Money Moral Dilemma: How much board should I charge?

silvercar

Augustus_the_Strong wrote: »

Work out how much you need to pay each month to cover all the household bills, food etc. Then work out how your three incomes work out proportionally. Pay in the same proportion of the household monthly bill total. So if you earn £40000, your partner earns £35000 and the daughter earns £25000 pa, the proportions would be 40%, 35% and 25%. If your monthly household outgoings are £2000, you would pay 40% of that which would be £800, your partner would pay 35% (£700) and the daughter 25% (£500).

I'm not sure that most parents are willing to divulge their earnings to their children.

Why should the child be expected to pay a proportion of the mortgage that the parents have chosen to take out, will the child be given a share of the profit made when the house is sold?

mtp123

There is a lot of sense in many comments but to my mind the crux of the matter is the child "doesn't think it is fair" ask them why!!! Maybe they have no idea of the costs of running a household or they think the parent is very rich and doesn't need it. My 19 year old grandaughter (just finished college) has just started a job working 24 hours a week and pays board. She is still looking for full time work. She says her parents have made many sacrifices for her and she wants to contribute. Her friends laughed and said she is soft but here is a girl who knows the vaue of money and how it has to be earned.

kinkyjinks

£30 a week is well reasonable. I was made to leave home just before my 16th birthday and agree with an early posters friend...it was the best possible life lesson I could ever have learnt. I have 3 lads, 19, 16, 14 and have told them that as long as they are in education I expect no monetary contribution from them but when/if they are earning I expect 1/4 of their earnings. For this they would get all their meals, washing and general bills including internet but they would have to pay for any mobile phone calls made on the landline. If they can live as cheaply with the same perks...I'd move in tomorrow.

Patti27

£30 a week is nothing, I'd be charging £50. I earn about £740 p/m & pay my parents £250 p/m for board, food, electricity, sky etc (but not the mortgage). I pay for transport, clothes, mobile, social life etc myself. If I use my mums car then I'll pay my share towards petrol. I also put money into a savings account to save up for a deposit on a flat. My credit card is only used for holidays or big purchases (for extra security if something goes wrong) and only when I can afford to pay it off straight away. There are a couple of my workmates who are a few years younger than me (I'm 23) who are earning about £1,200 p/m yet are only giving their parents £150. Those are the ones complaining that they have no money at the end of the month.

MDE

kinkyjinks wrote: »

£30 a week is well reasonable. I was made to leave home just before my 16th birthday...

Made to leave home, how lovely! I'd be sure to go back and visit regularly for all family occasions.

Eco_Miser

silvercar wrote: »

Why should the child be expected to pay a proportion of the mortgage that the parents have chosen to take out, will the child be given a share of the profit made when the house is sold?

A) because she is living in it.
because were it not for the child, the parents would have bought a smaller house.

The child is quilte likely to get not just a share of the profit, but a share of the total value when the house is sold - unless the parents actually do spend the kid's inheritance.

npw32jnw

People have said 'you wouldn't actually chuck them out, would you?'. I don't think that anyone would actually do that, but they are just wanting their child to get a dose of reality. Don't forget that the child is also paying for services (does mum do washing, cooking, cleaning or are those chores shared by the offspring?) There is nothing wrong with helping to show child how things work in the real world. Poss compromise is to say, ok, pay the £20, but you must save the extra £10 on top of any other savings made.

bagalava

It's simples:-

One third of take home pay for board.

Still leaves them one third to spend and one third to save.

It was what my 5 siblings and I had to pay our Mum and works for my 3 sons.

Saves arguments and renegotiations with pay increases. Is fair on those who earn more or less

If they don't like it, they can always move somewhere else and find out how much living really costs.

I always save half of it in a dedicated account without telling them, then if they need something eg a deposit for a mortgage, wedding, car, I can offer to help if I feel I want to.

silvercar

My son has friends at uni that can't afford to go home in the holidays because, if they do, their parents charge them for being at home! I find that desperately sad; they miss their family, their siblings miss them, but their parents' insisting on charging them for being at home means they can't afford to do it.

John_Pierpoint

silvercar wrote: »

My son has friends at uni that can't afford to go home in the holidays because, if they do, their parents charge them for being at home! I find that desperately sad; they miss their family, their siblings miss them, but their parents' insisting on charging them for being at home means they can't afford to do it.

A parents job is to turn out well rounded adults; if they did not want to make this commitment, what selfish reason inspired them to have kids in the first place? The only reason for refusing to house, the still dependent (regretably) children, is if the parents get their income by running a holiday let business. (**)

That said I would expect kids over the age of 18 to behave like adults, and at least try to minimise their rising debts, during the holidays.
It is a tough old world out there, If they won't do it there are plenty of ambitious first generation university students in the rest of the world who will.
Nobody owes this country a living, so "get out there and pull your weight" is the message I have for the "gilded" youth of our country.

John.

I did not agree with GB over many of his policies but the "child Trust fund" though flawed, was a step in the right direction.