Teenagers Allowance

Andypandyboy

Ziggazee wrote: »

I'm very surprised at the comments of people who think that 16 is too young to be cut off from their parents finances.


In my day we left school at 16 and got a job. That was it. Very few of us went onto further education (I'm only talking in the 80's btw). I started my first full time job (I'd worked at a weekend since 13) immediately after leaving school. I earned £50 a week and my mother took £25 of that. When I moved up the ladder and earned £85 a week, she took £35. She never paid for anything else other than providing an evening meal (tho in reality this was often just a jacket potato waiting in the microwave as they'd all eaten by the time I got home from work).


At 17 and a half she told me to leave the family home and find my own flat. I did......and went on to purchase my own property without any help from any of my family whatsoever.


You're really not doing your children any favours by indulging them so much. I understand it's difficult......trust me, it was a very difficult decision for me to stop giving my son spending money, but what incentive did he have to get up and work if I was providing everything for him.


Don't say you haven't been warned :-)

I am surprised at those who cut off their kids at 16/17. If you are in employment then few would be earning enough to fund a decent lifestyle. I would much prefer mine stay at home a bit longer, pay a bit of "keep" and save, rather than move into a substandard flat paying rent.

I would never have asked any of mine to leave home, they had a home with us for as long as they wanted.

The incentive to go to work/study was example, they never thought of doing anything else because that was what they had grown up with.

Despite our support;) or because of it;), they have all turned into productive members of society who work hard for what they have got.

Perhaps those who are harsher will lack support from their kids when they need it most ? Who knows?

Don't say you haven't been warned

balletshoes

Ziggazee wrote: »

I'm very surprised at the comments of people who think that 16 is too young to be cut off from their parents finances.


In my day we left school at 16 and got a job. That was it. Very few of us went onto further education (I'm only talking in the 80's btw). I started my first full time job (I'd worked at a weekend since 13) immediately after leaving school. I earned £50 a week and my mother took £25 of that. When I moved up the ladder and earned £85 a week, she took £35. She never paid for anything else other than providing an evening meal (tho in reality this was often just a jacket potato waiting in the microwave as they'd all eaten by the time I got home from work).


At 17 and a half she told me to leave the family home and find my own flat. I did......and went on to purchase my own property without any help from any of my family whatsoever.


You're really not doing your children any favours by indulging them so much. I understand it's difficult......trust me, it was a very difficult decision for me to stop giving my son spending money, but what incentive did he have to get up and work if I was providing everything for him.


Don't say you haven't been warned :-)

these days though, in England anyway, you are expected to be in education or training until 18, its no longer 16.

I didn't get pocket money, I had part time jobs from the age of 13 all the way through secondary school, left school, got a job (well, a YTS for 6 long boring weeks before that) and financially supported myself.

Things have changed since my day - my DD is nearly 14, in our area you can't even get a babysitting job at her age, never mind a shop job, she gets pocket money (ie a monthly allowance) from us, she knows what has to be paid out of that so it helps her budget and save for what she really wants to buy. I fully expect her to be in education until she is 18, and then to more than likely go on to university. I would hope when she's 16 or thereabouts she'll have a weekend/part time job, and I'd certainly encourage her to get one, but there are no guarantees.

One of the things from my upbringing that I have already told my daughter is, if she's not in education, she needs to be working, and we won't be subsidising her once she has finished in education.

Newlyboughthouse

Andypandyboy wrote: »

I am surprised at those who cut off their kids at 16/17. If you are in employment then few would be earning enough to fund a decent lifestyle. I would much prefer mine stay at home a bit longer, pay a bit of "keep" and save, rather than move into a substandard flat paying rent.

I would never have asked any of mine to leave home, they had a home with us for as long as they wanted.

The incentive to go to work/study was example, they never thought of doing anything else because that was what they had grown up with.

Despite our support;) or because of it;), they have all turned into productive members of society who work hard for what they have got.

Perhaps those who are harsher will lack support from their kids when they need it most ? Who knows?

Don't say you haven't been warned

Looks like you got the balance right - well done.

I would never deny my parents my support. In fact I've already planned to build an annex for when my mother goes senile :rotfl:. They were not harsh on me at all don't get me wrong. I think my independent mind helped things along a bit with the 'cutting off' - I remember really really wanting a job at 15 so got one, and I remember really really wanting to move out so did.

I guess it's not so black and white. I just think, as a happy medium, instill the values of hard graft, good money skills and saving from a very young age, which is what I got from my parents and think have done very well from.

zagfles

Newlyboughthouse wrote: »

No not assuming people can't achieve these things if their parents support them. But the posters immediately before this one have a good point - the generation of today are largely lazy and expect things on a plate if their parents have indulged them. I suppose there's a difference between supporting and indulging. But all I'll say is, I'm so glad I supported myself because I can genuinely say I achieved these things on my own and feel so proud of that fact.

Of course there's a difference. I will subsidise my kids while they're in full time education. If they stopped full time education, or didn't bother studying hard, I wouldn't.

I can't see how this is controversial at all. It's well accepted that students in full time education need subsidising. That's why the govt, oppostion and other parties are currently in arguments about the best way to subsidise students. Not about whether to.

