Paying Rent At Home

GarIT

DaisyD2 wrote: »

Very similar here too, 1/3 from my time of my 1st part time job til I moved abroad at 21, no ifs &s or buts ..... And if I wanted toiletries or particular foods I had to buy it myself. Taught me to be very independent & self reliant. My younger sibling on other hand would spend pay packet on way home from collecting it & caused murder week in & week out. Still stays over regularily with kids despite being married & own home, borrows money without paying it back, breaks their heart but they still enable it by giving giving giving

It's actually a really good point about not enabling the behavior. Don't let the freeloading continue. This post +1.

GarIT

jester77 wrote: »

If he is that difficult and complaining about such a measly amount then maybe approach it from a different angle.

Instead of a fixed amount per month, have him contribute x% to every bill, e.g. groceries, telephone, electricity, water, gas, bin, tv licensee, tv subscriptions, car insurance/tax if he uses your car, house/contents/fire insurances, etc. Put the bills where he can see it every time it comes in.

Young people starting out have no idea how much it costs to run a house, it would be a bit of an eye opener for him.

That is the way I would do it, it's the only right and even partially educational way to do it IMO.

Sadderday

GarIT wrote: »

I never suggested anyone should live off their parents.

Do you have any proof of that or is it just a saying you heard? I'm pretty sure giving a child detailed lessons on money management is much more effective than saying "give me x amount of money because you need to experience real life" I don't even understand that, any reasonably educated child would see that money is paid for a reason and not just because real life. Posters actually suggested taking full rent from children so that they don't get a shock when they have to pay rent later, how is a shock now and loosing a lot of money needlessly better than the exact same shock later when you actually get something for it and what do they even learn from that.

Some parents actually think they are entitled to extra money from their children and those few people need to realise having children is not an investment having children is charity work with no expected return.

Posters here have suggested more than 50% actually. But you have completely missed my point, the point about handing up money had nothing at all to do with the amount, the point was all about the context of handing up money, if done to educate the children it's not a good way of doing things.

OK, so just hand up because the parents need help then with bills and groceries.

Your point doesnt make sense, you agree with handing up money but dont agree with why. Does it matter why? different families do it for different reasons - the general point is... that it's the done thing.

bullvine

When I was 22, it was a quarter of your wages, it worked out about 180 a month i think, very very fair. But when I started to get paid well, My mother refused anymore as she said that was more than enough.

GarIT

Sadderday wrote: »

OK, so just hand up because the parents need help then with bills and groceries.

Your point doesnt make sense, you agree with handing up money but dont agree with why. Does it matter why? different families do it for different reasons - the general point is... that it's the done thing.

The why is the most important part. Why give away money for nothing? IMO some of the reasons listed are morally wrong and quite similar to stealing. Child paying their own way fine, child's money being saved for them isn't wrong but there is no point, there is certainly no life lesson in it, the child's money being taken and pocketed because "education" or "real life" it just completely wrong. You can take up a reasonable amount but without a good meaning, reasoning and structure it would be pointless and no lesson would be taught.

Also the done thing isn't always the right thing but that doesn't really apply in this case.

Sadderday

GarIT wrote: »

The why is the most important part. Why give away money for nothing? IMO some of the reasons listed are morally wrong and quite similar to stealing. Child paying their own way fine, child's money being saved for them isn't wrong but there is no point, there is certainly no life lesson in it, the child's money being taken and pocketed because "education" or "real life" it just completely wrong. You can take up a reasonable amount but without a good meaning, reasoning and structure it would be pointless and no lesson would be taught.

Also the done thing isn't always the right thing but that doesn't really apply in this case.

WOW you are way off here. Why give money for nothing? you are teaching your children that living day to day costs them so they can be responsible earners and can have everything they wish for themselves in life provided they meet all of their payments and responsibilites first. How do you not comprehend that?

You give them pocket money for years, when they work your not taking it back your using it for the bills and food that they are using.

I think taking money from a child when they work and showing them thats it being saved is brilliant, they see the power of it and can buy their own first car or go on holiday etc etc

Nobody does it to be mean its to show how to live responsibly

OldNotWIse

GarIT wrote: »

I never suggested anyone should live off their parents.

