Dig money?

TBagpuss

I think it would be reasonable to start by looking at what it would cost him to rent a room in a shared house in their local area. Where I live, this would be around £65 per week plus bills, so £280+bill+food per month.
On that basis, £400 per month seems pretty high.

I also think it is reasonable to take into account the actual cost to his parents of his being at home - so reduction in their benefits entitlement + costs of his proportion of the food, plus an element for a share of the bills (it might be fair for this to be a bit less than 1/3, if he is out most of the day and they are at home all day, then it's likely that they are using more heating etc than a household of workers would)

I think that a figure a bit greater than the cost of his being there and a by less than it would cost him to live elsewhere would be fair.

£100 sounds extremely low to me. It's £23 week, which would barely cover food.

maybe £300/month might be reasonable - it's a bit below 1/3 of his income so he has £600/month available for savings, leisure, transport to work and any meals he buys there, and is likely to me enough that his parents won' be out of pocket by having him there.

I agree with the poster who suggested sitting down and going through all the household bills with him so he has some understanding of the total amount needed to run the home.

mumps

maman wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't want to make money from my kids, and I certainly didn't, but I think some families need a bigger contribution than others.

My kids had an allowance from 11 with a cash card they could use. It was their allowance and even at 11 they made the decisions so the one who saved could ultimately do things that one who spent it as quickly as he got couldn't and he was young enough to make mistakes and learn from them. I just don't see how making them save or secretly saving is teaching them anything, it might be helping them I suppose it is but teaching them? No I don't think it teaches them anything.

svain

i also dont think saving for them teaches them anything and opens up temptation to dip/spend the money for some parents who may not be as reliable.... however to be able to give a lump sum back back to them because the parent has saved up the "keep" money over the years is a nice thing to do

Jackieboy

I don't know when taking keep from working children started to be considered "making a profit from them" rather than another working adult paying their share. It seems a very odd idea to me.

AnnieO1234

I paid nothing at all and was earning considerably more than £990 a month just over a decade ago. I are out most of the time and bought my own groceries, did my own laundry. My parents refused to accept board.

annandale

It would be helpful to know how much income the mum and dad have lost since the Op started work

theoretica

I think he should at least pay his way - so probably rather more than 1/3 of the food and other groceries bill. 1/3 of the electricity and gas usage (to be scrupulously fair most bills are divided between a daily charge and a useage charge and only the 2nd would go down if he left). Any increase in council tax and loss in benefits they have because he lives there.

Or as a maximum, if he moved out and paid market rates somewhere else his parents could then rent his room to a lodger - what would they get? And then in addition the food bill. Might be simplest if exactly that happened!

KxMx

svain wrote: »

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.

I don't agree with the nominal amount of £100 per month .

There have been genuine costs to the household due to him starting work.

His rent should cover those plus a share of the other bills and I don't think £25 weekly is sufficient. He also does nothing around the house and seems extravagant with utilities. All needs to be taken into account.

Mojisola

r2015 wrote: »

His mother gives him £3.00 a day for his dinner, washes his clothes and cleans his room, he does nothing around the house.

They also have internet which they pay for but it was installed for him.

It's time the parents started treating him like an adult and make him do his share of the household tasks. I'll never understand parents who act as servants for their children.

Why on earth is his Mum giving him lunch money when he's earning his own wages?

If he's the only one using the internet, he should be paying for it.

Time for a reality check for the son - sit down with a spreadsheet showing how much it costs to run a house and get him to agree to pay a fair share.

annandale

When people started saying that the 400 pounds a month was too much then we got the information that he does nothing around the house, that she's paying for his lunch money.

She's allowing that. And if his parents were happy enough to get Internet for him when he wasn't working why is it an issue now?

Of course he should be paying his way, but if there's a situation where he's not pulling his weight around the house, they've allowed that to happen and continue.

It works both ways