What's fair rent for working children living at home?

lazer

For those of you charging board - are you currently paying rent/mortgage etc?

I think making adult children pay their way is a good idea in theory, but if you are genuinely charging board based on a the fair share of the actual cost, does the adult child then have the right to treat the house like they would a house share or do the parents still lay down the rules as it their house?

I think you can't expect it everyway - if the adult children are paying their share of the housing costs then they shoul be entitled to treat the hous differently, they can have bf's/gf's staying overnight, drink in the house, leave a mess in their room if the choose etc.

Also - judging by the number of people thinking £40 a week is too little, are any of you actually profiting from your children. If you have 2 children at home - thats almost £400 a month.

BitterAndTwisted

WelshBluebird wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what if they were on JSA? They wouldn't have £60 a week!

If they were on JSA they should hand the whole lot over bar about a fiver a week for their bus-fares.

Parents who believe that they should support their children free of charge to live at home until Doomsday are storing up terrible problems for themselves and unwittingly giving their children a most unfortunate sense of entitlement. In my opinion that's not the best way to raise children into become self-reliant and responsible adults. Infantilising them would be doing them no favours whatsoever.

The millionaires among us can do as they wish.

BitterAndTwisted

lazer wrote: »

For those of you charging board - are you currently paying rent/mortgage etc?

Personally I think that's completely irrelevant.

Also - judging by the number of people thinking £40 a week is too little, are any of you actually profiting from your children. If you have 2 children at home - that's almost £400 a month.

Oh for heaven's sake! In some households £40 a week would barely cover a teenager's snacks and soft drinks bill

lazer

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Oh for heaven's sake! In some households £40 a week would barely cover a teenager's snacks and soft drinks bill

But in others it would more than cover it.

And i think the rent mortgage question is relevant. If you are not paying anything for your house, why should they then pay you more than the bills?

£40 a week is £160 - £200 a month

My own household bills are (assuming my mortgage would be paid off if i have adult children!)
TV Licence - £12
Phone/Internet/TV - £40
Electricity/Oil - £50
Rates (NI) -£77

That is only £179 a month, therefore if i had a child paying me £200 a month, that would cover all my household bills (I realise some would increase slightly if another adult lived with me), meaning i only have to buy food.
If i had 2 children, i would be making a profit of them!

£40 a week for snacks and soft drinks - must be one greedy teenager! (FWIW - I lived at home again recently but only for 6 months, and didn't pay anything, I did the shopping occassionally, brought them out for dinner every so often etc, but no actual money). My parents don't have a mortgage or anything and didn't want to charge me anything.

They actually wanted me living at home - do most parents now want their children to move out at some stage? In my family and extended family, the parents want the adult children to continue living at home because they like seeing them everyday etc

shellsuit

I wish £40 a week was £200 a month! (that's what I get a week for 2 children in maintenance)

I've got 2 teens and wouldn't hesitate to ask them both to pay £40 a week. So that's £80 a week. £320 a month (not £400!).

That would cover the rent, the CT, the water, the gas, the elec, the phone, the internet, their food, the insurance, the wear and tear on their rooms and a whole lot more that I can't think of.

£40 a week is naff all and if my kids could find somewhere that would offer all those things for £40, I'd let them move there and pay the £40 a week for them!

Bennifred

Don't forget that your gas/electricity/water bills will increase significantly with extra adults in the home.

We worked out our monthly gas/electricity/water/internet bills and divided them by five (five adults in the home - one student, two working parents, two working boomerangers).
The student works part-time to help fund himself whilst away at university - he doesn't contribute to the household financially.
The two boomerangers pay one-fifth each of the houseshold utility bills plus £25 per week towards groceries. (We spend a fair bit more than that per head, in fact - our choice!)
None of the offspring pay anything towards our (substantial)mortgage, as we'd be paying that whether they were here or not, and it is our investment.
The boomerangers have far more disposable income than their parents...........

We are all agreed that this arrangment is more than fair, and everyone pitches in with housework/cooking/gardening etc. We are not a "house-share" - they don't pay rent - we are a family!:T

Mojisola

lazer wrote: »

I think making adult children pay their way is a good idea in theory, but if you are genuinely charging board based on a the fair share of the actual cost, does the adult child then have the right to treat the house like they would a house share or do the parents still lay down the rules as it their house?

I think you can't expect it everyway - if the adult children are paying their share of the housing costs then they shoul be entitled to treat the hous differently, they can have bf's/gf's staying overnight, drink in the house, leave a mess in their room if the choose etc.

This is a valid point - we've always expected mutual respect among family members. That has to extend to treating adults who are paying their way as adults making their own choices.

Ours have never paid us anything like they would have to when living away from home - and did when they were flat-sharing at uni - so I suppose we do still expect the house to be treated according to the family pattern.

I wouldn't arrange for someone to stay without telling them about it and they do have friends over but I expect to be told in advance. If it's unplanned after a late night, I do expect a warning note "x, y and x are sleeping in the front room" so that I don't walk in on them when any of us are half-dressed.

If we were down on our financial luck and the kids were contributing an equal share, the dynamics would have to shift accordingly.

Soapn

these adult working kids would be hard pressed to find themselves somewhere to rent for £40 let alone everything else they'd have to pay for!

LE3

I've always worked on the principle of 1/3 to live on, 1/3 to save & 1/3 to spend - so she should be paying £300 a month for her keep (inc food & bills), she should be saving £300 for her future & that still leaves her £300 a month to fritter away on the sorts of things she no doubt "needs"
(If her travel to work is very high I would take that off before splitting the rest into 3rds if I was being kind!)

KxMx

LE3 wrote: »

I've always worked on the principle of 1/3 to live on, 1/3 to save & 1/3 to spend - so she should be paying £300 a month for her keep (inc food & bills), she should be saving £300 for her future & that still leaves her £300 a month to fritter away on the sorts of things she no doubt "needs"
(If her travel to work is very high I would take that off before splitting the rest into 3rds if I was being kind!)

Hey it's fine to decide what proportion of her wages get handed over in keep, but is it really any of your business what she does with the rest of the money?

If she is adult enough to work and pay her way at home, she's adult enough not to be dictated to regarding what to do with her money.

I pay "keep" which my Mum sets the rate, and after that it's naff all to do with her what I do with the rest of my money.

I don't mean this to be personal because shockingly I have seen lots of MSE parents enforcing what offspring do with their money beyond "keep"... shame on the parents and shame on the offspring for putting up with it!