Treat them all the same or help the one who needs the most help

Nottoobadyet

I'm sibling 1 in my family. I paid for everything from 16 (including uni fees) or so on, my sister at 24 is still living at home rent free and had uni paid for. I was very poor during university (certainly did go without) and right after, but since then have been lucky enough to enjoy steady employment. My parents weren't great at financial planning and are now just eeking by, so probably wont be in a place to help me with any eventual mortgage, wedding etc.

I'm not bitter about it, at the end of the day Im still the one with much more financial security, income and a more rewarding job.

Spendless

fluffnutter wrote: »

Treating people fairly is not necessarily the same as treating them equally.

That's what I was going to say and what meritaten says about it evens out over time. I have 2 children, currently one needs academic support, otherwise there is a potential for it to affect options later on in life and we are buying that support in. I'm not going to give the other child the same amount of money just because we are currently spending £x on their sibling. Other child currently needs practical support which has no financial cost but a time one. In 6 months time if the roles are reversed we will pay for the one who needs it at that point.

notanewuser

My parents have always striven to treat us equally wherever possible, be it money, time, opportunities etc. That's what I grew up with. They still do, even though we're now in our 30s.

DH's parents have never done this with their 4. Son 2 is the clear favourite, so he and his family get money, time, gifts etc, despite being almost as successful as the 1st born. 3rd has had a lot of debt over the years and so doesn't get money but does get whatever time is left over, and the 4th is the ultimate disappointment so gets sod all. Brother 2 loans money to 3 and 4 all the time because he has had so much over the years he hasn't spent his own!! I absolutely can't get my head around it all.

Claree__x

I wouldn't say that my brother (he's 10 months older) & I aren't treated equally due to the fact he gets more hands outs from my mum. When I needed it, I got them. Now he needs it, he gets them.

When we were growing up my mum wasn't really in the position to be giving hand outs and we had to help her from time to time so now if we ask she's more than happy to give - I just don't ask!

VfM4meplse

Counting_Pennies wrote: »

That does not mean the money needs to go directly to the other sibling now.

It can sit in a separate bank account that you will allocate to the other child so you won't feel tempted to touch it.

I disagree, if you're going to gift it, do it early before it's eroded by IHT. May never happen but you never know.

Hermia

Cooper18 wrote: »

The other side of the "treat them equally" argument is the kid who has done everything right, got a good education, a good job, grown themselves a great family - while her brother has done none of those things. She is the good daughter in every sense of the word, but in their desperation to keep things equal the elderly parents make excuses for the brother. Leaves that daughter questioning what the point of going the extra mile is when her lazy assed brother gets the same recognition for doing damn all.

I know three families where one child gets all the help because they are perceived as being more in need, but their problems are the result of their own life choices. The sibling who has worked hard and kept his or her head down is almost punished for working hard. I think it's fine to favour one child when they are having a hard time, but I think it should even out at the end of the day.

pollypenny

Treating fairly is better.

We helped both of ours with deposits and passing on an older car.

When DS did his masters', we offered to help. However, he was lucky in that the uni got him a funding through the professional body.

DD is beginning her masters, so we will fund that.

notanewuser

Hermia wrote: »

I know three families where one child gets all the help because they are perceived as being more in need, but their problems are the result of their own life choices. The sibling who has worked hard and kept his or her head down is almost punished for working hard. I think it's fine to favour one child when they are having a hard time, but I think it should even out at the end of the day.

Bit like the benefit system then.

silvercar

We paid for second child to go to a private secondary school. Elder had got a place at the free local grammar school and we felt the only way to give the second the opportunity of a very decent education was to go private. We looked at state and private for both of them for secondary school and both went to the one that suited them best. At no time did we, or they, consider that one was getting a financial better deal.

lollyb84

Hermia wrote: »

I know three families where one child gets all the help because they are perceived as being more in need, but their problems are the result of their own life choices. The sibling who has worked hard and kept his or her head down is almost punished for working hard. I think it's fine to favour one child when they are having a hard time, but I think it should even out at the end of the day.

This happens in my family. I have worked hard at university to better myself whilst one of my siblings has sat a done nothing with their life, other than meet someone who is equally as lazy. Whilst I have no objection to my parents helping out if something drastic were to happen, due to their life choices my sibling will ALWAYS need help more than me. Therefore, as my parents help the one who needs it, we are not treated equally. My sibling is never made to pay back any money lent to them, nor am I offered help when I need it, because the siblings need is always greater. As an example, we both moved house at the same time. My sibling was gifted her deposit for her rented accommodation. I bought a house with my husband, the first unfurnished place we had lived in, and was gifted an iron, with the promise of an ironing board later, when my parents could afford. I appreciate the difference in being in a position to buy a house and only being able to rent completely, and understand that I am in a far more privileged position but this is because I work hard for what I have.

The really sad thing is our youngest sibling is now in a position where she is making some important life choices (she is quite a bit younger than us), and is faced with choosing between what she sees as no encouragement to do well, (in fact she described it as punishment) or rewards for being lazy. Fortunately, she seems to have a sensible head and can see the situation for what it is.

I am a firm believer in you can treat people the same, but you cannot makes them the same, which is unfortunately what my parents try to do.

However, back to the OP, if you are in a position to help, I would absolutely do so. However, I would make sure that the other child knows that the same help will be given to them as and when then need it, and that you don't end up in the position where you are always helping only one sibling, as that will breed resentment.