Parents helping out financially, your thoughts?

Gigglepig

Personally I'd spend roughly the same on each child.

I think it is a bit silly to give more to one child than the other because "they need it more" - this does not exactly encourage and reward managing on one's own.

I'm happy for my parents to spend everything on themselves. However, I think it also depends a bit on whether they made the money themselves or inherited it. if I were to inherit from my parents, I'd consider that "family" wealth which should be passed on to future generations.

GobbledyGook

I don't think treating children equally has to mean treating them the same. It depends why they are treated differently. If it's because of age or circumstance then it's fine.

I don't agree with treating children differently because of favouritism though. I know a family where money has caused bad feeling, but it's because of the blatant favouritism of one child. Three children were given £500 for their wedding whereas the fourth was given around £5000. Two were given around £1500 towards house deposits, one was told there was no money to give (which she was fine with - she hadn't asked) then for the fourth the parents took out a £15k loan to "help her get on her feet". Ironically it's the fourth that treats the parents the worst out of them all - they just can't see by her.

FATBALLZ

In general you should try to give them equal amounts of money (if you want to give any of them anything) over the long term. Giving more to one or more children because they are lazy or waste their money is not 'fair', it is just rewarding !!!!lessness, and makes the others wonder why they bothered working hard in the first place.

There are exceptions obviously, for example if you had one child old enough to have bought a house in 1995, and another who was only old enough to buy in 2005, it would be reasonable to give the 2nd a £30k deposit and the first to have had nothing, because the first is probably sat on £100k of unearned equity anyway.

thorsoak

FATBALLZ wrote: »

In general you should try to give them equal amounts of money (if you want to give any of them anything) over the long term. Giving more to one or more children because they are lazy or waste their money is not 'fair', it is just rewarding !!!!lessness, and makes the others wonder why they bothered working hard in the first place.

There are exceptions obviously, for example if you had one child old enough to have bought a house in 1995, and another who was only old enough to buy in 2005, it would be reasonable to give the 2nd a £30k deposit and the first to have had nothing, because the first is probably sat on £100k of unearned equity anyway.

Your arguments are far too sophisticated/complicated for me to comprehend - we gave them (not nearly the amounts that you quote) the amounts that they asked for/needed to top up their deposits/pay legal fees! All 4 are happy with what they received/their siblings received - and that's all that matters imo!

And by the way from now on in (apart from money already set aside for g/children) - I'm ski-ing!!

purple.sarah

My mum helped pay for my wedding. It was a lot of money for her so she couldn't have afforded to give my younger brother the same amount of money at the same time. The money was a wedding gift so it wouldn't have made sense to give him the same just because anyway. He is 18 and lives at home rent free while looking for work, as I did at that age, so she does help him financially. I'm sure she would contribute to his wedding in the future too. She tends to help us financially when we need it and she can afford to rather than making it exactly equal but she would do the same for both of us so it is fair, there is no favouritism. I agree with her way of handling it and will probably do that when I have kids.

As for the example of helping with a deposit for a house though, I wouldn't do it for one child unless I had helped their siblings too. The child who got onto the housing ladder without help might feel resentful.

mummybearx

I think from the examples the op has given, ie one child getting married, then the gift should be given to that child alone.

I got married in 2010, my dad paid for all the wedding meal, drinks etc and evening buffet. He also paid for my dress alterations. Maybe about £3000 in total? I'm one of 5 children, no way my dad should have given each of my 4 siblings £3k each, or anything close to that! What happens when another of my 3 sisters get married? Should he give them £3k and again to all the other siblings? That way he will be £15 grand out of pocket for my wedding, then another £15k for each other wedding, Next thing you know he has given us £75000, just for weddings.

No, gifts should be just that, a gift. From one person to another, to help that person, nothing else x

FBaby

My approach with my children from the moment they were little was that they get things when they need them/I consider they deserve it. I do make sure that all in all, it is balance rightly, but this attitude of 'I give something now to x so I need to give something to y so they are not jealous' is not one I want to apply to my family and it will be the same when they are older.

My kids are 3 years apart, get along brilliantly and have never expressed any jealousy whatsoever. We've just been to the shops and I agreed to pay half for a nintendo game my DD saw and wanted. It didn't come to mind to any of us that I should either contribute towards my DS too or get him the equivalent fund. Similarly, last month, I signed my son up for an activity he really wanted, that doesn't mean I signed my DD up for one. Then again, she will be going for a ski trip next year, my son won't.

What they will receive from us later when they are older will depend on all the circumstances.

gingin_2

Gigglepig wrote: »

I'm happy for my parents to spend everything on themselves. However, I think it also depends a bit on whether they made the money themselves or inherited it. if I were to inherit from my parents, I'd consider that "family" wealth which should be passed on to future generations.

That's exactly the way we see it. I've been given 2 generous lump sums ( both unexpected) by my parents but I will do my best to pass on to my children when they are adults.

FATBALLZ

thorsoak wrote: »

Your arguments are far too sophisticated/complicated for me to comprehend - we gave them (not nearly the amounts that you quote) the amounts that they asked for/needed to top up their deposits/pay legal fees! All 4 are happy with what they received/their siblings received - and that's all that matters imo!

The point in the bit you've highlighted is just that houses cost triple in 2005 what they did in 1995, so helping the 2nd child more is fair because buying property for them is so much harder, through no fault of their own.

Interesting you say you've given yours what they 'needed', I haven't needed or asked for anything from my parents since I left education, but watching them give away money hand over fist to my waster siblings (some of whom are older than me) while I got nothing hasn't done my relationship with them any good (it was already quite crap, to be fair). I'm sure it's worked out fine in your case, but doesn't always.

DaisyFlower

Gigglepig wrote: »

Personally I'd spend roughly the same on each child.

I think it is a bit silly to give more to one child than the other because "they need it more" - this does not exactly encourage and reward managing on one's own.

I agree totally with this.

We only have one so wont have this problem however i wouldnt waste money on a wedding but would rather spend on something decent like education or housing. Taking vows costs less than £100, everything else is just a big party. If DS and his wife want a big party then thats down to them to afford.