Money Moral Dilemma: How do I persuade my children to pay rent once they're home from university?

silvercar

Pollycat said:

silvercar said:

MeteredOut said:

ZeroSum said:

Charging them the 'going rate' is completely unfair as its not like theyve had a choice & shouldn't be penalised because of parents financial situation if its an expensive area. 
Charge them a nominal amount which can be put to one side for a deposit when they do move out

Of course they have a choice. They are adults and can live elsewhere if they want to. I don't think the OP suggested imprisoning them.

The point is they are starting on their careers, may not earn much, may have some uni debt and can’t afford to rent elsewhere. You don’t stop being their parents on a milestone birthday.

A lot of people start out on their careers. Some earlier than those who go to university.
A lot of people don't earn much when they're young.
A lot of people can't afford to rent elsewhere.
Someone who has been to university will probably have debt but they may never get to the point of earning enough that that debt has to be repaid. 

Do you think parents shouldn't charge any of their children to live at home?

I started work at 17, straight out of school.
My Mother physically took my first wage packet from me and gave me spending money and bus fares.
She continued to do that until I started talking about me and my boyfriend renting a flat closer to where we both worked.

Some parents can't afford to let their adult children live at home for free.

There is debt that is student loan (maintenance and tuition fees) and then there is debt from living costs because the student maintenance loan + parental contribution+ any part time work just isn't enough to live off. I think you are confusing the two.

Pollycat

silvercar said:

Pollycat said:

silvercar said:

MeteredOut said:

ZeroSum said:

Charging them the 'going rate' is completely unfair as its not like theyve had a choice & shouldn't be penalised because of parents financial situation if its an expensive area. 
Charge them a nominal amount which can be put to one side for a deposit when they do move out

Of course they have a choice. They are adults and can live elsewhere if they want to. I don't think the OP suggested imprisoning them.

The point is they are starting on their careers, may not earn much, may have some uni debt and can’t afford to rent elsewhere. You don’t stop being their parents on a milestone birthday.

A lot of people start out on their careers. Some earlier than those who go to university.
A lot of people don't earn much when they're young.
A lot of people can't afford to rent elsewhere.
Someone who has been to university will probably have debt but they may never get to the point of earning enough that that debt has to be repaid. 

Do you think parents shouldn't charge any of their children to live at home?

I started work at 17, straight out of school.
My Mother physically took my first wage packet from me and gave me spending money and bus fares.
She continued to do that until I started talking about me and my boyfriend renting a flat closer to where we both worked.

Some parents can't afford to let their adult children live at home for free.

There is debt that is student loan (maintenance and tuition fees) and then there is debt from living costs because the student maintenance loan + parental contribution+ any part time work just isn't enough to live off. I think you are confusing the two.

I'm not confusing the two.

A friend's daughter managed to finish university with just the tuition debt.
There's no indication in the original post regarding debt.

VyEu

ShinyStarlight1 said:

VyEu said:

Sure charge then rent...and the basically teach them that the people they thought they could rely on at the start if their careers/when they're needed most and when they realistically won't be earning much, can't be relied on. They didn't ask to be born and you're taking away their 'safe' home from them. But sure go ahead, just expect the same attitude when if you fall in hard times and they don't want to help you .

Is this what family has come to? When you bring kids into the world you accept the possibility that they won't be high flying academics straight off the bat, and that they will need help post uni. If they're paying you market rent then they can't save. They're stuck. But if  parenting stops at 18 to you, that's your choice.

Honestly, your angry use of guilt-trips and veiled threats sounds like you are speaking from a very young place. 

The people you are talking about are entering young adulthood. They are not helpless children. In some ways, it’s a mark of respect to acknowledge their new adulthood by treating them as such, and with the new expectations that come with this new status.

It is also respectful of the young adults to acknowledge the financial impact of their return to the family home on their parents, and to choose to contribute. How much depends on a negotiation between parents and adult children, but all can be done with respect and love. But it’s a new phase for everyone and continuing as before isn’t recognising that and risks infantilising and therefore stunting the emerging adults.

