Kids Pay Rent We Save it for them?

atush

{Edited by Forum team}

Wrong.

I completely agree with DQ and I have 3 boys. Who i paid for all their uni costs. All 3 have good graduate jobs, one is a HRTaxpayer in his 20's. All 3 saved substantial sums while living at home, even though i charged them rent.

All 3 have pensions.

All 3 will also inherit something at some time in the future.

mollycat

atush wrote: »

Wrong.

I completely agree with DQ

Agree 100%.

Disagreeing with other posters is fine; suggesting they "deserve a slap" and then going on to proudly proclaim your mother would also administer a "couple of backhanders", were she still alive reeks of intolerance towards the point of view of others.

Way over the top response in terms of harshness directed towards someone who is always a helpful poster.

As DQ says the current infantilising of people who should be considered adults will not end well.

REJP

£30 a week? That won't cover cost of food, heating, washing clothes, ironing etc. Is he saving anything out of his pay after travel to work expenses, buying clothes etc?
Seems you are subsidising him and not teaching him value for money. I think if he was paying more and you are able to meet costs with some to spare, then I would save that amount to give him when he does move out. But he has to learn that living is not cheap in the outside world away from home!

REJP

If you save it for them in an account in your name, may I politely suggest you make a Will specifying that the money in that account goes to the children if you unfortunately die before they move out? Just a thought.

Teacher2

I charged both of my children £100 a week rent ( and now one pays £150) and saved it for them. When the youngest bought a house there was £7000 sitting in the bank for her which we topped up considerably. The oldest has twice that - though he doesn’t know it and won’t unless he wants to move out a buy a place. However, when his father was made redundant we hasd to use his money to help pay council tax and bills. Nevertheless, he will get the same as his sister if and when he needs it.

Adult children should pay towards their keep to ensure they become responsible with money and do not waste their whole disposable income as pocket money. I am afraid my son is doing this now with what he doesn’t give us for keep despite my suggesting he saves. If he did not give us a weekly sum the money would be gone.

Of course, the criticism could be levelled that it is we, his parents, who are saving, not him but at least some money is not being wasted. The youngest learnt the lesson eventually and now saves a huge sum a month and makes extra contributions to her pension.

warby68

The saving and giving back as a surprise gift is not treating them as children.

Its a lovely bonus if you as parents can afford it.

As far as the children know, they are paying their way as they go along.

A bit different if you say I want board money but will save it for you - that way infers control. The other converts the money to the parents' in the first instance. The latter keeps it as the children's money but controlled by parents.

I think there is a big distinction.

I actually think its equally controlling to say you don't have to pay board as long as you save for a house. Its still conditional.

tboo

Malthusian wrote: »

If you charge your kids rent as adults then it will be taxable as income. Plus they will have tenancy rights and you will need to comply with your responsibilities as a landlord. Yes you could do it "under the table", pretend the money is a gift and hope that your kids won't dob you in, but the same is true if you were charging rent to a stranger, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Plus it's Inheritance Tax inefficient if you are over the threshold and your kids are your heirs.

I don't think the OP means to give them a tenancy agreement etc, it's board money for the childrens weekly/monthly keep

zagubov

I'm sure the OP must have realised at this stage that it's confusing and potentially problematic to call children's contribution to housekeeping as rent.

Neither would you call them renters, tenants, or lodgers or expect to give them a contract. It's an informal domestic arrangement to share housekeeping expenses and using more formal language that keep, board or housekeeping can only lead to misunderstandings.

Chillihot

You would not be charging your child(-ren) "rent" and you are not their "landlord" as there is no tenancy. To be a tenancy, caselaw (see Street -v- Mountford) has established there must be 4 specific conditions and this fails the exclusive possession test (unless the parents move out or have providde a self-contained address for the "child" in say a granny annex). Therefore its not a tenancy so whatever you charge cannot be rent. Indeed where parents try to construe a tenancy for a close relative (not restricted to children) in order to claim housing subsidy, it should be deemed a sham, claims go unpaid and risk of prosecution for benefit fraud. Current maximum penalty = Dracaris! (Perhaps not that last bit but the message is a household can split costs how it sees fit without fear of being taxed unless you are going to be silly about charges. If someone's kids are putting the frighteners on their parents by saying I'll report you if you charge me a fee for use and occupation they need to grow a pair, show their folks some respect and start paying their way!

little_green

quite common to charge "board". I think it's fair.
children need to learn they have responsibilities & not p*ss their money up a wall which can be all too common.
If I pay to live in the house, why would another adult in the house with an income be any different?
(though I would agree that if i were in the current situation at this time I would put it into a LISA for them).