Giving money to adult children?

I can understand wealthy parents wanting to help their children out. Most parents would do anything for their kids.

But I’m surprised how many already-privileged young people are happy to accept financial help from their families, e.g. paying rent at uni, mortgage deposits etc.

First, do they not take pride in doing it for themselves? Surely, being a responsible adult means standing on your own feet: being financially responsible, making trade-offs, using initiative etc. Sure, if you’re desperate, you may have to ask your family for help. But to regularly rely on it is like remaining a child.

Second, anyone who cares about tackling inequality must realise that if rich kids are subsidised by their parents, rather than demand a fairer system for all, it creates a barrier for people who have no family wealth to rely on. Thus exacerbating inequality.

University is a good example. We’re pretty much back to the bad old days where only the rich can afford university. In the 80s, students without family wealth were entitled to a full grant and (at least partial) housing benefit. I was grateful for that financial support, which enabled me to be the first in my family to access higher education. In turn, I’d be willing to pay more tax to help kids today have the same opportunity.

It’s hard for me to get into the headspace of having this much money. But of course you will keep your kids in the style they are accustomed to.

i grew up we had a fairly middling lifestyle but my parent’s business became more successful in their later life. So as an adult they often offer to pay for a holiday or a new kitchen. I don’t expect it, I appreciate it. Very much so as I didn’t grow up in luxury at all. But ultimately I will also help my kids out because I’d hate for me to be heading off on holiday and for them to be struggling.

I think the general principle of not undermining your children by making their lives too easy applies to all financial levels.

Lots of people on here say they would never ask their children to leave home and are happy for them to live into their twenties, even thirties at home. I have seen the consequences if you make it very very easy for children to live at home and I don't like it- I think if all they have to do is earn pocket-money or 'extras' and their basic living is taken care of, especially in a house that is much nicer than the one they could have at that stage in life, then it takes away a lot of their motivation to go out and seek work, a career. We see this a lot on mumsnet with mid-twenties, often men but not always, kids stuck at home and just not really going anywhere.

I will always share my extra money with my kids, my parents do with me, so that's things like I'd fund them clothes they like, a holiday, house deposit (but that might be a loan depending how much money I have at that time), dinners out, things off Amazon.

I wouldn't want to be paying for them to live after uni on an everyday basis, unless they were firmly fixed in a good job and just needed somewhere to stay before making their own way.

I think the idea of multi-generational households is a good one where the children grow up to be successful adults themselves and then house older family- I think if children never really leave and just drift on into twenties or thirties needing very little, this can impact motivation. Same for the Nicoles of this world.

I am deliberately not letting my children convert my attic to live in or one person I know built mini-flats for his children in the grounds of where he lives, now most of them live there, you need to establish motivation to live your own life.

Money that helps the great life they are already seeking, or stops them being in an awful situation (e.g. private healthcare), yes, money to live on so they don't have to seek a purpose or career or have a reason to get up and go out, no.

If you are used to the lifestyle of a daughter of a billionaire, 1 million a month probably isn’t much, so she will trying to earn as well

None of us is privy to any conditions between Nicola and her parents.
Maybe her parents know her personal ambitions, dreams and her work ethic better than we do.
Maybe her parents want her to enjoy the benefits that money bring when she's young.
Maybe they don't want to wait until they're dead and they can't be around to see her enjoy it?
They have pots of money, so who knows what the arrangement is?

I didn’t say otherwise.

This is the way of most rich families. They can and do keep that money rolling. However, most of us cannot retire if we continue to help our children. It is a sad reality for the middle/lower classes.

It’s wrong to assume she is not motivated by other meaningful purposes.

Money really isn't everything.

Of course it would because that's entirely different set of needs but again my concern would be making sure they are ok when I die because im morbid apparently.

And why not? You sound like a lovely, caring family xx

I really want to be in a position that we can help our children when they’re adults.
They’ll get what we can afford and if we were billionaires it would absolutely be in the millions.

There is a huge difference between helping your kids with support for large bills, getting on the housing ladder, treating them to a meal out or trip away sometime and not expecting them to be fully functional adults who can handle life because the parents are paying for everything.

