Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 22 23 24 ··· 37 38

Original poster

One at Uni, one at work…

937 replies

BelleClapper · 20/05/2021 12:23

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.

OP posts:

Comefromaway · 21/05/2021 10:02

17 year olds who are working pay keep. Their parents no longer get child benefit for them and it's only right they should contribute towrds their costs at this stage.

I remember I was 16 when I first paid Keep. I had finished my GCSE's and got a part time job in the holidays before starting A levels. I earnt £50 per week (the same amount that a YTS would have been paid back then) & I paid £25 Keep. The rest I saved. My mum did argue for this as she'd come from a family where you paid Keep and chose what you spent the rest on whereas my Dad came from a family where you had to hand over all of your wages every week and his mum doled out pin money. My mum didn't agree with that.

My brother left school totally at 16. He's 5 years younger than me so figures would have been different back then but he started an apprentiship (I think YTS had been phased out by then) and paid Keep. He lived at home for the next 5 years and saved for a deposit. Over the years my parents have helped both of us out with things at different times and neither of us feel hard done to.

Newkitchen123 · 21/05/2021 10:05

I went to uni. My brother didn't. I've no idea how my parents worked out the finances. It never occurred to me that it was any of my business whether they took money from my brother or supported him.

Lubiluxe · 21/05/2021 10:05

Omg I can't believe people actually charge their CHILD rent. Wow. Shocked me. To each their own though of course.

PaperbackRider · 21/05/2021 10:06

17 year olds who are working pay keep. Their parents no longer get child benefit for them and it's only right they should contribute towrds their costs at this stage

Maybe on your planet. Most of us don't charge our children to live in the family home when they are still actually children.

SwimBaby · 21/05/2021 10:09

When I was sixteen I worked in a bank and paid my parents £40 per month (35 years ago). I then decided office work wasn’t for me and left after a year and went to college and did A levels. I then stopped paying the £40. I think if your DC is working full time they should pay something. I think the fact that the DD is doing an apprenticeship has slightly confused things. I already replied earlier that I thought the amount was a bit high but then I ready about the OP driving her to week so £250 for keep and transport sounds about right. I think the fact that the DS is going to uni is separate. I have 3 DC and have always believed in treating them fairly but not necessarily identically.

UrAWizHarry · 21/05/2021 10:10

@Lubiluxe

Omg I can't believe people actually charge their CHILD rent. Wow. Shocked me. To each their own though of course.

OMG it's not a 5 year old we are talking about, it's a 17 year old who has way more disposable income than most people at her age.

PastaLaVistaBBY · 21/05/2021 10:12

@PaperbackRider

17 year olds who are working pay keep. Their parents no longer get child benefit for them and it's only right they should contribute towrds their costs at this stage

Maybe on your planet. Most of us don't charge our children to live in the family home when they are still actually children.

This is your decision and it’s absolutely fine for you to take it, but not with that tone which suggests only you are morally in the clear and anyone who does things differently is a bastard.

It’s perfectly acceptable to let your working children live at home for free.

It’s also perfectly acceptable to charge them a nominal amount to help them learn the value of managing money and paying bills.

By all means, choose the former option for yourself and your kids. But just as you would understandably disagree if someone implied you were a bad parent for raising entitled children who don’t know how to manage money, it’s not fair for you to imply that OP is a bad parent for guiding her daughter in the art of financial management.

PaperbackRider · 21/05/2021 10:15

it’s not fair for you to imply that OP is a bad parent for guiding her daughter in the art of financial management

I don't care if you think thats unfair. There are many ways to teach financial management without charging a child to live in the family home. It's simply wrong.

Egghead81 · 21/05/2021 10:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PaperbackRider · 21/05/2021 10:27

Ove 18, case by case. You'll never convince me or many others that its ok to charge your children to live at home when they are still children, unless you have no choice at all.

Egghead81 · 21/05/2021 10:41

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Belladonna12 · 21/05/2021 10:51

@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.

He will probably earn a lot more than the DD and if he doesn't he won't have to pay the debt back. Ultimately, there will probably be a financial advantage to having a degree so the last thing OP should be doing is weighing things even more in his favour.

Belladonna12 · 21/05/2021 10:53

But... I accept that someone may have a child that shows their home disrespect. So a small charge may encourage change

A small charge could make them less respectful if anything. They may feel that they are paying their way or even subsidising the rest of the family so can do what they want.

