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?

Absolutely no. If you can afford to do that.. buy property and give them a lovely home to live in.. but they need to work! A work ethic makes a good person. Not working is so bad for a persons mental
health. You’ll just raise entitled obnoxious people.

How successful that is would entirely depend on the child’s personality.

I had a friend who sadly died a few years ago who didn’t have to work. Her father set her and her siblings up with both a massive lump sum and a monthly income. My friend and her brother had very fulfilling and busy lives volunteering. In fact her brother puts in more hours than many employed people volunteering with a homeless charity. Many people likely never have realised that he wasn’t a paid employee. For them it worked - it let them find an area that they thrives in and could work in a way that worked for them.

Their sister on the other hand has zero purpose in life. She is miserable and can’t seem to find any sort of thing that she settles in. Now in her early 40s she’s actually openly resentful of her father for not letting her be “normal” (though not resentful enough to go to college or Uni or anything).

The other things that all three found was that it had a negative impact on relationships. People were very wary of folks who didn’t earn their own lifestyle. My late friend often found that men were either cocklodgers who loved it or they were really uncomfortable at the thought of the father effectively paying for everything.

Working long hours for minimum wage is bad, yes.

Obviously if you have a career that you love, that's great. But some of us work in jobs that we don't really like but haven't got the skills or qualifications to do anything else.

Meant to add, imho, it takes a very special and self disciplined and self-aware person to live a very privileged life, where everything is handed to them on a plate, and not let it corrupt them in some way large or small.

What a sad story

I knew of someone a bit similar. Very wealthy high flier parents. Daughter felt she didnt have ability to follow in their footsteps. This dented her confidence and she seemed to follow a self destructive pattern ie better not to try, than try but fail

This has disaster written all over it. Think about what will help your children become mature adults, kind, respectful, thoughtful, good neighbours and good citizens and do that. Hint: it won’t be by never having to work a day in their lives.

No it wouldn't be good, humans need to strive to do productive things. If I had the money (I don't) I would provide my kids (young adults) with a decent car / travel allowance (one is forbidden from driving for health reasons) and a 2/3 bed home depending on location to set them up, I would also repay their student loans, I would expect them then to earn money to support their living (as they owned outright a property they could do something worthy, arty etc but they need to earn a bit to eat!)

I think of the truly wealthy Landowners who have a sense of duty because they're responsible for others human and animal. When the odd one doesn't want that life but has the money it tends to go badly wrong. DS worked in the middle East for a few years the rich kids there were a bit lost he said.

I think we need purpose which could be volunteering if you don't need money,. Sailing around the world Excell in something.

I’d love to ease some of the burden for my kids. If can’t run to a home each but maybe paying for post-grad courses or gap year explorations that the rich can afford. Those things should pave the way to successful careers of their own. In reality I can’t wait for them to get jobs so they can contribute a small sum towards general household expenses!!

Depends on the individual. Say you are very wealthy and your child has a demanding interest like Zara Philips maybe. She probably doens't need to work but she has commitments due to her interest in horses. Lovely.

On the other hand you could have one of my GC, bone idle, lovely lad, very bright but if he doesn't need to do anything he doesn't. School holidays see him at at home 24/7. Not healthy for him, needing to get out and work will be good for him I think.

Just to be clear I have no idea how much money Zara Philips has but she probably didn't need to get a job on the tills at Asda.

Yes, it's a terrible thing. How would you teach them the value of anything - money, hard work, a job well done, behaving appropriately in any given situation, social skills etc., if they never have to actually experience any of that first hand?

My mums friend did this for her son and he has never worked . I would make sure they do something with thr money as part of the deal . Set up a charity and run that or start a business so you see a return on the money . Just to give them a goal in life!
I don't have to work but I do because it's great socially and for my brain to keep busy and functioning!

In my undergraduate degree I studied the history of intoxication/addiction - we learned that the reason so many artists/musicians have substance issues is that they don’t have a lot of structure/routine. Addiction creates that structure/routine in its own way.

so no, I wouldn’t do this. I want my kids to develop the skills and resourcefulness to be self sufficient, and not to be out of touch with 90% of the population.

I think super privileged kids can often only comfortably spend time with each other, which means they lack the experience of rubbing along with those who are different from you.

as much as you think you might be broadening their world, it would also be narrowing it.

I think if you are able to set them up in a house and pay off all the debts is pretty much comes to the same thing but maybe that is the best option if you’re not sure about giving them a steady income.

The other issue is if they know there’s money coming eventually it might have a very similar or worse negative effect, I know a few people who you can tell are sort of waiting for the money to come in when parents pass away and that seems to be the most paralysing- no money to do anything interesting at the moment and also very certain they’ll be comfortable in the end (like probably by the time they are 70! But I don’t think they’ve thought that part through).

