Dig money?

annandale

If he's earning he can pay for his own lunches.

I think that's fair enough given that his family are on benefits and he's earning a decent wage.

There's no point making life harder for yourself than it needs to be particularly as the parents are on benefits

Rosemary7391

BBH123 wrote: »

That is far too high, he is being penalised for having broke parents needing subsidy.

I think £50 a week is fair otherwise how is he ever going to get some savings together for his own future property.

You should not take advantage of your children just because you haven't got yourself sorted with a job or decent pension.

If he pays the suggested £400, what do you think he's doing with the other £590 he earns a month? If moving out is the objective, then in my opinion rent+savings should exceed the projected costs of moving out, so it isn't a shock for him to have to adjust his discretionary spending downwards on moving out.

Thanks for the update OP. I do think it would help if the son was to look at the household finances and learn just how much these things cost. Perhaps he should also look up costs for a cleaner, sending out washing/ironing and ready meals vs learning to cook for himself...

I assume mother is no longer giving him £3 a day for food (did/does she really do that - or does she give him £15/week or £60/month? It makes a difference to how he learns to budget...)

ripplyuk

I think £400 a month is perfectly reasonable. It's not even half his wages. Most people I know have to spend 50% of their wages on rent. He's getting bills included, and by the sounds of it, a cleaning and laundry service, and food.

Actually, it's such a good deal that he could end up never leaving. It might be a good idea for his parents to take the £400 every month and save most of it. Then someday, if he says he can't afford to move, hand him the lot.

Brightonsbest_2

We live in london - one of our children stays with us - we have three double bedrooms and a smaller room, 2 are ensuite - and we have OSP. Our daughter's around the 30 mark, works in the city and move back with us when long term BF was caught out cheating - daughter is paid a bit under 40k - she offered to pay use 500 all in, inc most of the food unless its a special, special food that only she wants which is rare. We allow her to pay the sky pacakge mulitroom, inc firber boradband and phone, and 100 pound a month on top - not sure but I think it equates to 200 quid if that as we all use our mobiles and from landline calls are free inc mobiles for up to hour. However, if we felt our daughter was blowing away her money, we'd charge her more or tell her to get out - she saves/invests well and saving up towards a 170k depeosit for an investment flat
For sure - 400 is way too high when the poor guy is only getting 900

[Deleted User]

To work out a 'fair cost' we'd need to know more about the household running costs. It sounds like a fairly low income household, so I really doubt that it's costing £1200 a month for rent/mortgage + bills.

The right amount shouldn't make him feel penalised for earning a salary, but it should also contribute a fair amount to the running of the house.

The £3 a day should stop. He's a big boy now earning money. Maybe work to the '1/3rd of a salary' rule and charge him £330 a month - or £75 per week.

He'll still have £150 a month left after that. Poor lad probably has no idea how much it costs to exist in this life though. It would make sense to take him shopping, get him to see how it all adds up buying food each week.

svain

I dont care what he is earning .... If he has just started his first job, charging £400 so he can stay living at home is just ridiculous and greedy. Of course some parents get jealous and feel the need "cash in" on their childrens wages.

He might well earn more than the parents (not his fault), he will of course have more surplus cash (not his fault either) .... but for goodness sake let him enjoy a few years without hanging a financial noose on him. Strongly encourage him to start a savings plan of his own, so he has a chance of his own home in the future .... not rob him of the opportunity before he has even started!!

"Keep" should be a nominal amount imo (circa £100 per month)... He will probably be out more than at home anyway.

I agree he cant be charged so little forever so have in place an agreement that if he his still at home at age 25 then "keep becomes "rent" and a more realistic amount will be charged.

annandale

It won't be costing 1200 a month for rent and bills. They get some rent reduction. And until the son started work it's probable that there wasn't 1200 in income coming into the household

maman

Jamiehelsinki wrote: »

I'm all for teaching kids the value of money but to many on here want to rip their kids off.

Jackieboy wrote: »

If he pays £400pcm, he'll have £590pcm for himself which will enormously more than either of his parents will have. If that amount includes all food and bills then , given his family's situation, it seems quite reasonable.

For him to suggest that he needs £890pcm to himself while his parents survive on benefits seems incredibly selfish of him.

I'm assuming that his mother is actively looking for work so they only need benefits until she finds a job. This sounds to me more like a long term plan than just a stop gap until the family finances improve.


Ideally I think I'd want to let him live for free provided he wasn't just frittering his money away. Alternatively take his money and save it for him. Both my DDs saved for house deposits while living at home. They were actually costing me less (buying their own clothes, eating out a lot, no need for pocket money etc) than all the previous years we'd brought them up. It seems this isn't quite the case for OP's grandson as he's costing parents money in terms of increased rent and council tax so that maybe needs covering. His mum needs to stop giving him lunch money PDQ, stop buying him anything like clothes, maybe ask for internet cost (if parents are 100% sure they don't want to share it) and then if they're still out of pocket ask for a contribution to balance the budget back to where it was.


If he does nothing round the house that's not a financial issue rather more about pulling his weight but if mum and dad are home all day then there can't be much to do.


I think if I were him I might move out and share with mates. It doesn't sound if he's very welcome with his family.

mumps

I don't know how much he should pay, there are so many variables but the thing that always surprises me in these sort of threads is that there are always people who talk about young people learning to manage money and save for the future and then people suggest secretly saving some of their money (what does that teach them?) or that you accept x amount of rent if they agree to save y (again that isn't teaching them to manage their money in my view it is continuing to treat them as a child.)

maman

mumps wrote: »

I don't know how much he should pay, there are so many variables but the thing that always surprises me in these sort of threads is that there are always people who talk about young people learning to manage money and save for the future and then people suggest secretly saving some of their money (what does that teach them?) or that you accept x amount of rent if they agree to save y (again that isn't teaching them to manage their money in my view it is continuing to treat them as a child.)

I don't think 'secret saving ' is necessarily treating them like children. It's more a case of taking rent because you want them to learn that it costs money to live but giving them a surprise gift because you don't need the money and don't want to profit from your own child. Alternatively you could save for them with their knowledge a bit like people on here do sealed pots.

Ideally you'd start teaching your child the value of money long before they get to working age. We gave our DDs an allowance from about 13 so they were responsible for all personal spending other than school uniform..

I agree there are many variables from one case to another but broadly two camps: those parents who never want to make money from their children and those that treat them more like lodgers once they start work.