How much financial support do you give your parents ?

Pollycat

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

Is your friend on the breadline?

I mean every one of us can say we know an older person who is sprightly, has plenty of resources and is not vulnerable, that is also generalising - as there are plenty of non vulnerable

I think we can agree on there are some that are not vulnerable,and some that are, but it is circumstances that make the difference, don't you think?

What I think is that you are generalising.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the OP's parents are vulnerable.
And I doubt very much that we'll ever know for sure.

You stated that 'we are discussing two vulnerable elderly people'.
They may be elderly (depending on your viewpoint) but there is no evidence whatsoever to say they are vulnerable.

pickledonionspaceraider

Pollycat wrote: »

What I think is that you are generalising.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the OP's parents are vulnerable.
And I doubt very much that we'll ever know for sure.

You stated that 'we are discussing two vulnerable elderly people'.
They may be elderly (depending on your viewpoint) but there is no evidence whatsoever to say they are vulnerable.

Thanks for repeating your point. You seem to have very strong views on this subject

Pollycat

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

Thanks for repeating your point. You seem to have very strong views on this subject

I have strong views about anyone reading something into nothing.
As you have done by stating these people are vulnerable when there is no evidence to support that assumption.

Dean000000

I give my mum £30/month and pay their sky bill

Basic package init - I ain’t loaded.

They can bun straight off if they want sky sports....

On a serious, they raised me to be what I am today, and helped me to fulfil my earning potential...

Therefore i feel somewhat indebted to them and have no second thoughts whatsoever about helping them out.

pickledonionspaceraider

Pollycat wrote: »

I have strong views about anyone reading something into nothing.
As you have done by stating these people are vulnerable when there is no evidence to support that assumption.

Other than the fact they are poor and have no way out of the situation

There's no evidence to support they are not vulnerable

Pollycat

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

There's no evidence to support they are not vulnerable

So do you automatically assume everyone in their seventies is vulnerable?
Because that is what you have done here.

And you also said they hadn't even asked for help.
There is no evidence provided by the OP that that is true.

I tend to go on what's been 'said' rather than what I extrapolate.
Maybe that's a good way to go... instead of making stuff up and stating it as fact.

pickledonionspaceraider

Pollycat wrote: »

So do you automatically assume everyone in their seventies is vulnerable?
Because that is what you have done here.

And you also said they hadn't even asked for help.
There is no evidence provided by the OP that that is true.

I tend to go on what's been 'said' rather than what I extrapolate.
Maybe that's a good way to go... instead of making stuff up and stating it as fact.

By your own logic, in your last post (post 57)- as per your specific cut quote from my post / followed by your own response:- If there is no evidence to support something - does that mean an automatic assumption to the opposite viewpoint? Because that is what you have done here.

If you go by what has been 'said' - that is admirable, however the point you are strongly making (the lack of vulnerability), has never been 'said' - so you are indeed going against your own advice - within the same post.

Great post BTW.

Pollycat

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

By your own logic, in your last post (post 57)- as per your specific cut quote from my post / followed by your own response:- If there is no evidence to support something - does that mean an automatic assumption to the opposite viewpoint? Because that is what you have done here.

The OP has put a fair amount of detail into his first post.
Yes, I've made an assumption that if his parents were vulnerable, he'd probably have said so.
As he didn't, I think it more sensible to assume they are not vulnerable.
You've looked at it the other way.
That's up to you.
However, I'm not the only poster to point out that the OP hasn't said his parents are vulnerable.

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

If you go by what has been 'said' - that is admirable, however the point you are strongly making (the lack of vulnerability), has never been 'said' - so you are indeed going against your own advice - within the same post.

I've not given any advice.
I've simply said that you have assumed the couple are vulnerable.

BBH123 wrote: »

They have the mindset of live for today and tomorrow will look after itself and as younger people that probably can work ie if you're on your uppers find a job but not as pensioners.

This ^^^^ doesn't sound - at least not to me - that the couple are vulnerable.
But I'm sure you'll see it differently.

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

Great post BTW.

:huh:

As the OP has been posting on other threads but has not come back to provide any additional information, I don't see the point in speculating any further on the vulnerability (or lack of) of his parents.
So I'll leave it with you.

pickledonionspaceraider

Interesting debate Polly. It is good to hear other peoples point of view. I try to be aware as possible that there are other opinions other than my own, even though that may not come across in type.


Nice to have a decent debate with someone that doesn't turn into a slanging match


I hope the OP comes back.

seven-day-weekend

If the parents were unable to manage because they had not had opportunities, then i would help financially if I could. But only if it did not mean I put my own retirement prospects at risk, because all that does is pushes the problem further down the generations.

However, if they had had money and spent it on luxuries (as they are quite entitled to do), then I would not help them financially long-term, but would, as others have suggested, help them to claim everything they might be entitled to. Iif they already are getting this, then I would try to impress on them that they could not keep spending at the same rate as before and help them to budget.

I agree that nothing the OP has said has suggested they are 'vulnerable' and I think it is quite condescending to assume this. I am 69 and my husband 70, and today we have been out in our sports car, top down, blown the blues away and climbed some hills. We are also well able to manage our own affairs and spot 'scams' etc. So no more assumptions of 'vulnerable', please!