Being Fair

ciderwithrosie_2

We have only subsidised DS1 at Uni by doing him a Tesco delivery once a month, and the odd bung of a few quid towards the end of a term. DS2 lives at home and is working, it was his choice not to go to Uni but if he had we would have done the same for him. DS2 pays me 100 quid a month keep which I think is highly subsidised so he's not really hard done by out of it. DS3 is still at college at the moment but will hopefully go to Uni.

Desperado99

All I can tell you is what happened in our house growing up.

DS1 stayed in education until 18 - immediately found work and stayed at home until 23/24 ish, during that time he saved up his deposit to buy a house (or car, depending on when his current heap would blow up/disintergrate!). He didn't pay rent as such but as my parents didn't have a car at the time he would let hem borrow it for shopping etc.

DS2 stayed in education til 22 (HND - very long route through YTS, C&G) didn't work at all during education, living expenses were paid partly thru student grant (that long ago!) and my mum sending him money each week. He then was unemployed for a year, during which time he paid no rent. Once he got a job he moved out pretty quick, but moved back home later on when he divorced (I don't think he contibuted much at that point)

DD1 (me) stayed in education until 22 (degree) living expenses paid thru student grant/loan and mum sending me money each week, I also had work thru each summer season that I was still in education and insisted on paying rent each week when I was working (£10 - a pittance, but hey-ho). I was also unemployed for a year after uni, but stayed at home til I married. When I was working, my 'rent' went towards my wedding photos (mum and dad contributed heavily towards my wedding).


Mum and Dad did what they could for each of us at the time, but money was often tight and sometimes someone would miss out (for example - My brothers both had driving lessons paid for by my parents, whereas I paid for mine). To this day DS2 believes he got the short straw even though, if you added it up, Mum and Dad supported him (money-wise!) more than DS1 and me.

I'm all for supporting children until they don't need it, and that will vary depending on each one. I hope when my DD gets older, we will 'charge her rent' but save it towards a deposit on a house for her.

JodyBPM

I would say that charging £100 keep is a similar amount of subsidy as a month supermarket shop and a few quid hand out each term to be honest.

If DS2 is complaining then charge him the cost of a room in a shared house, plus 1/4 of council tax, all utilities (inc sky/broadband/phone), make him pay for his own food/washing powder/toiletries - and then get him a grocery shop once a month and bung him a few quid three times a year - he'll soon realise he's being subsidised just as much as his sibling was/is!

mazy_m

I would say it would be fair to not charge child 2 and suggest that they put the money away into a savings account for a deposit.

Or if they are not great at saving perhaps charge them rent and put this into a bank account for them and then after the same amount of time child 1 has been at university tell them about the bank account it would be a lovely surprise and both would have felt like it was as equal as it could be.

DylanO

I don't think it would be at all fair for you to charge your second child while he is training. Once his training/education is at an end, then it would be fair to charge, if you plan on doing the same for your other child.

The way my parents did it is that we were/are financially supported while we are in education or training to the level that we need. For example, one of my younger brother's is an apprentice and he still gets the allowance that we all got, but he also had a car bought for him after his job moved offices. He couldn't afford to pay for a car and insurance at the going rate so he's subsidised by my parents who paid for it, and he pays for it back monthly at a much lower rate than it actually costs.

My sister on the other hand is at uni, reading medicine at a university that forbids its students from working, so my parents give her far more than I received during university, but she needs more to survive.

I should add that my parents don't charge any of us rent when we live at home and wouldn't. There's a few reasons for it but it works for them and all of us. And they can easily afford it - which is the main issue for anyone. If you cannot afford it, then you cannot afford to do it.

tyllwyd

mazy_m wrote: »

.... and then after the same amount of time child 1 has been at university tell them about the bank account it would be a lovely surprise and both would have felt like it was as equal as it could be.

I dunno - the one who stays at home gets a savings account with a lump sum of money, and the one who goes to uni gets a lovely student loan to pay back - it might actually be fair but if I was the uni student I'm sure it wouldn't feel fair to me!

silvercar

Most uni students are home for a large portion of the year. Officially uni terms are 10 weeks each, but the Summer term is very short in practice. So the uni student will be home a lot of the time.

silvercar

Consider what costs the uni student will have. Most students live in uni accommodation in their first year, either halls or self catering flats. The charges for these can be greater than the student maintenance loan!

Consider also that the size of the maintenance loan is based in part on the income of the parents, so as a direct result of a middle earning parents pay their offspring may get a lower loan.

cottonhead

Perhaps I am in the minority but I think charging a child ( yes I know they are grown up ) to live in the family home is a strange concept. Will they start sending you a bill if they have to look after you in your old age ? Family are supoposed to support each other and that means parents nurturing their kids until they can stand on their own feet.
Unless the child is really taking the mick - living at home till 40 - raiding the cupboards and not buying food , not doing the housework and spending all their wages on booze and drugs then I wouldnt charge them for living at home.
Its hard to treat kids equally but in this case I would be careful that the non uni going child is not accidently made to feel slightly inferior due to not going to uni. Try to value their choice just as much.
So in short I would not charge any child for living in their parents home and if in this circumstance - the amount of money I paid to the uni child I would match by giving an allowance for the child at home. My solution will cost more but I believe its fairer.

mountainofdebt

Well I've only got Junior but he has been living at home for the last year and will be off to Uni in September.

During his year at home he's paid us a nominal rent (which I told him not to expect to be given back to him,lol) and I have no doubt that when he does go to Uni we'll help him out occasionally with a funded trip to the supermarket.

So as far as the OP is concerned I would help Child 1 out with accommodation / food and charge Child 2 a nominal rent.