Do you have any proof of that or is it just a saying you heard? I'm pretty sure giving a child detailed lessons on money management is much more effective than saying "give me x amount of money because you need to experience real life" I don't even understand that, any reasonably educated child would see that money is paid for a reason and not just because real life. Posters actually suggested taking full rent from children so that they don't get a shock when they have to pay rent later, how is a shock now and loosing a lot of money needlessly better than the exact same shock later when you actually get something for it and what do they even learn from that.

Some parents actually think they are entitled to extra money from their children and those few people need to realise having children is not an investment having children is charity work with no expected return.

Posters here have suggested more than 50% actually. But you have completely missed my point, the point about handing up money had nothing at all to do with the amount, the point was all about the context of handing up money, if done to educate the children it's not a good way of doing things.

No, its an opinion. Like yours. Which I disagree with. End of.

This might be news to you but saying something does not make it fact, so your "if done to educate the children its not a good way of doing things" is your opinion, not a fact.

GarIT

OldNotWIse wrote: »

No, its an opinion. Like yours. Which I disagree with. End of.

This might be news to you but saying something does not make it fact, so your "if done to educate the children its not a good way of doing things" is your opinion, not a fact.

I haven't said what I am saying is fact, I just saying using an old wives saying isn't usually a good thing to use as your reasoning for a discussion.

OldNotWIse

GarIT wrote: »

I haven't said what I am saying is fact, I just saying using an old wives saying isn't usually a good thing to use as your reasoning for a discussion.

Its not reasoning its an opinion, like yours. Its no more or less an old wives tale than yours. You dont agree with me, I dont agree with you. Who cares? The world is still spinning. Parents are still profiteering. 22 year old men are still living off their folk for 2 euro a day - its all good :pac:

GarIT

Sadderday wrote: »

WOW you are way off here. Why give money for nothing? you are teaching your children that living day to day costs them so they can be responsible earners and can have everything they wish for themselves in life provided they meet all of their payments and responsibilites first. How do you not comprehend that?

You give them pocket money for years, when they work your not taking it back your using it for the bills and food that they are using.

I think taking money from a child when they work and showing them thats it being saved is brilliant, they see the power of it and can buy their own first car or go on holiday etc etc

Nobody does it to be mean its to show how to live responsibly

I think you completely missed my point. You asked if my problem was only the reasoning, and I explained why the reasoning is my problem. I'm not saying there is no reason for giving money I meant why give money if you are specifically told there is not reason for doing so. Hence the reason why they are giving money is important. Having a child pay for themselves is completely reasonable.

However saying give me money monthly to see what real life is like is in no way education and you'd be mad if you thought it was. Real life is a lot more complicated than just having money taken off you, if you are going to use it as an educational tool you need to do much more than say because real life. Other parents have advocated taking much more than the child actually costs just to teach the child what 'real life' is like, the parents just pocketed the extra money while the child learnt about 'real life' all I'm saying is that is wrong. I keep having to re-explain my original point in different ways and everytime I do someone else takes it up wrong.

GarIT

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Its not reasoning its an opinion, like yours. Its no more or less an old wives tale than yours. You dont agree with me, I dont agree with you. Who cares? The world is still spinning. Parents are still profiteering. 22 year old men are still living off their folk for 2 euro a day - its all good :pac:

I don't understand what you are saying at all. What I said was it's better to teach them about money rather than just take money and say nothing other than "its so you know about real life" (which is actually an extremely common occurrence). So you responded with the old wives saying doing is better than saying or something like that. I'm pretty sure if I was arsed I could find some articles to back my point up.

I find it highly unlikely that sitting down with children and trying to teach them would be less effective than the commonly used tactic of give me money to see what real life is like and refusing to offer further explanation.

dori_dormer

We were all given the electricity or gas bill to pay. Taught us to be responsible for the usage, and also to prepare for a potential larger bill. Wasn't like the broadband which would only be 40 a month or something.
Now if it was astronomical like 600 for gas in the winter, my mum would help out with it a bit.
Once we even had a part time job, you were in charge of your own clothes, toiletries, bus fares etc. you also had your chores to do every week. And each child over 15 had to cook dinner one night a week.

OldNotWIse

GarIT wrote: »

I don't understand what you are saying at all. What I said was it's better to teach them about money rather than just take money and say nothing other than "its so you know about real life" (which is actually an extremely common occurrence). So you responded with the old wives saying doing is better than saying or something like that. I'm pretty sure if I was arsed I could find some articles to back my point up.

