Would it be such a bad thing to set your children up financially so that they never have to work?

[wonderingWallaby]

Let’s assume from the age of 21 you provide them with a monthly/annual allowance of x amount (a substantial figure), and they will receive this for the remainder of their life. Obviously I wouldn’t be happy if they spent all day sleeping, playing video games etc. But if the money allowed them to avoid the rat race that is work, maybe that’s not such a bad thing? I know there are a lot of positives to working, but my thought process is that life is short. And if you’re in a position where you don’t have to work or you can ensure your children don’t have to work, is that really such a bad thing?

Human beings are programmed to expend the minimum effort necessary for survival. Our brains have not evolved as quickly as our society has.

21 year olds barely have fully developed brains.

What kind of behaviour will they be likely to engage in if they don't have to work? What have they shown their motivators and behaviours to be so far?
How will they navigate good choices?

Any answer to this is totally situation specific, I don't see how you can answer in the abstract and no right or wrong answer and certainly no one size fits all

You know your children best, why would it matter what anyone else thinks about it?

If my parents did this for me I'd think it was absolutely amazing!!

However, my suggestion would maybe to do it around age 30? Let them experience real life so they truly appreciate it and they would then also presumably have a career/skill/trade to fall back on or continue as a hobby?

If I got this at 21 id have partied non-stop drank too much and squandered it away. At 30/35 id be more likely to be a lovely house, raise kids without having to work, start a business/hobby that I love and see the world

I think this could be setting them up with a negative mindset that they can just get handouts. And what about when they have children? Will you be paying for them too? What if life turns upside down and you can no longer afford it?

I think it could be amazing if they are motivated to do something with the time you would be giving them - travel, charity work, following a passion. But, at that age what is the likely hood that they would make good choices and not just piss it all away ?

I can't see this resulting in anything good.

Im all for providing them with stability in the form of accommodation or whatever, but not no incentive to work at all.

I prefer this as an alternative option: offer to match their salary. So whatever they earn, you'd be effectively doubling it.

This still incentivises them to work and go for promotions etc. But is a massive boost and step up in life.

Depends on your kids. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, I'd love a guaranteed monthly sum for no work and I suspect most others would.

However, for some people it will mean no motivation in life and thus less life satisfaction.

Others might find it a way of tying their life choices to your wishes - if they did something you disapprove of, would you cut the money?

Another way is matched investments where the parent matches (or doubles etc) the sum the child puts away for retirement. This way the child still has to work while they are young but can retire very early if they so desire. This can work better because the child has contributed to their own savings and may feel more satisfied with what they have achieved even if it wouldn't be possible without the parental assistance.

I think these arrangements are more common than many people would guess. I know some young parents who are supported almost entirely by their own parents (who wanted grandchildren and so forked out houses and allowances to enable their children to feel financially secure enough to have babies).

No it's a crazy idea. Take a look back at some of these wealthy toff typse who've lavished everything on their children who have then gone on to descend into drug abuse alcohol, prison sentences, death.
Young people need a direction and a purpose in life. A reason to get up in the morning, friends, colleagues, life experience.
Why would anyone not want this for their children?
Help them onto the property ladder by all means but don't ruin their lives by mollycoddling them into an early grave!!

I think it’s a terrible idea. Ensuring they have a paid for property or similar isn’t a bad idea but enabling them to never work is awful

A great deal of self confidence, resilience and other soft skills comes from having a job. Why would you want to deprive your children of those skills and the inner strength they'll need to get them through periods where life is tough?

No way - wouldn’t do this even if I could. I would love my kids to choose a job they love, prioritise happiness over money, perhaps aim to have a better work life balance than full time. But opt out altogether? No way. work is a way to make friends, relate to others, gain skills, use your brain, build your own self esteem. The only people I know who have never quite made it in the world of work and are overly reliant on parents are deeply dependent on others and low in self confidence. A couple of them are also selfish and entitled too.

