Well, that didn't go down well!

Dunroamin

silvercar wrote: »

So you had a household budget before your son returned. His coming back to the household incurs extra costs - food, utilities etc If you are on a tight budget then I can see you need to charge a working offspring to cover these costs. Charging anymore than this and you are profiting out of your children.
.

Sorry, I don't understand why people keep spouting this sort of nonsense. Adults living together pay into the household budget, they don't expect other adults to support them financially just because they're older.

(Not meaning to have a go at you personally, it just annoys me when people keep trotting out this line!)

Savvy_Sue

BTW, DS2 pays towards his keep AND helps out. Anyone who lives here helps out. It's what happens in a family, and I'm not running a hotel! As I have had to point out to DS3 over the summer a few times ...

grandma247

When I started work at the age of 15 as an office junior I earned £5 a week. I had to give my single parent mother £4. I struggle to remember how we managed but we did.

My kids all paid me a small amount from their wages and they all did their own washing from age 12 as I did. They also cleaned their own rooms and did other jobs around the house.

My 22 year old has had intermittent work for a couple of years but always gave me a chunk of anything he earned. He also did outside work such as pointing and painting for me. He now works 50 miles away and lives in lodgings. He pays £90 a week which includes his food, he does his own washing etc.

nickyhutch

Person-one, you and I don't often agree, but I'm with you on this one.

Those of you saying "I take rent from him because it teaches him a life lesson in paying your way, but will save it up for a deposit for him later in life" - what life lesson? Where in life do we get lump sums back from paying out on essentials like rent? Either take it if you need it, or don't take it.

jjj1980

When I started working, I sat with my mum to work out how much I would be giving her and although this probably wouldn't work for everyone, this is what we worked out:

I started by saying I would cover the loss of CHB
Mum refused any help towards mortgage, said she chose to take it based solely on her salary.
I said we should alternate who paid for the weekly shop, Inc food, washing powder etc but Mum said it should exclude toiletries.
We disagreed A LOT on the utility bills as she said they were no more expensive than before I worked. Agreed to compromise in end by me taking out Sky and paying for it to be in living room and upstairs.

I never begruged paying but my mum was upset for weeks, saying she felt like she was stealing my wages.

I do think the money paid should be worked out as a fair proportion of the household costs, rather than a percentage of income.

silvercar

Dunroamin wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand why people keep spouting this sort of nonsense. Adults living together pay into the household budget, they don't expect other adults to support them financially just because they're older.

(Not meaning to have a go at you personally, it just annoys me when people keep trotting out this line!)

I think we all know that first jobs don't pay as well as those established in their careers. Where does turning 21 suddenly mean that your parents know longer have any responsibility for you? That is what family's do they care for their offspring. Who would really turf their child out on the street and see them live in a homeless hostel just because they didn't cough up £35 a week?

Dunroamin

silvercar wrote: »

I think we all know that first jobs don't pay as well as those established in their careers. Where does turning 21 suddenly mean that your parents know longer have any responsibility for you? That is what family's do they care for their offspring. Who would really turf their child out on the street and see them live in a homeless hostel just because they didn't cough up £35 a week?

Obviously someone in their first job will earn and contribute less than someone who's established in a career.

I would certainly respect anybody who didn't let an adult child sponge off them for more than the shortest emergency period; if they end up on the street that would be their choice and that should be respected as well. I would be so ashamed if any child of mine refused to contribute.

I don't get this "family's (stet) care for their offspring" argument - surely the offspring are part of the family and have a duty of care to the others as well?

Person_one

Dunroamin wrote: »

Obviously someone in their first job will earn and contribute less than someone who's established in a career.

I would certainly respect anybody who didn't let an adult child sponge off them for more than the shortest emergency period; if they end up on the street that would be their choice and that should be respected as well. I would be so ashamed if any child of mine refused to contribute.

I don't get this "family's (stet) care for their offspring" argument - surely the offspring are part of the family and have a duty of care to the others as well?

I think its different if parents genuinely need a contribution from their children, or if there's an agreement that they'll be living there as a permanent or long term situation.

Taking it when you don't actually need it in order to save for them, or to 'teach' them some sort of lesson, when they are only at home to save up to move out doesn't really make sense.

Dunroamin

Person_one wrote: »

I think its different if parents genuinely need a contribution from their children, or if there's an agreement that they'll be living there as a permanent or long term situation.

Taking it when you don't actually need it in order to save for them, or to 'teach' them some sort of lesson, when they are only at home to save up to move out doesn't really make sense.

If "children" aren't paying a proper contribution so that they can save up to leave home, I feel that the parents might as well just give the kids the money in the first place as it's their own money that's being saved.

Person_one

Dunroamin wrote: »

If "children" aren't paying a proper contribution so that they can save up to leave home, I feel that the parents might as well just give the kids the money in the first place as it's their own money that's being saved.

No it isn't. Its money they earn that they are able to save due to kind parents.

The cost of adding one extra person to a multi person household isn't anywhere near 'market rent', and oddly enough, most parents care about their children and want the best for them. Some do nice things for them even when they get absolutely no financial return!