dd [21] objects to £50 pw rent

[mrsfuzzy]

title says it all, low-ish income house hold. dh reduced hours [26 per wk], i have medical problems so limited for work, ds on j.s.a, two in college, one in school. ddhi college full time, but works 14 -16 hours at weekends, takes home about £600 pm. self inflicted debt, wastes money on stupid things i.e £20 bet that her mate would throw up after chugging a milk shake, dd lost 'but it was a laugh' .
now she has told dm that she is 'paying £50 a week to share a box room with her dsis [3 bed house] and it's not fair because she's not at home much ! dm has just me this on the land line dd uses [dropped her phone - broken].
aibu, considering we cannot do with any reduction in income.

In my area you will not get a room for less than £320 per month and most double rooms start at £450-500. There just isn't anything cheaper. Possibly there are cheaper parts of the country but op may not live in a cheap area.

I would never have charged any of my children while they were studying FE. They didn't cost any more than they did while at school. All of my children worked part time and no way would I have taken their earnings to subsidise an unemployed sibling and two others. It's not the daughters place to do that, that's the parents responsibility. The unemployed sibling should be paying more. The OP is taking the piss out of her daughter. She has one unemployed child who pays much less but is at home all day using electricity/gas/ Internet etc. She also has another 2 in full time education who "game". I feel sorry for her daughter tbh. She's the only bloody person in full time study and working weekends while the rest of the family work part time/sit on their arses while at home.

Can people not read, the op charges £20 for the JSA child.

Can people not read, the op charges £20 for the JSA child.

I'm sure people can read perfectly well. The JSA child should be paying the same if not more as they appear to be at home all day "gaming" .

My dc1 paid rent when she got to 18 and therefore that is the rule for all dc when they get to 18 as they are then adult and need to contribute to the household with a % of their income.

If they don't like it or want to moan about it they are welcome but it will not make any difference, they still have to contribute to their own upkeep and this includes all the utilities they use.

Yes the " child" claiming JSA should pay more. However numerous posters keep saying they are paying nothing.

I paid my mum rent from the moment I started earning at 16. If she's 21 and living for free for 5 years she's been bloody lucky!!

Ivykaty why a % of their income rather than what it actually costs for them to be there? Ive never under stood the percentage thing. It could have 3 or 4 adult DC paying very different amounts for exactly the same thing.

As that's what they wanted so it was fair for them to pay the same.

But it isnt the same if theyre earning different amounts

Life though is like that isn't it, we all pay different amounts for council services to get the same thing, we all pay different amounts to get the same medical care from the NHS. In fact with some people they pay less but use services more than others - that's the way society works

I would suggest she pays a percentage of her income (and so should other dcs) so it's fairer across the whole family

Yeah but you arent comparing like things. 3 people renting 3 rooms in a shared house wouldnt pay different rates based on income, nor would they pay different prices for the same food in a supermarket. Same for electric bill/water bill/internet bill. None of those are based on income which is what you are charging for when you charge your DC keep. If youre trying to give them a taste of adult life at least be consistent with how things are charged.

?? The percentage thing is just one way of doing it. There are other ways. So OP has chosen the 1/3 as a guide, as many other posters here have said they do/did.

It isn't unusual, a crime, a punishment, it is just one way of being equitable. There are others, but it would be a certain bet that as any would disagree with them as the 1/3 option. Mainly because life simply isn't equitable!

If dh can work more but just isn't then I feel it is unfair to ask dd for that much money when she has to share a box room with a younger sibling. In this scenario the fairest option would be for him to try to work more hours. It doesn't sit right to charge someone who is studying and working and making a good life for herself £50 a week for a shared box room when dh working would be an answer to a lot of the financial struggles.

If he genuinely can't work as he is OP's carer or he has a medical reason why he can't work full time then I don't think it is as bad.

I personally wouldn't ask my child for £50 a week rent if they were in full time education and only working part time unless that was genuinely the only way I could afford to have them living here.

It's really hard to say if YABU without more information. However, it is definitely not fair to only charge the one on JSA £20 a week. Like others said, JSA is to cover the basics, I see no reason why he should pay less because he 'earns' less, dd probably doesn't think it is fair that she is working hard and has to pay a higher percentage of rent from her money, and she would be right.

I don't think it costs £50 to keep a 21 year old who is out most of the day either and it does seem like she is being used to help combat your financial difficulties which will be a problem if she does move out, so this is no real long term solution for you.

Its just not one i understand. As i have explained. Different prices for the same thing based on income, in a way they arent charged for anywhere else. Odd.

Rudeelf it has been explained how and why the percentage is paid, also it has been explained how this is used consistently in other areas.

Not comparable areas.

You'd be mightily pissed off if the price you paid for your rent or mortgage shot up because your salary increased. Or if your wine at dinner was twice the price of the couple at the next table's. You'd feel like you were being penalised for earning more. It would decentivise you surely.

Erm... the OPs context is one of coping, managing to pay the bills not paying for leisure activities. Real life is often unfair, it is basically, tough shit for some. Ranting on about being fair, being hard done by etc is a tad insulting when a family needs all members to chip in.

And everyone is penalised for earning more... just look at your pay slip!

Well actually i wasnt talking about Op i was talking about ivykaty as we were discussing her decision to charge a percentage rather than the actual figure it costs to keep her DC.

However if we are back to the OP then again, the daughter isnt responsible for subbing her parents and siblings. The OP might need X amount to cover her bills but that isnt her DD's bill to pay. Her bills are the ones she costs the OP. What she costs the OP doesnt increase because she earns more. Would you/OP still be advocating a third if the DD reduced her hours at work and earned less? Or would it suddenly be necessary for the third to change to a half because it wasnt actually covering what the DD was costing the OP?

Oh! Well, as you are now back in Cloud Cuckoo Land, I bid you goodnight!

I dont understand why you are saying that. Is it very "out there" to suggest people pay what things cost?

Have you just realised i have a point and you cant counter it?

No, but it is odd to ignore the obvious. OP and her family are getting by as best they can. It's not as if DD is being forced to work and hand over all her cash. OP is levying what they need.

Your pov seems to ignore all of that real stuff in preference for some egalitarian perfection.