AIBU or is DH about charging your children "digs"

[Whowouldfardelsbear]

DH tells me that when he was thirteen and still in school his parents took some of his wages from his part time job (helping out on a milk round. This was the early 80s.) They actually took over half of it. DH says they didn't need the money at the time but it was their expectation that as a wage earner he contributed to household expenses.

I was aghast at this. My parents never took any of my earnings from my Saturday and evening work I did whilst I was still at school. This was my money to spend or save as I wanted.

I said that I would not expect our DC to pay keep if they do
any part time work while at school. He doesn't see what's wrong with it.

So who IBU here. Our DC are only 4 and 2 do the reality of this discussion is some way off for us yet.

I used to have to pay digs, we were breadline poor though. I imagine if you totted up everything I'd of cost much more than I contributed. If you're earning then you should kick in.

I paid my mother money from my Saturday/evening job when I was 16. We had to give her at least 20 -30 quid a week. I used to babysit as well and was allowed to keep that to myself.

DH never gave money from his sat job to his parents though. If we do take any money off DC, it will be for savings in case they throw money away on other random things.

I was allowed to keep my 1st wage to myself, after that a third of it had to go for my keep.

I kept anything I earned while still at school, but my parents stopped buying my 'unnecessary' clothes (not uniform or basic wardrobe essentials) and didn't pay for my social life.
I would worry that if a child sees their money bring taken from them that early, they won't learn the proud feeling of earning money and treating yourself, the foundation of a strong work ethic. They'll resent working to give money to parents, which will develop into a resentment of paying tax.

Your DH is being v v unreasonable. If your DC think they are going to have to hand over a percentage of the small amount of cash they will earn they just won't bother getting a job. I wouldn't blame them either.

Much better when they are under 18 to just stop paying for something extra and letting the child have both the autonomy and the choice to pay themselves.
Still teaching them the value of things and whether they want something badly enough to save up.

Under 16s would be likely to be only earning minimum wage so there wouldn't be much left surely?

I'm pretty sure my first jobs as a teenager actually cost my parents money as they paid for the petrol in the car to get there (I grew up in a country where you can get your driver's license from age 15). I suspect they thought the lessons and responsibility from having a job was more important than money. If they'd started taking money from my extremely small wage I may have lost incentive to work.

Older than 16 then maybe they could save for leaving home and higher education.

Although if money is really right at home it does make sense for everyone to contribute.

I think when in education the money is theirs, but I stopped giving them pocket money, still paid for uniform and essential clothes like coats ect, after all I still get family allowance for them when in education, the rest they bought/ buy. My DS has dropped out of college and is on JSA I take almost half it off him, he eats all day, uses electric ect, if he thinks he can live somewhere for £25 a week good luck to him

My pocket money stopped at 13 when I got a job working Saturdays and 3 days a week in the school holidays.

At 16 I started work full time and my parents took a quarter of my wages for board. I saved another quarter for driving lessons and the other quarter was for bus fares to work, leaving me a quarter to spend as I wished.

My 13 yo seems a long way off being mature enough for work, but if by some miracle he did get a part time job I wouldn't take any of it off him, but I would stop his allowance.

I thought 'digs' meant 'rented room or flat', I've never heard of this term. I think charging over 18s some rent is fine but that's a different thing entirely.

What your DH describes seems to relate to a situation where the family is struggling and there is an expectation that every member will work as soon as they can in order to pull their weight (so more than likely go into FT work rather than further or higher education).

If you are not struggling, have not brought your children up with this expectation of needing to contribute to family finances, can afford to meet their needs and are in fact happy to support them through their post-16 education, it makes no sense. It is a disincentive for them to work, as the alternative is they don't bother and everything is paid for anyway.

The incentive to work is ability to pay for extra luxuries and a degree of financial independence. That's true on all or half their earnings, except that they may well feel it's not worth the effort for half.

Morally, if you take some of their money without needing it, you free up some of your household budget, so you can spend more on luxuries for you. What's the justification for that? This concept only works in households where there are no or few luxuries.