I went to the IOW and to Osbourne house last year. I went to see the Swiss cottage and the little allotment gardens next to it. We were told that the royal children grew vegetables in them and sold them to Prince Albert to earn pocket money. He apparently paid full market rate. Nicest thing I’ve ever heard about the royals. Maybe if that type of thing was modelled by todays celebs, elite rich and royals, we would have a lower quotient of nepo-entitled.

I don’t see the point in having lots of money and then watching your children struggle

i like to help my son out
So if that’s by paying a few grand on the unexpected bills that crop up I am happy to do this

paying for a holiday as I like to spend time with him and his partner

chucking them some cash for extras treats

if I can afford to do this then why not

I’ve seen lots of thread on here where people have said there parents are wealthy loaded but won’t help their own kids out even with something like buying a washing machine or paying for a car repair bill

the only thing I wouldn’t do is have anything to do with child care. I’ve seen to many of my friends sucked into basically raising their grandkids and then are the bad guys when they can’t do it for whatever reason

My parents are immigrants and self made. They are now mortgage free and Dad earns about £80k a year. I probably end up getting 5k a year, as do my siblings, in the form of gifts, cash on birthday, house maintence, random food deliveries etc. I.e this week I had loads of meat be randomly delivered alongside some new towels and a lego set for my child

Am I the only person on MN who is starting to think that the 'won't you consider the [fill in the blanks] deprived' category is beginning to feel sanctimonious?

Helping your children out occasionally is very different to giving them a monthly allowance. That’s what Brooklyn Beckham and his wife have.

For real if I could I’d totally fund them. There is more to life than working for a living! She seems to be a functionally adult and is acting and er modelling, is it?

they could be perpetual students, volunteer, be terrible artists, grow vegetables badly, take awful photos and publish a book. The world would be their oyster. As long as they were doing something and were fulfilled then why not?

My mum always felt bad she couldn't afford to help me get a house, but I agree being forced to work hard is good for you. As I don't do the lottery, it's very unlikely I could ever give my kids this much, but even if I suddenly became rich, I wouldn't. Experts say that spoilt kids given too much (money or other things, for example kids getting away with everything/always being treated as a prince or princess) are actually far more likely to abandon their parents or have a bad relationship with them.

So if you insisted you wanted to buy them a fairly big ticket item or give them money you’d be ashamed if they accepted?

I will definitely help my children if I am ever in a position to do so. I’m not at present but would love to.

God exactly - and I say that as someone who actually enjoys their job 🤣

What if your children were disabled or couldn’t work full-time for some reason - would your stance be different then?

My purpose has never been remotely related to my job. It's annoying thing I have to do so I can get paid enough to pursue my actual passions. I'd have a much more purposeful life if I didn't have to waste 8 hours a day earning money. And it's a perfectly nice job, well paid, not stressful and my colleagues are nice. But it's just my job. I always think it's a bit sad when someone's most important part of their life is their job.

That's very true. There are four ways of getting 'value for money'. Most people equate the concept with getting a 'good deal' (something cheaper than normal), but the value of money is established by the person spending it.

If I buy anything for myself, I am, by definition, getting 'value for money'. It's my money and I've bought something for myself that I wanted at a price I consider to be acceptable.

If I buy something for somebody else, I'm spending an amount that I'm comfortable with, but the gift recipient might not want that item, so I get value for money, but they might not.

If I told somebody to buy something for themselves and to send me the bill, they would get what they want, but I might not be happy about the price. They would get value for money, but I might not.

Finally, I could tell them to buy something for somebody else and to send me the bill. In that scenario neither I nor the gift recipient would get value for money. They might have bought something different, given the choice, and I might not be happy about the price.

Government spending is always the final scenario and by far the worst way to get value for money. Spending should always be kept as close to the person paying the bills as possible.

Why would you want your child to have to go out and work if you could comfortably afford for them not to? She can focus on enjoying her life and possibly in the future raising her babies without needing to worry about "achieving".