I am truly flattered if you think I am 'speaking from a very young place'. I am not angry at all, OP can do as they wish but they shouldn't be disillusioned that their kids won't remember how they were treated fresh out of uni with (probably) not well paid jobs. 

You're not talking about 'choosing' to contribute, that would be different. This is imposing payment which is a different thing. 

And you're being ludicrous. Giving your kids a stable home so they can save up and then move out isn't infantilism. 

Jami74

I think if I don't charge, I'm doing them more harm than good - life isn't free and you have to pay for what you want out of it

This sounds more like a parenting question than a money question. It's like 'If I let them have pudding, I'm doing more harm than good - vegetables are important and they need to eat their sprouts' or 'If I don't spank them, I'm doing more harm than good - they need to learn to respect their elders'.

A money question would be 'My children are moving back home, but I can't afford for them to stay for free' or 'My children are moving back home, I'd like to help them learn how to budget for life's expenses'.

anonentity

It would appear that one of the signs of the Western world going down the drain is the fact that we have seen so many parents appearing only want to make friends of their offspring and thus being in hock to them. Indeed, many appearing to be in a sought of reversal role, where 'the child is boss and don't you forget it!'  Parents should STAY PARENTS, with love and care when needed, but teaching their children that life is rarely EASY. SO, when earning a living they should live up to their obligations. Paying their own way being a major responsibility. Through illness, etc., so although having a contract on offer from age of 12, I could not immediately take up my career. So from age 15 worked in retail for a few years until called up for National Service ( another 'LIFE LESSON'  which modern male youths have escaped and we think would be of benefit to both males and females nowadays)  Living at home  I paid my parents two thirds of my salary each week. AND It never ever occurred to me to resent this or that it was not fully justified. In not requiring children to pay their way a parent is NOT doing them any favours where 'lifemanship 'is concerned, and indeed, in my opinion is setting them up to be lousy at any future personal partnership. Indeed, I don't want to get into the opinion of both my wife and self with regard to the lack of personal obligation we consider is shown in not, when finding a 'mate', sealing this with a wedding ring. Sadly, the latter starting to fall away with the mid-1970's Women's;Lib campaigns revealing Mother Nature's ruthlessness. With females finding employment no problem, so  no longer having to rely on a husband for support. Meaning that 'THE GRASS IS GREENER' may well have played a part in that, from what we heard, it seemed that it was always the female who resisted 'tying the knot.' I've only read a few of the other replies and while saving some of the cash resulting from children paying rent while still living at home as a pot for funding their future mortgage, or whatever, is a decent plan, PAYING YOUR WAY  is something which, in our view, should be one of the first life rules to instil into children. We'd dearly love to discuss this with this lady’s children who  evidently have never heard of this moral code. They might well be lucky to not have hearing problems at the end of such an event. Our disgust is boundless for these two and one can only hope that if they do not alter their ways, then if landing up with partners - in marriage or otherwise - they may find themselves at the mercy of characters who are even more SELFISH AND IRRESPONSIBLE than themselves!

Sapindus

OP said "charge them the going rate for rooms in this area".  The going rate for rooms is charged by landlords who are running a business.  When my eldest left uni and couldn't find a job, I supported him.  When he got a job, he paid me a fair contribution to cover the extra he cost me by living with me.  That was a whole lot less than "the going rate for rooms".

If you want to make money out of your offspring, go ahead, but don't expect them to help you in your old age without paying the going rate for care home fees.

Silvertabby

My late mother was obsessed with the idea that my (4 years younger) sister and I must always be treated equally.  But she went the wrong way about it ...

We both received 20p per week pocket money, until I started a paper round for 50p per week.  Mum announced that I didn't need pocket money now I was 'earning' so she gave my 20p to my sister, along with another 10p.  So we both got 50p and were 'equal'.  The fact that I was out in all weathers delivering papers while my sister stayed in bed wasn't an issue.