UrAWizHarry · 21/05/2021 10:53

Which the op isn't doing. She's supporting each of her kids in an appropriate way based on their choices. She's alreay said if DD went to university she would be helped in the same way.

And secondly, given that we don't know what careers the two kids have chosen you have no idea who will earn the most so that's a completely moot point.

qualitygirl · 21/05/2021 10:55

17 year olds who are working pay keep. Their parents no longer get child benefit for them and it's only right they should contribute towrds their costs at this stage

Some parents don't get child benefits in the first place. I don't understand what has changed other than they are earning. If they are working then I don't think that means they pay their keep. But I do think it is in everyone's interest that they are guided appropriately in terms of how the spend/save.

I also think it's pointless to take money off them to save (unless they know that about it) but saving for them quietly behind their back does them no favours either as it's unrealistic of the "real" world everyone keeps mentioning.

Anyway my dc won't be finished school until the age of 19 never mind 17.

PastaLaVistaBBY · 21/05/2021 10:56

@PaperbackRider

it’s not fair for you to imply that OP is a bad parent for guiding her daughter in the art of financial management

I don't care if you think thats unfair. There are many ways to teach financial management without charging a child to live in the family home. It's simply wrong.

You need to learn not to confuse your opinions with statements of fact.

Egghead81 · 21/05/2021 10:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Belladonna12 · 21/05/2021 11:03

@UrAWizHarry

Which the op isn't doing. She's supporting each of her kids in an appropriate way based on their choices. She's alreay said if DD went to university she would be helped in the same way.

And secondly, given that we don't know what careers the two kids have chosen you have no idea who will earn the most so that's a completely moot point.

Whether or not OP is "supporting each of her kids in an appropriate way" is a matter of opinion, not a fact just because you think it appropriate. There wouldn't be a debate if everyone agreed with you. As for "we don't know what careers the two kids have chosen read OPs posts. They are both doing courses with a career progression but one (the DS's) will generally result in much higher earnings than the other.

UrAWizHarry · 21/05/2021 11:19

Yes, it's a matter of opinion. Is that not taken as read? Do you think we need to prefix everything with "In my opinion?"

In my opinion, the daughter is getting a great deal. A secure home, all utilities etc paid for, transport, phone etc all covered for an amount she can easily afford on her salary. If she wanted to go to university she could and the OP would support her.

The fact that her brother is going to university and requires support in a different way is none of her business. In my opinion.

Talkwhilstyouwalk · 21/05/2021 11:25

@AlfrescoDining

Do you need to charge DD? I'd stop doing so.

This. An apprenticeship is equivalent to a university degree in my mind, even though she'll be paid a minimal amount for it. If you can afford to I'd let her save her money and encourage her to put it in some sort of ISA or savings account.

Talkwhilstyouwalk · 21/05/2021 11:26

@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.

Agree

Belladonna12 · 21/05/2021 11:31

@UrAWizHarry

Yes, it's a matter of opinion. Is that not taken as read? Do you think we need to prefix everything with "In my opinion?"

The fact that her brother is going to university and requires support in a different way is none of her business. In my opinion.

She isn't really getting a "great deal". Most 17-year-olds are provided with a home, utilities etc for free. She is paying £250 towards it. Her brother on the other hand isn't paying anything at the moment and in the future OP will be giving him money while simultaneously taking it away from the DD. She may be able to "afford it" on her salary at the moment but she should be able to save for her future like her brother will be able to once he leaves University and is able to get a relatively high paying job.

Whether or not it's any of her business that her brother is treated more favourably is a matter of opinion and not really relevant unless you think OP can just tell DD it's none of her business and there will be no resentment.

Comefromaway · 21/05/2021 11:34

The difference being that my 17 year old at college for example has £15 per week to spend on himself (clothes and toiletries are bought for him).

OP's dd will have approx £170 per week to spend on herself.

UrAWizHarry · 21/05/2021 11:36

Most 17 year olds are not taking home 1k a month. Good luck to anyone who thinks they could cover all their bills for £250 away from their parent's home. She still has £750 left over to do with as she wants, including saving.

She's being subsidised, her brother is being subsidised. She has the same opportunity to go to university if she so desires. Seems entirely fair to me.

CutieBear · 21/05/2021 11:36

Taking 25% of your teenage DD’s wage is grabby. I’m glad you’re not my mum. She’s not even an adult yet and she’s still studying.

Flip

1 2 ··· 22 23 24 ··· 37 38

Swipe left for the next trending thread