Money Moral Dilemma: Should our four-year-old child pay for her own extracurricular activities?

Beadyjanet

No, unless they gave the money and said spend it on something she wants to do now. When she is and adult and wants to buy her own home, how will you feel if you have to tell her, sorry you'd have had enough money in your bank account but we spent it on play sessions (which is all these things are at that age)

silvercar

Danzan said:

For our kids, all the money they got when they were younger, we used to overpay our mortgage (knowing that we will replace this after, say for uni fees or their deposit for their house). As they got older they managed their own cash gifts to buy whatever they want. 

I would say go ahead and pay for it. In reality the activities they do will be worth more to the child than the cash when they grow up. 

As a parent you have the choice!

So basically you took a loan from your child’s money, with the intention of paying it back many year later! 

Pollycat

Lockettlady2013 said:

This is a difficult one as instead of getting presents your child has been getting money which went into her bank account.  Why did you not let your child have presents with the money?  You put he money in the bank, not your child and now you want your child at four years old to pay for her own activities?  No, paying for activities for a child that age is not a child's job - you can then control the activities and it will make you think harder about which ones she may be more likely to stick at.

I don't think it said that the child got money instead of gifts.

I always bought my niece and nephew gifts for birthday & Christmas and also gave their Mum money to put sway for them.
That money has paid for driving lessons.

Probably much more useful than swimming, drama, scouts and gymnastics at 4 years old...

dirtmother

As a relative, I have sometimes felt uncomfortable about children being required to put money I have given for birthday or Christmas towards things I felt the parents should (and certainly could) pay for. One consequence (if donors find out what you are doing) could be that the child doesn't get cash gifts. I certainly prefer to avoid giving money until children are older (and it's only ever for one of birthday or Christmas) - but have very happily contributed with others towards a bigger thing, including special experiences (eg money for theatre tickets) If I am giving money, I like to know what it is used for - whether that's Greggs sausage rolls, Pokemon cards or a worthy tome from the bookshop. For my own children, I have received money to buy something from those who are less able to shop, either in person or online. The child has always known who the gift is from and writes a thank you based on what they have received. I am not a fan of a big amorphous pot (and I have not noticed any differences in the happiness/activities/prudence of young people as a result).

I can certainly appreciate that it can come as a bit of a shock to realise how costs can ramp up and sympathise with eyeing up money in a savings account with a tiny bit of envy. That's what's happened here. There is a difference between a gift of money enabling a child to do something they wouldn't otherwise sensibly be able to do on the family budget and simply bankrolling the parents.

I hear all the comments about the value of saying no to children, or that children can be too busy with organised activities. I hear the comments about the expense of university or a house deposit. I just don't really think they are very relevant to this specific dilemma (a gift in a will would be different) - and I would remind those whose focus is entirely over a decade into this child's future that not all children get there (I know too many bereaved parents - and not all of those children can spend their last months on stereotypical 'memory making' big bucks experiences either).

 

sillisteve

If your child (of any age) really wants to pursue an activity seriously (beware of short term fads!), then if the parents can afford it they should fund, saving the child's money for the future when they are an adult. If it would mean the child missing out on a long term beneficial activity because the parents cannot afford it, then it would be appropriate to use the child's money. However, using the child's saving should be weighed up against the potential future benefit of having that money to start adult life with. 

Lindamar_

It depends how the money was gifted. If they gave money because they didn't know what presents she'd like, it would be nice to allow her to do a life shaping activity you could otherwise not afford. If the money was gifted with the intention of providing a little nest egg for future use (university fees, driving lessons, house deposit etc) then no, it needs to be saved for that purpose.

lorriegl

In my experience people give money to a child because they know he/she has enough toys already. It could either be used to buy a special toy that may be out of your price range or, as i expect most gifters would like, it is to be saved up for their future use, ie. Driving Lessons and any other 'special' and expensive extras when they become adults. To me having had 2 children and a husband who died when they were under 10, i had to cut back their after school activities to suit my purse. It was sad but i explained the reasons we could no longer afford everything and they picked which they loved best. They could change their minds at anytime if something different excited them. I also made use of all the free activities the council ran in the holidays. I realise this might not be possible if both parents work.

janou15

Of course you should not take your 4 year old money, it should be saved for her future only do what you can afford. Will you be charging her for food next when you are short of cash ?  

captainwobble

The money in her bank is her savings, most definitely needed for later in life.  If YOU cannot afford her classes dont send her, but the cost is yours not hers.  Poor little mite for this to even be a consideration by you.

confusedgranny

If you have already signed your daughter up then you pay. But at 4 she should be learning what money is for, what can be afforded and not. My 3 yr old had enough pocket money each week to buy something small (e.g.crisps) or to save for something they wanted (e..g. Dinky car after 5 weeks). One grandmother always gave toys at Christmas, the other cash so bigger things could be bought.
I remember a conversation "can we have - " "I haven't got enough money" "well, go to the building society to get some". Which led to a discussion about work and money.
If the cost of activities are a problem you could discuss it with your child and see which she enjoys least. Tell her how many you can afford. And if she understands that the money was given her to spend or save as she wished then she might decide to use it for an activity that you couldn't afford.