Even worse, my first job (stacking shelves in the Co-op) gave me £5.50 per week take home pay.  Mum took £3 off me for my 'keep', but increased my then 11 year old sister's pocket money to £2.50.  So we'd be equal.

My sister never did learn to manage money, as proven by her 2 bouts of bankruptcy.  

MeteredOut

Silvertabby said:

My late mother was obsessed with the idea that my (4 years younger) sister and I must always be treated equally.  But she went the wrong way about it ...

We both received 20p per week pocket money, until I started a paper round for 50p per week.  Mum announced that I didn't need pocket money now I was 'earning' so she gave my 20p to my sister, along with another 10p.  So we both got 50p and were 'equal'.  The fact that I was out in all weathers delivering papers while my sister stayed in bed wasn't an issue.

Even worse, my first job (stacking shelves in the Co-op) gave me £5.50 per week take home pay.  Mum took £3 off me for my 'keep', but increased my then 11 year old sister's pocket money to £2.50.  So we'd be equal.

My sister never did learn to manage money, as proven by her 2 bouts of bankruptcy.  

Was your mum <insert politician of your choice's name here>?

Silvertabby

MeteredOut said:

Silvertabby said:

My late mother was obsessed with the idea that my (4 years younger) sister and I must always be treated equally.  But she went the wrong way about it ...

We both received 20p per week pocket money, until I started a paper round for 50p per week.  Mum announced that I didn't need pocket money now I was 'earning' so she gave my 20p to my sister, along with another 10p.  So we both got 50p and were 'equal'.  The fact that I was out in all weathers delivering papers while my sister stayed in bed wasn't an issue.

Even worse, my first job (stacking shelves in the Co-op) gave me £5.50 per week take home pay.  Mum took £3 off me for my 'keep', but increased my then 11 year old sister's pocket money to £2.50.  So we'd be equal.

My sister never did learn to manage money, as proven by her 2 bouts of bankruptcy.  

Was your mum <insert politician of your choice's name here>?

Ha Ha - no, but she didn't really have any financial common sense, either.  She never could see the difference between immediate cost and long term value.  When I got married (long after 1977) she urged me to be sure to claim my tax back (she meant married woman's NI) as married women didn't have to pay as much.  I just told her that that option was no longer available, which sent her off on a rant about 'robbing so-and-sos'.  She wouldn't have understood my choice to pay full rate NI in order to accrue a full State pension, as that was years ahead instead of having money in my pocket now.    

Spendless

Silvertabby said:

My late mother was obsessed with the idea that my (4 years younger) sister and I must always be treated equally.  But she went the wrong way about it ...

We both received 20p per week pocket money, until I started a paper round for 50p per week.  Mum announced that I didn't need pocket money now I was 'earning' so she gave my 20p to my sister, along with another 10p.  So we both got 50p and were 'equal'.  The fact that I was out in all weathers delivering papers while my sister stayed in bed wasn't an issue.

Even worse, my first job (stacking shelves in the Co-op) gave me £5.50 per week take home pay.  Mum took £3 off me for my 'keep', but increased my then 11 year old sister's pocket money to £2.50.  So we'd be equal.

My sister never did learn to manage money, as proven by her 2 bouts of bankruptcy.  

I had a similar experience in that I left school and went on a YTS plus kept my Saturday job on. So worked full time 6 days a week giving me a (rounded figure) £40 combined wage. I paid £8 board, so £32 for me. A year on the YTS offered me a permanent position at £42 per week, so I dropped the Saturday job, told my parents, my board went up to £10, same £32 for me. I protested to no avail. I never admitted to a pay rise ever again. I told my Mum this earlier this year (its over 40 years since it happened). She was shocked but I remember her delivering the news though I now suspect she was just Dads mouthpiece.