Christmas money dilema??

carolwat

Sammz wrote:

Not that I'm the grammar police or anything but isn't it ...

"your child's money"

And as for the rest of the thread *yawn*, it's getting boring.

i didnt pull anyone up about their grammer i was just having a crack with nicky. as for the rest of it being boring, go and read something else then and perhaps you wont be so bored.

sheryldoc

carolwat wrote:

so you were talking to me then? yes, no, dont know. very strange

Hope Your sons ok ..

Nite

Its been a blast :T

sheryldoc

nickyhutch wrote:

Some people...tsk tsk... I don't think she's a clue who she's talking to anymore

I know.. few sausages short of a supper that 1

sheryldoc

Ok OK people.. bk on topic after about 300 posts off utter drivel..

Shes the mother.. if shes trusted enough to raise children then im sure she will make the right choices for them too.

carolwat

mizmir wrote:

You agreed it was theft - so presumably you think it is theft? That is what I am objecting to. It is not theft. It is at worst borrowing from one's kids. Not one person has suggested they would not make it up to their children later. Breaking and entering is nothing like the same thing!

like i said i agreed with the comment but i never made it in the first place so why have a go at me about it.

please show me where in the OP post does it mention borrowing the money or paying it back later. not everyone has suggested they would make it up top their children later.

like i said im going now but ill check tomorrow for the bit you have read and i obviously missed

mizmir

carolwat wrote:

like i said i agreed with the comment but i never made it in the first place so why have a go at me about it.

please show me where in the OP post does it mention borrowing the money or paying it back later. not everyone has suggested they would make it up top their children later.

like i said im going now but ill check tomorrow for the bit you have read and i obviously missed

I'm not "having a go" at anyone - I am responding to your posts. As I said before I was commenting more generally since several other posters have said that they have borrowed their children's money and it seemed harsh to me to suggest that this was theft especially when all the people who had actually done it had said they intended to or had made it up to the children.

The OP as I read it said she was going to pool money given to the kids and herself and *perhaps* buy bunk beds, pay off debts and put away money for a deposit on a house. I have no idea how much of this is the gift to the children and how much gifts to her so I don't know if she would in fact be "borrowing" anything - or indeed what she has decided in the end to do! If she decides to blow the lot on a treat for herself then I'd be agreeing with you. If she decides to spend it on things that will benefit her whole family then that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I hope your son is feeling better soon.

piglet6

Ouch, this has turned into quite an emotive post, hasn't it...?:o And its strayed off from the OP's question and turned into a bit of a heated personal attack in places...

Although I am not in this situation (because I don't have kids:rolleyes:), I think that it is pretty clear that the majority of people on here (if not all of them...) would only borrow money from their children's bank accounts as a last resort, and nobody can argue that it is in the child's interest to leave money in their bank account while the family struggle to pay mortgage/utility/food bills. After all, the most important thing for a child is a secure and loving family home...;) Also, I think that you cannot categorically state that "the child didn't put its parents into debt" as nobody can know what caused other people's debts on this board (and children can be expensive, not necessarily in what they need physically, but in a "knock on" effect kind of way - for example, enforced lack of money as a result of maternity leave/job changes, poorly children needing specialised treatments/equipment, etc - every case is unique and I don't think that it can be generalised).

For personal preference, I would spend the children's money on the children. However, at the end of the day, it all boils down to semantics...if by spending the "kids" money on things for the kids, it frees up the "parents" money for paying debts, then I don't see the difference between that and just paying off the bills with the kids money. Once the money is in the pot, I don't think it matters what pays off what... In the end, debt-free parents will make for happier parents which will have a positive knock-on effect on the children anyway.

Piglet

doodah

i don't have any kids, but i think if i did, like most people have said, i would prefer them to have a home and food than money sitting in the bank.

i was wondering though, for those of you that have savings accounts for your children, are you just going to hand over all that money when they turn 18? or is it for uni etc?

sheryldoc

piglet6 wrote:

Ouch, this has turned into quite an emotive post, hasn't it...?:o And its strayed off from the OP's question and turned into a bit of a heated personal attack in places...

Although I am not in this situation (because I don't have kids:rolleyes:), I think that it is pretty clear that the majority of people on here (if not all of them...) would only borrow money from their children's bank accounts as a last resort, and nobody can argue that it is in the child's interest to leave money in their bank account while the family struggle to pay mortgage/utility/food bills. After all, the most important thing for a child is a secure and loving family home...;) Also, I think that you cannot categorically state that "the child didn't put its parents into debt" as nobody can know what caused other people's debts on this board (and children can be expensive, not necessarily in what they need physically, but in a "knock on" effect kind of way - for example, enforced lack of money as a result of maternity leave/job changes, poorly children needing specialised treatments/equipment, etc - every case is unique and I don't think that it can be generalised).

For personal preference, I would spend the children's money on the children. However, at the end of the day, it all boils down to semantics...if by spending the "kids" money on things for the kids, it frees up the "parents" money for paying debts, then I don't see the difference between that and just paying off the bills with the kids money. Once the money is in the pot, I don't think it matters what pays off what... In the end, debt-free parents will make for happier parents which will have a positive knock-on effect on the children anyway.

Piglet

Ahh was merely a heated debate on a cold winters nite..

I brought it bk on topic and apologised..

i also agree with what you say..x

piglet6

sheryldoc wrote:

Ahh was merely a heated debate on a cold winters nite..

I brought it bk on topic and apologised..

i also agree with what you say..x

Sorry - yes, I should have put in a few more smilies/winkies in my first paragraph... I didn't mean it in a disapproving way - more of an oo-er type of thing!! :rolleyes:

:rotfl:

Piglet