One at Uni, one at work…

[BelleClapper]

How do you square this without causing resentment?

Dd (17) is working full time on an apprenticeship course. We are charging her rent/keep/petrol equivalent to 25% of her take home.

DS (18) up until now was planning to leave college and get a job. He announced yesterday that he is now accepting the three University offers he got a while back. As an aside he’s just split up with his GF of two years who was absolutely definitely in no way the reason he wasn’t going…

So we will be in a position of taking money from DD and sending money to DS. Which has totally changed the dynamic. I’m really conscious of causing resentment from DD who already suffers a bit with middle child syndrome and jealousy.

If you’ve been in this situation what did you do? I want DD to contribute for lots of reasons, none of which go away just because DS now needs three more years of support.

@BelleClapper I agree that DD should continue to pay you to live at home. But it's not fair you then give DS money.

Is he not eligible for a student loan?

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Why are you funding ds going away to uni? He can go to a local one and remain at home for free, or fund the shortfall in his accommodation himself.

Not everyone lives near a university!

Some posters are being absolutely insane. What you’re proposing is fine. You can’t have the exact same rule for each child, because their circumstances are totally dissimilar.

If your daughter wasn’t living at home, she would be paying rent, utilities, petrol, food and social spending out of her wage. That would cost her many times more than the £200 she gives you in return for those things. You’re therefore subsidising her to the tune of hundreds of pounds a month. Just because you aren’t physically handing her the cash doesn’t mean you aren’t giving her a great deal of financial support.

Your son also needs financial support - it just so happens that instead of providing him with services (like a home, food, lifts etc) you’re providing him with the financial means for him to purchase those things in the location of his university.

The situations really aren’t that different - both children are receiving from you significant support which meets their individual needs. There’s no point in you giving cash to your daughter when what she needs is services, and no point giving services to your son when what he needs is cash. But in both instances you are giving them the support they need, tailored to their circumstances.

This thread has turned into a pile on from posters looking for an excuse to stick in the boot without actually thinking in any way sensibly or clearly about the situation.

Also ‘tough shit kid, I had to etc’ is grossly unfair.

At her age I was living rough, my relationship with my parents completely broken.

I would have given anything to be living at home like my siblings, earning money and paying keep. I have worked fucking hard to give my kids a privileged and safe life. I’m just doing my best.

@PastaLaVistaBBY

Some posters are being absolutely insane. What you’re proposing is fine. You can’t have the exact same rule for each child, because their circumstances are totally dissimilar.

If your daughter wasn’t living at home, she would be paying rent, utilities, petrol, food and social spending out of her wage. That would cost her many times more than the £200 she gives you in return for those things. You’re therefore subsidising her to the tune of hundreds of pounds a month. Just because you aren’t physically handing her the cash doesn’t mean you aren’t giving her a great deal of financial support.

Your son also needs financial support - it just so happens that instead of providing him with services (like a home, food, lifts etc) you’re providing him with the financial means for him to purchase those things in the location of his university.

The situations really aren’t that different - both children are receiving from you significant support which meets their individual needs. There’s no point in you giving cash to your daughter when what she needs is services, and no point giving services to your son when what he needs is cash. But in both instances you are giving them the support they need, tailored to their circumstances.

This thread has turned into a pile on from posters looking for an excuse to stick in the boot without actually thinking in any way sensibly or clearly about the situation.

Presumably DS will be back in the holidays? Does he pay keep then?

Presumably DS will be back in the holidays? Does he pay keep then?

Sure, if he’s living at home and enjoying the same benefits (accommodation, utilities, food, lifts etc) as OP’s daughter.

@SnarkyBag

An apprenticeship wage at that age is very very low and I’d consider her still in a form of education. I think funding one at uni whilst taking money off a low wage apprentice is pretty shit frankly.

This

I haven't read the recent responses, just the OP's responses.
Nothing wrong with kids learning the value of money. Nothing wrong with kids learning that fair doesn't always mean equal.
Well done to you OP for bringing up kids who won't end up with a sense of entitlement.

[quote ChubbyMsSunshine]@BelleClapper I agree that DD should continue to pay you to live at home. But it's not fair you then give DS money.

Is he not eligible for a student loan? [/quote]
I honestly don't know why you'd think 'I know absolutely nothing about the university finance system but you know what, I'll ignorantly weigh in anyway'

[quote ChubbyMsSunshine]@BelleClapper I agree that DD should continue to pay you to live at home. But it's not fair you then give DS money.

Is he not eligible for a student loan? [/quote]
This has been explained many, many times.

His student loan is dependent on the OP's income. If she earns less than £25k he can get a loan of £9,488 so she wouldn't have to give him anything. If OP earns more than £60k he will only get £4,700. The government expect the OP to make up the difference.

@BelleClapper

And the reason I’ve ‘harked on’ about her earnings is because people keep saying ooh she’s only on a reduced apprenticeship wage. She isn’t.

An apprenticeship is education.

One of my DC did one and we supported them as though they were at uni(very low wage) and they didn't pay us until qualified

This thread has turned into a pile on from posters looking for an excuse to stick in the boot without actually thinking in any way sensibly or clearly about the situation
There's loads of posters giving advice. It's not sticking the boot in to point out that taking money from one whilst propping up the other isn't fair in many people's opinion.

