Dig money?

silvercar · 17 January 2017 at 11:15PM

it's not just share of rent/mortgage, water, gas/electric, telephone, TV license, council tax, insurance, food, cleaning products etc. It's also wear and tear on the fixtures and furnishings, things that the parents have to replace if they break, or fix, and an acknowledgement that they have less personal space due to another adult living there. Why shouldn't he pay an equal share of the costs of the home, even where his being there doesn't increase those costs (water etc)?

The size of the rent/ mortgage arise because of the size/ location of the home that the parents chose. TV license, council tax, insurance would be unchanged whether the son was living at home or not. The reason he shouldn't pay an equal share is because the costs are what they are because of the choices the parents made. Following your presumption, you would be charging school kids for living at home!

All this "teaching" the young how to manage applies equally well in reverse, how will the parents cope when the offspring leave home and they can't rely on their funding?

svain · 17 January 2017 at 11:27PM

silvercar wrote: »

The size of the rent/ mortgage arise because of the size/ location of the home that the parents chose. TV license, council tax, insurance would be unchanged whether the son was living at home or not. The reason he shouldn't pay an equal share is because the costs are what they are because of the choices the parents made. Following your presumption, you would be charging school kids for living at home!

All this "teaching" the young how to manage applies equally well in reverse, how will the parents cope when the offspring leave home and they can't rely on their funding?

well said :beer:

annandale · 17 January 2017 at 11:57PM

She's not treating him like the adult that he is though. I can understand that if he's not had his first wage yet that the mum might make him his lunch but you have a situation where they don't have a lot of money coming in and she's spending 65 quid a month on his lunches.

There were points made that he doesn't do enough around the house etc.

If she's not treating him like an adult then maybe people shouldn't be surprised if he's not acting like one. If someone is going to hand you 3 quid s day for meals then I don't think anyone could be surprised that he's accepted it. It's mixed messages as far as I'm concerned. We are skint and we need this amount of rent from you but here's 15 quid a week for your lunch. He's not going to start acting like an adult until he's treated like one.

And if he has been paid and can pay for his own meals the sensible thing to do would be for him to buy them. Particularly as money is so tight.

Pollycat · 18 January 2017 at 9:31AM

Jackieboy wrote: »

Well yes - didn't we all?

No.

My 2 best friends didn't pay board and their parents gave them extra for bus fares and lunches so all their wages were disposal income.

So no - we all didn't.

mumps · 18 January 2017 at 1:37PM

svain wrote: »

No it doesnt .... but decisions/gestures dont always have to be about a life lesson

No it doesn't but if you read my original post I was talking about teaching them about managing money by taking money off them nominally for rent and saving it for them. My point is that doesn't teach them about money, or perhaps it teaches them not to worry because mum and dad have got a secret stash for them. Not sure that is a good lesson.

I think it is better to take a fair amount and if you decide to save something for them it is a gift from the parents which is what it actually is.

silvercar · 18 January 2017 at 1:51PM

Sunday Times magazine had an article recently about the number of working young adults living at home. It quoted research that found on those who had returned to the family home, some had their partners also living with them, not one was charged rent/ board by their parents.

Here is the article (behind a paywall, so subscribers only).

Relevant paragraph: "Anne West at the London School of Economics has been researching intergenerational relations within families where a child has moved back home. Of the 40 families she interviewed, there wasn’t one where a child was expected to contribute towards rent or household costs. Parents were far more interested in helping their children get their feet off the ground and save money."

clairec79 · 18 January 2017 at 2:15PM

I do think £400 is too high so I would lower that (but not as low as £100)

However, if the internet is purely for him I would have no qualm about him taking over that bill or cancelling it if he doesn't want to.

I'd also stop giving him lunch money (which I may have given him until his first wages came through)

lobbyludd · 19 January 2017 at 10:59PM

silvercar wrote: »

The size of the rent/ mortgage arise because of the size/ location of the home that the parents chose. TV license, council tax, insurance would be unchanged whether the son was living at home or not. The reason he shouldn't pay an equal share is because the costs are what they are because of the choices the parents made. Following your presumption, you would be charging school kids for living at home!

All this "teaching" the young how to manage applies equally well in reverse, how will the parents cope when the offspring leave home and they can't rely on their funding?

If he thinks the facilities are too high-end for his tastes, or too expensive to allow him to pursue the lifestyle he wants, he is free to leave. There's no reason to suspect the parents won't cope just fine without him - they appear to when he was not working. and no- of course it doesn't extend to school age children, the argument I made doesn't lead to that conclusion at all. I find much of this discussion very perplexing - if his parents want to let him live with them rent free, fair enough, if they want to fund his lunch: fair enough. If they want to charge him £400: fair enough. These are all their decisions to make. If he doesn't like the terms - he is completely free to live elsewhere.