Larping as a low-middle income family is as likely to breed contempt for parents as it is to instill a good work ethic, ironically it’s sort of infantilising, they’ll know that their parents have the power to help them but are just standing by watching them struggle to teach them a life lesson. A bit demeaning really. If it’s really more noble to have less money and struggle then just give it all away now to poor people who really need it- there are literally people working two jobs and still skipping meals so their children can eat- I’m sure they won’t worry if free money will ruin them or their children.
Or spend it on the people you love- what is the point of having money if you don’t spread it around and make people’s lives easier and more enjoyable? I personally hate seeing really rich people being over careful with money and sort of pretending the reason they’re rich is because they don’t splash out on frivolities or luxuries, i don’t see it as virtuous at all, everyone tends to know they were born rich and the pseudo-skrimping is just their mad way of showing off.

I think unless the child has the sort of demanding hobby that requires lots of time but earns very little and you could fund them to pursue it full time then it is likely a bad idea.

I mean Princess Anne, Zara Phillips, Athina Onassis, Jessica Springsteen, Laura Tomlinson etc have all benefited from family money meaning that they don't have the pressure to make a living and can instead focus on their sport and have a life away from grafting.

I'm sure there are similar examples in other sports that don't pay well and in the arts.

I know of people who are opera singers, artists, dancers, musicians etc and can only do that comfortably because their parents have provided a level of support. They are still hardworking motivated individuals.

I don't think paying an unconditional allowance is a great idea though.

Ensuring your child will not face hardship and has good opportunities is a good idea though. Just a mortgage free property to live in is a huge advantage.

I think Peter Jones has a scheme for his kids where he will match their salaries or invest in their business but not give an allowance. He will also pay a higher rate if the child decides to do something worthwhile but poorly paid (eg nursing or teaching).

My dad had a neighbour (first met in his mid 30s) who was set up for life. Wealthy family that felt he wasn't right to help run family business but could have a generous permanent annual allowance out of it. My parents' view is that the situation was very bad for him. He was about as capable as most people but never got to test himself, improve, learn, get resilience from failures. The neighbour was not a happy man for feeling purposeless.

Isn't this why Bill & Melinda Gates told their kids they won't inherit huge amounts, only bought them sensible cars, didn't embrace luxury lifestyle, saying "You need to learn how to earn your own way" ?

Nah, If I could I'd buy them properties so they could live in or rent I would, but I'd hope they'd still study or follow their passions. If I'd been given an income at 21, Id have missed out on a lot of life experiences. I like my career and it gives me a sense of purpose

Listen to Louise OP, life can be so much more than just working for a wage! I know I would love it, I also know my parents would have done it for us in a heartbeat if they had the money

They'll end up dead by 30 in all likelihood

I think generally its not the best idea really.Too much free time to get into trouble! A job provides stability and a knowledge of the value of money! Just handing over cash is no good at all.Also presuming they have their own DC eventually, they may get upset if they were unable to do the same for them surely?

Situation, and child, specific imo. I don’t think it’s an inherently bad, or good, thing to do. Similarly if don’t think partaking in the rat race is inherently valuable if you don’t ‘need’ to do it. Furthermore, what meaning life does or doesn’t have is a very individual judgement.

This is exactly the sort of pointless hypothetical exercise that I waste time I do not have to waste on!

So, I did have a friend who lived off family money, and when that was about to run out, hitched up with a guy who kept her. She did not have a luxury lifestyle but lived a materially nice life. Think middle class, like a nurse's or teacher's salary would afford.

But she had absolutely zero resilience. Several times she tried to do vocational courses, or volunteering or whatever, but something would always happen to piss her off and she would just leave. Because she could. She never had to stick anything out. She had no idea, socially, how to handle people saying things that annoyed her, or to get on with people who did not please her, because she never had to. And that lack of resilience did cause her real problems.

It made me realise that work does require you to build resilience to persevere when things aren't being done as you like, when things aren't going well and to find ways to get on with people don't really like.

So I think I would want my kids to have to work for a while. To build that. And they might find a vocation or satisfaction they love. But, if I had the choice, I would keep back a lump sum they could use to live on to retire early, like from the age of 40 or something, and do something else with their life.

The fetishisation of work on this thread is fascinating.

People don’t need to have paid employment to bring value and importance to their lives, there are a million things they can do to productively fill their time; support their communities; help other people or otherwise build their lives.

My priority as a parent is to ensure that the lives of my DC are as smooth as possible and financially supporting them is surely just on aspect of that.

My step mum has done this with her daughter. Really interestingly her daughter works like a Trojan trying to make it in the arts (and failing). So having an income hasn't stopped her wanting to strive and work and succeed on her own merit. But it has stopped her from recognising her actual skill set / abilities and re routing her efforts accordingly. It's sort of set her up to fail in a way. But who's to say she would be happier in more conventional circumstances.

Nope!

I’d struggle to respect my kids if they were just happy to live off my hand outs and not contribute to society.