Money Moral Dilemma: What's the fairest way to help our children on to the property ladder?

Paris05

I was in the fortunate position to be given money from my parents towards a deposit for a house. I also have siblings and my parents gave us equal amounts despite which area we wanted to buy or how much we earn, which I felt was fair.

I don’t entirely agree with comments saying that parents shouldn’t give their children money towards a deposit and let them fend for themselves. I had been saving for a deposit for 10 years and have a decent job as a NHS Nurse, and continue to make good financial decisions and my siblings are the same. Having my parents give me extra money towards a deposit was a bonus and meant I could buy a property in a better location. 

However there are some people in life that have poor money management and constantly expect their parents to bail them out and never seem to learn. 

Pollycat

MSE_Kelvin said:

Sheepster said:

No offence but (there’s always a but huh) if you’re in the position to help them with what will be a huge amount of money (if this dilemma example is even real, I wonder with some of these), then surely you’re successful people who have probably built a business and will be really intelligent.
This being the case why on earth would you even need to ask randoms on the internet what you should do.

That said I can only echo what others have said. The only fair way is to give them equal. It’s their choice where they buy and nobody is forcing one of them to contemplate buying in one of the worlds most expensive cities, one which is almost a country within a country the economics are so stark.

Hey @Sheepster

Just wanted to address your doubt that Money Moral Dilemmas are genuine.

As the member of the MSE team that selects them for the Money Tips Email each week, I can assure you that they're for real - they're either emailed to mmd@moneysavingexpert.com by MSE users or suggested by other members of the MSE team (either their own or those they've been told of by friends and family).

To be honest I'm not sure we'd be able to make up anything as good as the ones we're sent, such as the dog poop dilemma from a few weeks back 

Cheers,

MSE Kelvin

I've seen a couple of people who originated a MMD pop up and comment on the discussion (one very recently) so I'm convinced they are genuine.

I just can't see why someone would submit a MMD that appears with very limited information rather than asking for opinions and giving the full facts.
But that's just me. 

Malices

Basing it purely on 'fairness' I'd say give them the same amount. But I'm quite shocked by the amount of people who assume that giving an unequal amount would cause arguments. I don't keep tabs on how much money my parents give to my sister and I and neither would I care if they'd given her more - I assume she'd have needed it more at the time.
Money doesn't equal love. I'm just grateful for whatever my parents give because I know they don't have to give me anything, but I don't value their love for me based on the amount cash they give me. I also love my sister and it would take a hell of a lot more than money to cause a rift between us.
Imo a lot of people seem to have got love and money twisted together in their heads. I hope my daughter never gets these things confused and looks at the big picture instead of numbers in a bank account.

seven-day-weekend

We gave our son a hefty  deposit for his flat.  I told him at the time that if he'd have had siblings he wouldn't have had as much and to consider himself lucky. 

Give them the same amount, at the same time.

gloriouslyhappy

Pollycat said:

MSE_Kelvin 

I've seen a couple of people who originated a MMD pop up and comment on the discussion (one very recently) so I'm convinced they are genuine.

I just can't see why someone would submit a MMD that appears with very limited information rather than asking for opinions and giving the full facts.
But that's just me. 

Perhaps MSE Kelvin will pop back and answer this - I've read before, when the original poster returns to comment on the responses, that only some of the information they provided originally was used. Why is this, I wonder? Perhaps for brevity? Otherwise it makes little sense to supply only a few facts leading to a distorted dilemma. 

Going off to look at the dog poop dilemma which I missed (possibly a good thing!) :-)

jegs

How's this for an idea ?   
First ........Determine how much money you can afford in total, to give to your children. (eg £100,000)
Second..........Divide that amount by the number of children you have, into random amounts.  (eg £100,000 / 3) = £50,000 / £30,000 / £20,000) 
Third.......Write on three separate pieces of paper each individual amount (See 'Second' above) 
Four.....Place each piece of paper into an identical unmarked receptacle (eg bag/box/envelope).  Now let each child choose one of these receptacles. What each child receives, they will have actually chosen, so there is no blame attached to the donor, yourself.
Ahhhhhhh !  A problem has become apparent !  Which child chooses first, do I hear you ask ? 
Simple.......Revert to 'Third' above, but exchange the amounts for the names of your children ! 
Ahhhhhh !  Another problem...Which child now chooses first, do I hear you ask ? 
Simple......Revert to the first 'simple' above and keep following from there !!! 
If you keep going from there, you will eventually have spent all the £100,000 on calculators, paper, pens, envelopes or other unmarked receptacles ! 
Sooooooooo....PROBLEM SOLVED  !!!!

Malthusian

gloriouslyhappy said:

Perhaps MSE Kelvin will pop back and answer this - I've read before, when the original poster returns to comment on the responses, that only some of the information they provided originally was used. Why is this, I wonder? Perhaps for brevity? Otherwise it makes little sense to supply only a few facts leading to a distorted dilemma.

The more information that is supplied, the less of a dilemma it becomes. (That's an ironclad law of physics. If perfect information is available there is only one right answer; the more imperfect the information, the more uncertainty.)

Conversely, the less information that is supplied, the more controversial the issue and the more clicks it will get.

Even after filtering the information, a lot of MMDs boil down to "I don't want to do something and I have no legal or moral obligation to, should I do it". If they didn't withhold information a lot of these threads would wither on the vine.

AA1990

Give them the same, at least then you won't be the reason for any tension and upset. 

Good luck

Pollycat

gloriouslyhappy said:

Pollycat said:

MSE_Kelvin 

I've seen a couple of people who originated a MMD pop up and comment on the discussion (one very recently) so I'm convinced they are genuine.

I just can't see why someone would submit a MMD that appears with very limited information rather than asking for opinions and giving the full facts.
But that's just me. 

Perhaps MSE Kelvin will pop back and answer this - I've read before, when the original poster returns to comment on the responses, that only some of the information they provided originally was used. Why is this, I wonder? Perhaps for brevity? Otherwise it makes little sense to supply only a few facts leading to a distorted dilemma. 

Going off to look at the dog poop dilemma which I missed (possibly a good thing!) :-)

Although MSE Kevin says the MMDs are real, that's not what the main MSE board says:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/chat-tips-gold/#dilemmas

Maybe time to update the board...

Money Moral Dilemmas are hypothetical scenarios designed to make you think about the best ways of solving similar real-life disagreements, and discuss your ideas with other MoneySavers. A fresh, fun dilemma is included in each week's free MoneySaving email. So, what should they do?

anotheruser

Spendless said:

You take into account the children's situations. One might have a very well paid job for example. Being fair to both, isn't always the same as treating them identically.

No, but giving one £100,000 and the other £50,000 isn't treating them identically either.
One could be very lazy and so has a lower paid job, while the other could have really struggled but got to a very well paid position.

The ONLY fair and right way is giving each the same amount.

One may get £20,000 but lives in London.  Their salary may be high but so will the house price.
One may get £200,000 but lives in central Stoke-on-Trent.  Their salary may be low but their house price is lower to match it.

All horses for courses.

It's a gift of money, not a gift of property.
If the children have different salaries and career prospects, that's their own success.