000[1]. Whilst they will never recoup that cost and it was their decision to "spend" it it would be nice to make a small dent it.




[1] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jan/23/child-care-costs)