I find it highly unlikely that sitting down with children and trying to teach them would be less effective than the commonly used tactic of give me money to see what real life is like and refusing to offer further explanation.

I'm saying, handing up shows them what its like to be responsible and give them a sense of the value of money.

You are saying it does not.

That means we both have different opinions, and are not in agreement with each other.

I have already made my peace with this. You, clearly, have not. I cant help you.

miamee

bob135 wrote: »

I have a stepson living with us at home. We recently, for the first time, suggested that he pay a contribution to the household now that he is working. We only asked for a small about of €60 per month. He was shocked that we should even ask.

How much do you think a young person with a job should be contributing to the household while they continue to live with their parents?

At the age of 22 you shouldn't be asking or suggesting to him; tell him how much you expect from him. Perhaps if you tell him the cost of monthly bills, rent/mortgage, etc. and let him compare that to what you are asking him to hand up it might open his eyes to reality a bit. If he works full-time I would certainly be asking for more than €60pm.

We were all told that once we had a job, we had to start contributing. I think I gave £30-£40 per week at the time (I was the oldest) but I think the rates were upped for the rest of them after me. When I got a new job/payrise I offered more and it was gratefully accepted.

GarIT

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm saying, handing up shows them what its like to be responsible and give them a sense of the value of money.

You are saying it does not.

That's not what I said, I said doing it alone shows children nothing if it is not also explained to them.

Call Me Jimmy

I would agree with what someone said earlier (besides the obvious that the 50-60 a month is let's just say reasonable). The relationship should change somewhat if he is expected to pay. Maybe this could be mentioned to him as an incentive (I know... the small amount should be incentive enough but he obviously hasn't learned this). If he is made aware that he will get more independence in line with the payment and that he will be treated more as a tenant it might just smooth this over a bit for everyone.

Another thing might be to give him some links to some rentals on daft or something to give him an idea of what he would be paying (rather than just saying what it would be) so that it becomes more real to him that he would otherwise be having to consider spending lots of money simply to share a house with strangers, on top of food bills etc.

Big Bag of Chips

GarIT wrote: »

I said doing it alone shows children nothing if it is not also explained to them.

How old do you think these "children" are? The OP, and most others are talking about having an adult "child" contribute to the household once they start earning.

If an adult needs to be sat down and have that explained to them, or if they feel they are being asked for "money for nothing" then something is very wrong... Any adult knows they need to contribute. Sure, some of them will dodge it for as long as they can, but saying that they are "children" who "need it explained to them" is going a bit far, I think.

GarIT

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

How old do you think these "children" are? The OP, and most others are talking about having an adult "child" contribute to the household once they start earning.

If an adult needs to be sat down and have that explained to them, or if they feel they are being asked for "money for nothing" then something is very wrong... Any adult knows they need to contribute. Sure, some of them will dodge it for as long as they can, but saying that they are "children" who "need it explained to them" is going a bit far, I think.

As young as 15 according to people here. I would have thought 18.

tinkerbell

€60 a month?! What a deal he's getting! OP, he's 22 - it should be €50 a week, not €60 a month. Tell him if he doesn't like it, well he knows where the door is. If he's working now, then he needs to be start acting like an adult.

Sadderday

GarIT wrote: »

I think you completely missed my point. You asked if my problem was only the reasoning, and I explained why the reasoning is my problem. I'm not saying there is no reason for giving money I meant why give money if you are specifically told there is not reason for doing so. Hence the reason why they are giving money is important. Having a child pay for themselves is completely reasonable.

However saying give me money monthly to see what real life is like is in no way education and you'd be mad if you thought it was. Real life is a lot more complicated than just having money taken off you, if you are going to use it as an educational tool you need to do much more than say because real life. Other parents have advocated taking much more than the child actually costs just to teach the child what 'real life' is like, the parents just pocketed the extra money while the child learnt about 'real life' all I'm saying is that is wrong. I keep having to re-explain my original point in different ways and everytime I do someone else takes it up wrong.

I'll clarify a bit for you......


I said I gave my parents money from me earlier in the thread... I said it thought me how to manage my money and I said that I didnt struggle to pay rent when I did move out because I had been adjusted to that.

I never said thats WHY they did that, that was my experience of it and how I felt it had benefitted me in more ways than my parents intended.

