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

snootyjim

Why should they punish him for getting a job instead of studying? It is his choice.

If they extended the offer of free rent to his brothers, who of course had student loans and the like which they could've used to pay rent, then they should also extend it to him.

silvergirl

Or have I missed something? The son is earning, so yes, rent free for 6 months to build up a bit of a buffer (as if) , but utility bills right from the start, otherwise he'll never 'get it'. He's sharing the benefits so he needs to contribute.

I didn't see that the parents were charging for a profit being mentioned in the question. Housing costs a bomb. The student question is irrelevant here and a red herring. And maybe the parents should set a time limit so that he can think about striking out on his own at some point in the future.
If he's over 18 and earning, he's not doing badly. And he's an adult now.

If this sounds harsh - best for him to learn early. Otherwise he'll never be savvy about his own finances.:exclamati

Pee

Initially i thought he should pay rent and his parents keep this one side for him to use as a huse deposit in due course. However, thinking about this the income tax implications mean it would be better to agree with him, no you don't have to pay rent but I want you to save the equivalent for a house deposit in the future.

I would imagine at 18 with a first job - or even 16 - he won't be earning too much money, but it's a genuine concern that if he had too much spare cash - as opposed to enough to be comfortable - drink and drugs might become bigger temptations.

robin1977

I beleive that they should charge their son rent, but save the money receieved in a seperate bank account and give it back to him when he is ready to move in to his own place. But the parents should not tell him until afterwards.

SusanC_2

So after his older brothers left school they got three years presumably funded by their parents but they're not willing to give the same kind of support to Preston because he is not going to university. Given that they gave his brothers considerable financial support for at least three years after leaving school, it's not unreasonable to expect that they would give some kind of support to Preston but not necessarily completely free rent. Perhaps a reduced rate of rent for the first three years would be more suitable as whilst it is only fair for them to give some kind of support, it is also reasonable to take into account the fact that he does have greater means than his brothers did.

SusanC_2

echelon101 wrote: »

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)

But that figure is what the average person *chooses* to spend not what they have to spend. (For comparison Boots said a couple of years ago thatthe first year costs on average £8000 but I spent £1500 and even some of that was by choice rather than necessity.)

There are plently of ways to justify charging rent but the fact that the parent *chose* to spend money on them in the past is not one of them.

pineapple

He has to learn to live in the real world. But it's his first job and imo being a parent is about trying to help your kids - not trying to recoup the cost of upbringing (which was my mothers attitude!)
So I would charge him less than a full commercial rent. That way they get at least some income, but are still helping him out. They should also point out what the going rent in the area is for something similar! If he thinks that's unfair, he has a choice,,,,

elvis86

It seems a little unfair that his brothers got to live there rent free just because they were students. Students do get assistance by way of student loans etc, and if Preston's parents offer him no help they are sending out a message that university is purely a way of delaying one's introduction to "the real world|".

Presuming they can afford to let him live there rent-free, as they managed to do it for his brothers, I think they should allow him to live there rent free for the same length of time as they did, but insist that he put £XXX away in savings each month, so that he doesn't become accustomed to having his full salary to himself and get a shock when he moves on.

avaroe

For one i think his older brothers should be charged a nominal amount to help towards their food- if they are getting students grants/loans then they should contribute a bit at the beginning of the term. This will hopefully teach them not to take their parents for granted and how to budget before they move out, because otherwise it will probably go on books (hopefully), travel and going out (how can students say they have no money but still go out during the weeks to clubs etc).
In regards the younger brother, he should pay rent. More than the students but less than if he he paid for shared accommodation. His parents shouldnt have to carry their children indefinitely and once they get a job part of the process is learning how to manage their money if he is paying a reasonable rent and part of the utilities then he can start to learn to live independently - and isnt that part of the parents duty to teach their kids, otherwise they will end up carrying the kids until.... well it could be forever from some examples ive seen.

A.Jones

It is a rental flat, so charge him rent. Maybe a discount on the usual rate, but enough to cover all bills, mortgage, etc and slowly increase it to full rate. If his brothers used it free while they were students, then there was at least a fixed end to their rent free agreement. If this kid is working, then he could stay there for the rest of his life wanting free rent. He needs to be taught that he has to save money towards rent.

Otherwise tell him to live somewhere else and the parents can then rent to someone else.