The OP could easily let her daughter live at home for free (especially given her daughter is a CHILD and considered a minor by law), and financially support her son. That way both are being supported for rent and some living costs.

Unfortunately some of us take a dim view of charging a child go live at home because your bills are £3000, and then listing off all the home comforts that the adult wants and would be paying for anyway as a way to justify taking money froma child.

There is a sliding scale in between those figures.

Unfortunately some of us take a dim view of charging a child go live at home because your bills are £3000, and then listing off all the home comforts that the adult wants and would be paying for anyway as a way to justify taking money froma child.

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I actually posted. Someone asked what my bills were compared to what she was paying. And I listed the home comforts to illustrate that she will be having a much cosier lifestyle than her student brother.

I don’t know why I’m still reading. It’s like picking a scab.

DS will get the minimum maintenance, as I have said already, repeatedly.

Assuming my ds does take a year out and doesn;t find a job straight away then he will be living off £79 per week.

I will charge him £50 keep regardless of what he earns. Because that's what happens in our family when you leave education. My dd will be studying in London and I'll be giving her far more money. When she leaves education it willbe the same situation. When ds goes to uni (if he does) I will support him then.

My dh's parents treated both of their kids equally according to some on here in that they gave them both nothing. Difference being dh's sister left school at 16 and got a job in retail. She lived at home rent free for 10 years. Had no outgoings except her car and socialising.

Dh on the other hand did A levels and went to uni. His grant (was grants back then) was based on his parents income so he didn't get very much. Nowhere near enough to live on. His course was very hours intensive including weekends so working part time wasn't an option. The only way he managed was to move in with me.

Fair treatment for both kids yes?

I mean surely it's simply a case of she is still at home and he isn't??

If he changed his plans then he'd stay home and would pay rent?

@Bourbonic

I mean surely it's simply a case of she is still at home and he isn't??

If he changed his plans then he'd stay home and would pay rent?

YES YES YES.

The OP has said, several times that if he changed his plans and stayed at home/got a job he too would be paying towards his keep.

Yes!

Belle flapper, your plans are fine! I’ll have similar situation in one child will go to uni and one child won’t ( most likely) and I’ll probably take abit of board off the working child but probably save it for them but maybe not, depends really. It’s a good financial education imo. Life isn’t free. They also won’t be incurring the debt the uni child will.

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I actually posted. Someone asked what my bills were compared to what she was paying. And I listed the home comforts to illustrate that she will be having a much cosier lifestyle than her student brother
Exactly, you listed things that you're already doing, that you would be doing whether or not she lived there, in order to justify taking money from a 17 year old child.

He chose to go to university. Presumably you and he looked at finances and he made that choice.

I can't imagine saying to my DC one you has to pay me because you get all the benefit of stuff I buy anyway and home comforts that I would have anyway before doubling down that the child at home has a cushtie life and a cosier life compared to the sibling that I'm funding.

You said up thread that you were conscious of DD feeling like the middle sibling with issues, but then your actions are likely to reinforce that.

Will you be making your son pay when he comes home in university holidays? Or will he be told he can live at home for free as long as he does the dishes occasionally?

The daughter is earning 12k a year, whilst living at home subsidised by her parents. The fact that the OP is charging board doesn't change that, unless people think that you can get a house, full utilities, a phone, tax etc paid for £250 a month. Yes, you can nitpick about the amount but 1k a month disposable income for a 17 year old is high, so why shouldn't she contribute towards the household?

The son will be getting (say) 5k a year from loans, whilst living away, subisidised by his parents. The costs involved are different, he's not living at home and will leave with debt. Giving him a bit of money to support himself is probably the only way he could actually afford to go.

The key thing is to support both kid's decisions independently in the most appropriate way. They've made different choices and the OP is helping them to achieve them. Seems fair to me.

@UrAWizHarry

The daughter is earning 12k a year, whilst living at home subsidised by her parents. The fact that the OP is charging board doesn't change that, unless people think that you can get a house, full utilities, a phone, tax etc paid for £250 a month. Yes, you can nitpick about the amount but 1k a month disposable income for a 17 year old is high, so why shouldn't she contribute towards the household?

The son will be getting (say) 5k a year from loans, whilst living away, subisidised by his parents. The costs involved are different, he's not living at home and will leave with debt. Giving him a bit of money to support himself is probably the only way he could actually afford to go.

The key thing is to support both kid's decisions independently in the most appropriate way. They've made different choices and the OP is helping them to achieve them. Seems fair to me.

Finally some sense.

I think you stand by what you've agreed in your original post. My main reason being she is now a working member of the family and bills need paying, your son will be in debt when he leaves uni, if your son gets a job and still lives at home he to will be paying the same percentage of his salary.

I don't agree with taking money and keeping it for them. They need to learn to make candid decisions on what to spend money on and when to save money. Should you have money lying around when they need driving lessons or first month deposit then you help them out.

My main reason being she is now a working member of the family and bills need paying

she's a child, and all of those bills would still need paying whether she was in school or anything else.
17 year olds don't pay their parents bills, unless said parent can't manage without or they're selfish gits.