I also said my mother stashed some in a savings account for me and before I knew it I had enough money to buy my own car, that was her helping me manage my money and since I was able to buy a car I was pretty happy about it.

So no one is trying to jipp anyone

I just had to pay towards bills there, there was no big story attached.

Sadderday

GarIT wrote: »

That's not what I said, I said doing it alone shows children nothing if it is not also explained to them.

well obviously you explain why your taking money and what it will contribute to...... your hardly going to tell him to just empty his pockets

!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!!!

OldNotWIse

GarIT wrote: »

That's not what I said, I said doing it alone shows children nothing if it is not also explained to them.

Well in that case I dont know why you are directing your posts to me at all because I never advocated doing it alone.

In fact, I dont think anyone did, but TBH I doubt there are many who wouldnt make the blindingly obviosu connection between handing up and why - sorry but you'd have to be a complete f*cking imbecile not to know that, unless you're like...5, in which case there is the far more pressing issue of child labour

Zillah

My parents consider their home a safe harbour for their family and would never dream of taking a penny from their own children. They'd probably be insulted if we tried. None of us turned out spoiled brats, we all work and pay rent or mortgages in our own homes now. It's a delusion of mean minds that parents need to treat their own children like tenants to teach them a lesson.

The amount of pettiness in this thread is really disappointing. It's one thing to suggest that if money is tight a child living at home could help contribute, it's another thing entirely to indulge is this bellicose attitude of tossing them out or giving them a reality check.

They're your children for God's sake, the world is going to teach them enough bloody hard lessons on its own without people's own parents jumping at the opportunity to start the pettiness as soon as possible.

Sadderday

Zillah wrote: »

My parents consider their home a safe harbour for their family and would never dream of taking a penny from their own children. They'd probably be insulted if we tried. None of us turned out spoiled brats, we all work and pay rent or mortgages in our own homes now. It's a delusion of mean minds that parents need to treat their own children like tenants to teach them a lesson.

The amount of pettiness in this thread is really disappointing. It's one thing to suggest that if money is tight a child living at home could help contribute, it's another thing entirely to indulge is this bellicose attitude of tossing them out or giving them a reality check.

They're your children for God's sake, the world is going to teach them enough bloody hard lessons on its own without people's own parents jumping at the opportunity to start the pettiness as soon as possible.

......... your children yes, also they are adults at this stage... so just contributing towards their own costs in the family home.

the 'pettiness' is necessary is some cases... why should a couple that have worked all of their lives go without luxuries to pay for their 'adult child'

Thats all it is, I really dont think anyone mentioned scamming the young adults and taking all of their money to indulge while leaving the poor young adult with not a penny left

miamee

Zillah wrote: »

My parents consider their home a safe harbour for their family and would never dream of taking a penny from their own children. They'd probably be insulted if we tried. None of us turned out spoiled brats, we all work and pay rent or mortgages in our own homes now. It's a delusion of mean minds that parents need to treat their own children like tenants to teach them a lesson.

The amount of pettiness in this thread is really disappointing. It's one thing to suggest that if money is tight a child living at home could help contribute, it's another thing entirely to indulge is this bellicose attitude of tossing them out or giving them a reality check.

They're your children for God's sake, the world is going to teach them enough bloody hard lessons on its own without people's own parents jumping at the opportunity to start the pettiness as soon as possible.

At what stage should parents stop treating their offspring as children though? 18? 21? 30? 50? Just let them live with them free of charge forever?!

I think any parent has a duty to both themselves and to their adult child to make sure that an adult child with a full-time job pays their way. It is disrespectful in my opinion to your parent(s) to expect them to pick up your tab on their own (possibly single) full-time wage while the adult child fritters their wage away on whatever they feel like.
Expecting mammy and daddy to still feed and house you free of charge when you have finished your education and started working is incredibly immature and something that a parent should be educating their adult child about asap. Asking them to pay their own way is a mutually beneficial situation.

Sadderday

My good friend sat down with her mother and discussed the fact that she couldnt contribute when she broke up with her BF and moved back home.

As she is a trainee and has a car loan and a dog which requires feeding etc. The mother said ok.

My good friend goes out on saturday nights and I was with her last week when she spent €50 on make up in boots.

Her mother is single, working in a supermarket and is now down any extra money she was earning as it is paying for her daughters food, showers, electricity and gas usage etc.

My friend is 25. Why does this friend not feel guilty?