God no!! Just watch an episode of Made in Chelsea to see why having money that you don’t need to earn is a bad idea

You run the very real risk of them not doing anything meaningful at all with their lives. A teenager, or a person in their early twenties I expect, presented with the opportunity of doing ‘nothing’ will squander their money and their time, in the vast majority of cases. Personally I’d want better for my kids. While I wouldn’t want my child to have to spend their life slaving their guts out in a crappy job to scrape through but equally I would want them to have a decent work ethic, an appreciation for what they have and a sense of pride in what they themselves have achieved.
I think I’d perhaps try to help them out in practical ways, with a car, a house, travel costs, that sort of thing but I don’t think I’d be inclined to just give them money as a youngster and hope they use it wisely.

I would pay them to do voluntary work or study, or indeed a top up for low paid but necessary work. Sport maybe. Not just for leisure. (Caring for their own children or other relative also included)

I think that having a good work ethic is so important in life. You would be taking this away.

When I was in my early 20s I had a friend who's entire life was funded by his parents. It was an endless existence of partying, holidays and travelling. He was horribly entitled.

As far as I can see he is still living the same life now at 40. Although I don't have the same lavish lifestyle, I am really proud of what I've achieved with no handouts!

I've got relatives whose father (who worked hard to develop a thriving business) has set them all up with private incomes. They have rather jet setting lives but have literally never worked at all.

They are so entitled and arrogant, they big themselves up and seem to believe that the life they lead is due to their own talents. It really isn't and if the trust fund failed they'd have no idea how to support themselves.

No, you don't want to graft till you collapse, but I honestly think getting everything without working for it does you no favours at all.

It would be a disaster. Most people, given that expanse of empty time, would spend it in two ways: a) self-pity, b) fucking their own lives up. Depression, addiction, catastrophic relationships.

"I'd be different, though! I'd spend all my time caring for injured animals." Sure you would.

Self-made rich people are acutely aware of this problem and often spend a lot of time ensuring that they don't do this for their children - that they give them advantages, but also make sure they work.

I have a friend who has several billion (on the UK rich list) and their children are either at university or at senior school sitting exams now. The children are expected to get qualifications and jobs albeit at some point they will presumably take board positions in the family firm. They are very discreet (discrete?) and there is no flashiness whatsoever. Of course they have the massive safety net of family fortune but I think they see it as a huge responsibility too.

I think if you can pay for things like driving lessons and stretch to helping them get on the property ladder that is hugely helpful. I wouldn’t go down the trust fund/monthly allowance personally. They can make poor decisions and also attract people who just use them.

I’d keep money away from my child to avoid them becoming that walking cliché of caring for injured animals!

I think you only have to look at the entitled, arrogant, useless, out of touch children of some celebrities to see how this could be a bad idea.

I think for some people who are naturally motivated to do something with their time, it would be fine because they could pour their energy into charity work or something but for the overwhelming majority, you're basically making them lazy and denying them the chance to gain important skills.

I would love to not work / be able to work PT now, but I'm mid 30s and have picked up a lot of life skills in my 20 years of working.
I think if I were in that position I'd consider helping when they're in their 30s providing they had worked for a good few years.

I'd probably wait until they had several years work experience under their belts. You can't fully appreciate what a privilege it is not to work unless you've actually worked.

This has Hans Rausing written all over it.

I think subsidising just enough to enable wide choices, but not enough to remove any sense of personal achievement, is the right balance.

I did one year work placement during uni. My best friend there did something fascinating but as a volunteer - she worked just as hard as me. I didn’t do the thing I wanted as it was unpaid too. As it happens, no regrets… but, for my children that’s the sort of thing I’d like to have the money to do. Not replace the need to work, but allow them to work on a business idea for a year with no income, or take a low paid job for love. Not avoid work altogether.

This feels like a journalist feeder type post but fine I will bite

What happens after you pass will you leave them with a lifetime allowance? What happens if your own circumstances change? Would you put any conditions around it e.g. they need to spend x time working for charity rather than just having a life on Instagram?

I really like pp suggestions of salary matching or waiting until later in life so they get a skill and contribute something to society

I would caveat all this by saying if it is go support someone who cannot work for medical reasons then I completely agree with your idea but get from your OP this isn’t the case and it’s just so they miss the rat race