Money Moral Dilemma: Should we pay for my eldest stepdaughter to go on holiday with us?

Bahhumbug

21. That's a good age to stop paying for your children in many, if not all, areas. Have a conversation with them now about paying for themselves from 21 onwards. It's irrelevant what the eldest earns. And as a reply to some of the other posters, since when did buying a house become a cheap life option? They're probably now as poor as the rest of us!!!

Also, I've never met an 'adult' 20 year old. 25, absolutely (for anyone who needs a number). By 25 pretty much everyone has it sorted, but not 20. I wasn't, none of my friends or acquaintances were, none of my friends children were... irrespective of life path taken.

silvercar

Other questions come to mind. Does the step daughter and the boyfriend want to go on this holiday if they have to pay? Do they begrudge using annual leave for a holiday that is not of their choice? Are they agreeing to go for family unity rather than because they want a holiday? Would they rather be saving money for a car/ adventure/ new kitchen?

Malthusian

"We have stepchildren"? 
Easy solution: The husband takes his children on holiday and the MoneySaver can stay at home counting their coins. Everybody's happy. 
Affordability is not the issue here unless something's been left out of the story; normally, if you can take 4 children on holiday last year you can take 4 children on holiday next year. We're talking about a holiday for a family of 6 (plus one boyfriend). It is a given they are paying for 5 of them. The marginal cost of paying for another room is relatively small.
Declining to pay for the 20-year-old while still paying for the next youngest - who is almost an identical age - is essentially punishing her for starting her career and getting on the housing ladder precociously early. If the dilemma had been "Should we re-write our Wills to leave less to our 20-year-old daughter who has more money than the rest" the most popular answer would usually be "no, treat them equally".

MACKEM99

Bahhumbug said:

21. That's a good age to stop paying for your children in many, if not all, areas. Have a conversation with them now about paying for themselves from 21 onwards. It's irrelevant what the eldest earns. And as a reply to some of the other posters, since when did buying a house become a cheap life option? They're probably now as poor as the rest of us!!!

Also, I've never met an 'adult' 20 year old. 25, absolutely (for anyone who needs a number). By 25 pretty much everyone has it sorted, but not 20. I wasn't, none of my friends or acquaintances were, none of my friends children were... irrespective of life path taken.

20 is a child wow?

Bahhumbug

MACKEM99 said:

Bahhumbug said:

21. That's a good age to stop paying for your children in many, if not all, areas. Have a conversation with them now about paying for themselves from 21 onwards. It's irrelevant what the eldest earns. And as a reply to some of the other posters, since when did buying a house become a cheap life option? They're probably now as poor as the rest of us!!!

Also, I've never met an 'adult' 20 year old. 25, absolutely (for anyone who needs a number). By 25 pretty much everyone has it sorted, but not 20. I wasn't, none of my friends or acquaintances were, none of my friends children were... irrespective of life path taken.

20 is a child wow?

Child? no, and that's not at all what I said. They're in the life stage between teenager and adult. It's called Moratorium, it's very important and it (almost always) ends before age 25.

Agent57

Treating "Children" equally in a will is one thing, but treating a five year old and a twenty something the same in all aspects of life is illogical. The older they are the less support they need on a sliding scale.  But there is no magic age when people stop being children and become adults regardless of what the law says.

Topofthesass

If they own their own house and are earning good money, they can afford, and moreover, should want to pay for their own holiday, regardless of who is paying! Of course it’s different for your resident daughter, your Stepson who spends a couple of nights with you and your Step daughter away at university as they’re all still dependents in one form or another. I can understand why this might be uncomfortable in practice as it only applies to the eldest child at present, however their financial circumstances have changed since the last holiday. No time like the present to address the subject before it becomes accepted as the norm and more difficult to tackle.

If it is any consolation, I have a similar dilemma. My SD and BF bought their first home last year. They now have a child and are expecting to holiday with us a family. Something we’ve never done. She is 29 and he is 36! And this came from the BF!!!

Glamblepie

The eldest is an adult who no longer resides in the family home and us economically ok. She should pay or contribute at least. Her boyfriend should definitely not be catered for. 

If your husband disagrees, let him pay for her, if there are any undercurrents of parental attitudinal inequity when it comes to whose children gets what. 

This is about fairness. 

NotAnExpert74

You and your husband must find a way to come to some kind of compromise or common ground on this that you're both happy with. And stick to it.  And you may be worrying about nothing, the couple may not actually want to come with you anyway...

JayD

I agree with this comment

"If this is future planned holiday, not yet booked,  it is a big assumption that the couple with want to come with you, especially now she has bought her ( their? ) first home. A conversation is needed before the holiday is booked. "

TALK TO THEM!