Because her mother is allowing this to happen and should have insisted on a small contribution.

How is it fair ?

It's not but if your mother is going to accommodate you like this when your 25 - your taking advantage of her.

Who's fault is it?

The mother. Now this friend is looking for a man to live off because she thinks someone will always bail her out.

Zillah

miamee wrote: »

Expecting mammy and daddy to still feed and house you free of charge when you have finished your education and started working is incredibly immature and something that a parent should be educating their adult child about asap. Asking them to pay their own way is a mutually beneficial situation.

So much of this is loaded with the assumption that the child in question is an entitled little shit and doesn't understand the basics of life and finance. Is it really so hard to imagine that a person can actually grow up as a mature, responsible person, who understands the value of money, without having been charged rent by their own parents the second it was feasible? I've never paid rent to my parents and I seem to be a hell of lot more sensible with my money than most people I know. There are better ways to teach a child to be responsible.

We're not talking about problem children here. If the topic was "My son is 26 and has never had a job and seems like he wants to live at home forever" then my response would be different. But that's not the topic, most people here are talking about charging their children rent as soon as they are 18 or when they get their first job, and making comments about how 'they know where the door is' or 'they'd be paying more than that if they got a place of their own' - of course they would, they'd have a complete stranger for a landlord who doesn't give a toss about them! Not the best comparison for a parent/child relationship.

As I said earlier, if money is tight for the parents and the contribution from their child would actually make a real difference to the household that's a different story, but I really don't think a lot of the people posting here are talking about that situation - they sound more like the "I had a hard time of life and my children shouldn't get it any easier" variety, which I think is petty and mean.

magicianz

21 at home still in college here. Any work I've done since I was 15/16 I've paid 20% back to the household for costs.

OldNotWIse

Zillah wrote: »

My parents consider their home a safe harbour for their family and would never dream of taking a penny from their own children. They'd probably be insulted if we tried. None of us turned out spoiled brats, we all work and pay rent or mortgages in our own homes now. It's a delusion of mean minds that parents need to treat their own children like tenants to teach them a lesson.

The amount of pettiness in this thread is really disappointing. It's one thing to suggest that if money is tight a child living at home could help contribute, it's another thing entirely to indulge is this bellicose attitude of tossing them out or giving them a reality check.

They're your children for God's sake, the world is going to teach them enough bloody hard lessons on its own without people's own parents jumping at the opportunity to start the pettiness as soon as possible.

My parents house is a safe harbour too, and if I told them I was moving home and couldnt afford to pay, they wouldn't turn me away. But I couldnt in good conscience live off them if I had the means to pay my way. My parents are on a tight enough budget as it is, why should I be able to just swan back in and hike up utility bills, eat their food, use their car or ask them for lifts etc without contributing something when I can afford to?

I wish my parents were well off enough to be "insulted" at the prospect oif their child being mature and wanting to pay their way.

Oh and I work and pay a mortgage too btw, think I turned out just fine, in spite of their "pettiness"...

OldNotWIse

Zillah wrote: »

So much of this is loaded with the assumption that the child in question is an entitled little shit and doesn't understand the basics of life and finance. Is it really so hard to imagine that a person can actually grow up as a mature, responsible person, who understands the value of money, without having been charged rent by their own parents the second it was feasible? I've never paid rent to my parents and I seem to be a hell of lot more sensible with my money than most people I know. There are better ways to teach a child to be responsible.

We're not talking about problem children here. If the topic was "My son is 26 and has never had a job and seems like he wants to live at home forever" then my response would be different. But that's not the topic, most people here are talking about charging their children rent as soon as they are 18 or when they get their first job, and making comments about how 'they know where the door is' or 'they'd be paying more than that if they got a place of their own' - of course they would, they'd have a complete stranger for a landlord who doesn't give a toss about them! Not the best comparison for a parent/child relationship.

As I said earlier, if money is tight for the parents and the contribution from their child would actually make a real difference to the household that's a different story, but I really don't think a lot of the people posting here are talking about that situation - they sound more like the "I had a hard time of life and my children shouldn't get it any easier" variety, which I think is petty and mean.

This I do agree with.I have a friend whose dad is one of the old school retired bank managers and therefore on a six figure pension, demanded that he buy his own depression medication once he got the dole.:( (while thinking nothing of giving his little princess a credit card to run up while she swanned around training to be a "fashon designer"...