I took on a newspaper round at 13, then babysiting and waitressing until 18. I wouldn't have done any of those jobs for half the wage as, aside from evening babysitting, they were hard work. I valued the financial independence and, my pocket money did stop, not as a calculated idea of 'contribution', just because 50p a week seemed irrelevant compared to £4.50 and I think I was happy with that, as I felt more grown up. I did then get a clothing allowance at 16.

My parents never took anything off me while I was in full time education. I never got any pocket money off them so my saturday job was to pay for anything that i wanted to buy for myself.

We charged our children a small amount for their keep, but only once they had left full time education and were earning their own money. One was almost 17 at that stage and the other was 18 and I wouldn't have dreamed of asking for anything before that.

I charged them £100 a month and that was the same amount that my parents had charged me 25 years before, so we probably undercharged if anything. The difference being that we didn't "need" the money and my parents did.

Therefore:

Husband is BU.
YANBU.

I worked (a paper round) from 14 and then Saturday / evening jobs in a supermarket whilst I did my A levels. All of that money was mine to keep, but that was for everything I wanted (clothes, going out, driving lessons etc). It was always expected that we would work.

When we went to university, we also had to get part time jobs to support ourselves and when we came home in the holidays, we had to pay board (£25 a week I think ? this was towards bills / food etc) out of the holiday jobs we got.

I was almost proud to pay my way when I got my first full time job, I paid £20 per week which rose to £25 by the time I left home.

Even now nearly 30 years later, that is a lot of money compared to what young people pay now, many do not pay anything.

Sounds utterly miserly to take a chunk of earnings off someone who's still in secondary school.

My DS1 is 17 and is at college. He has a small part time job which is slowly drying up. I stopped giving him pocket money and he buys any luxuries but I still pay for his phone and buy his deodorant/shower gel etc.

As the work is drying up I have started to give him pocket money again.

I would never take any money of my DC's unless they were in full time work.

Full time job - pay keep
Part time job while in education - dont pay keep
Part time job not in education - pay keep

Obviously proportionate to earnings.

When my SD is working she will pay keep, chances are, if I can afford it, I will put some of it in an account for her future, without her knowing.

I think your husband is unreasonable but having said that my parents never asked for a contribution when we still lived at home and were working and I wouldn't take anything off mine . My son is 20 ,living at home whilst doing uni and has a good part time job ,all he contributes to is the car ,which he shares with his dad ( who rarely drives it) .

I didn'[t charge mine any rent whilst at school. Or uni. When DS lived at home last year whilst commuting to London to work I charged him rent - but saved it up for him and gave it back as a deposit when he moved out into a shared house at the beginning of th year.

It's unreasonable.

I started working at 13 with a paper round, and had to pay rent from that; when I started on a YTS old gimmer I earned £25 per week but had to give half for rent etc.

I think of myself as quite strict about stuff like this but I agree with you OP. I think paying your way once you are out of school/college is a very good thing if you are still staying at home but before that is a bit mean. I do get the wages replacing pocket money thing though if they have a Saturday job or whatever though.

I'd never take it off a child that young!

We haven't even started doing pocket money yet (DCs 5 and 3!) but I don't think I'd stop it the second they got a weekend job, as it seems a bit of a... disincentive? (is that a word?!) ie why work for your money instead of getting it for nothing, as opposed to working for more money. I don't know, perhaps I'd phase it out slowly or stop increasing it with age. Or maybe we will make it clear years in advance "pocket money stops when you turn 18" or whatever, so that they have more incentive to have a job in place by then! It all seems so far away...

But I think I'd expect 'digs' once DCs were out of FT ed and could (should!) therefore get more than a weekend job. Although I'm not sure how that would work if they decided to go to a nearby uni and live at home. We almost certainly won't be in a position to support them through uni anyway.

BTW I never got pocket money, and was never asked for money by my parents. I didn't earn much as my weekend jobs were in tuition centres so very few hours right through college. However my now-DH moved in when I was 16, he was working and contributed financially until we moved out just after I turned 20, and I think they saw that as contributing on behalf of both of us.

I wouldn't take any money while they're still at school, that's a bit harsh for me!
However if they left school and got a job I would expect a small percentage of it to go back in to the household. I do think its important to learn that money earnt needs to be spent on more than alcohol and other luxuries.