My DD puts in more hours studying than I do working. I am not going to insist she gets a job on top.

zagfles

Ziggazee wrote: »

I'm very surprised at the comments of people who think that 16 is too young to be cut off from their parents finances.


In my day we left school at 16 and got a job. That was it. Very few of us went onto further education (I'm only talking in the 80's btw). I started my first full time job (I'd worked at a weekend since 13) immediately after leaving school. I earned £50 a week and my mother took £25 of that. When I moved up the ladder and earned £85 a week, she took £35. She never paid for anything else other than providing an evening meal (tho in reality this was often just a jacket potato waiting in the microwave as they'd all eaten by the time I got home from work).


At 17 and a half she told me to leave the family home and find my own flat. I did......and went on to purchase my own property without any help from any of my family whatsoever.


You're really not doing your children any favours by indulging them so much. I understand it's difficult......trust me, it was a very difficult decision for me to stop giving my son spending money, but what incentive did he have to get up and work if I was providing everything for him.


Don't say you haven't been warned :-)

Yes and I'm sure in the past people said that "you're not doing your 5 year old any favours by sending them to school instead of up chimneys to earn a living"

The world's moved on. These days it's very hard for young people to get a job if they haven't got a degree, and if they do it's likely to be a menial minimum wage one. Unemployment has risen massively in the under 30's who haven't got a degree, much more than those who have. See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_337841.pdf

I'd much prefer to subsidise my kids through education and get them into a "proper" university so they can get a decent graduate job at around £25k starting salary at 21, rather than giving them no financial support at 16 and them ending up unemployed or with some rubbish job where they'll be lucky to ever earn that much!

moomoomama27

zagfles wrote: »

Yes and I'm sure in the past people said that "you're not doing your 5 year old any favours by sending them to school instead of up chimneys to earn a living"

The world's moved on. These days it's very hard for young people to get a job if they haven't got a degree, and if they do it's likely to be a menial minimum wage one. Unemployment has risen massively in the under 30's who haven't got a degree, much more than those who have. See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_337841.pdf

I'd much prefer to subsidise my kids through education and get them into a "proper" university so they can get a decent graduate job at around £25k starting salary at 21, rather than giving them no financial support at 16 and them ending up unemployed or with some rubbish job where they'll be lucky to ever earn that much!

I would love to see the evidence that parental financial support and no part job during education = a 25k job after university.

Different families have different constructions, it may not always be viable to provide full financial support post 16. Unless a job is interfering with studies then there is no need for it to be detrimental, in fact having been working with a range of ages within education and the services for a number of years, it's often the children who don't have the responsibilities of a job or budgeting their own earnings that are amongst the laziest and unmotivated groups I've worked with, not to mention very arrogant!

Buzzybee90

zagfles wrote: »

Yes and I'm sure in the past people said that "you're not doing your 5 year old any favours by sending them to school instead of up chimneys to earn a living"

The world's moved on. These days it's very hard for young people to get a job if they haven't got a degree, and if they do it's likely to be a menial minimum wage one. Unemployment has risen massively in the under 30's who haven't got a degree, much more than those who have. See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_337841.pdf

I'd much prefer to subsidise my kids through education and get them into a "proper" university so they can get a decent graduate job at around £25k starting salary at 21, rather than giving them no financial support at 16 and them ending up unemployed or with some rubbish job where they'll be lucky to ever earn that much!

The bottom bit actually made me laugh out loud. Of course, the only people that get good jobs after uni are the ones with parents that subbed them...... What? :rotfl:

zagfles

moomoomama27 wrote: »

I would love to see the evidence that parental financial support and no part job during education = a 25k job after university.

If you bother reading the post I was replying to, the PP was talking about leaving school at 16

In my day we left school at 16 and got a job. That was it. Very few of us went onto further education"

Different families have different constructions, it may not always be viable to provide full financial support post 16.

Which is why the previous govt brought in EMA, and now there are bursary schemes for those on low incomes. It is recognised that students need subsidising.

Unless a job is interfering with studies then there is no need for it to be detrimental, in fact having been working with a range of ages within education and the services for a number of years, it's often the children who don't have the responsibilities of a job or budgeting their own earnings

Why do you think it's any different to budget with a monthly allowance than to budget with a pay packet?

that are amongst the laziest and unmotivated groups I've worked with, not to mention very arrogant!

I knew students at university whose parents didn't give them the subsidy recommended by the govt (in those days everyone got grants dependant on parental income and the parents were supposed to make it up, but some didn't). They had to get a job, their studies definitely suffered.

zagfles

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

The bottom bit actually made me laugh out loud. Of course, the only people that get good jobs after uni are the ones with parents that subbed them...... What? :rotfl:

Not another one...read the post I was replying to - the PP was talking about leaving school at 16 and not going to uni!

Buzzybee90

zagfles wrote: »

Not another one...read the post I was replying to - the PP was talking about leaving school at 16 and not going to uni!

It's just all anecdotal crap.

I could tell you all my friends were subbed at uni and got 2.1s and 2.2s yet I wasn't and got a 1st..... I'm not saying that's true.... But it's just all personal experiences.

It's pretty embarrassing that so many parents seem to be living vicariously through their children.... It's their lives, not yours!