Thinking it’s weird for kids to pay parents rent

[User788889]

My friend has a daughter (17) she charges rent. My family did the same to me growing up? Am I the only one who think it’s setting your kids up for failure and greedy to charge your kids for staying in their childhood home. I’d want my kids to be able to afford their own place not make it harder for them. Only thing I would do was pretend to and then give it all back to them…

I have absolutely no qualms about my DS25 paying £400pm board. That covers his share of food, bills and toiletries. No rent. I think that's low enough that he can still save, and an important discipline.
I didn't take any money when he was at Uni of course, but I did when he wasn't working for a year - I'd hoped it would encourage him to get job hunting but if course it didn't - He just lived off his savings....

It depends. I was waitressing from the age of 18-20 and paid £50 a week rent. Then I went to uni for three years and parents paid my rent. Then moved back and up until the age of 26 I paid £50 a week again. Then they gave me £5k to put down on a deposit for a flat. All worked itself out. If I didn’t pay rent I would have just spunked all my wages on make-up, clothes and going on, paying £50 a week gave me a bit of responsibility.

I think at 25 it's more the norm although 400 quid seems steep, but he must be earning a decent amount? Does he eat a lot .
The op is on about a 17yr old and others have mentioned older teens on minimum wage. It seems harsh when they have just started earning and need some support to save.

I mean still their child isn't it

I was 16 on a YTS wage and I still paid my parents for my keep, paid the poll tax, paid my weekly bus pass AND went out Thursday-Sunday nights!

Taught me how to budget well

Not 'rent' per se , but a contribution to bills, definitely. Youngsters in our extended family earn way more than most of their parents have ever earned, so yes, if they're living at home, they should contribute.

They’ll be their child until they die. Does that mean they should assume financial responsibility indefinitely so that their precious baby-adults can keep 100% of their wages as pocket money?

When child benefit and other benefits stops because "children" start earning some parents have no choice. Either the "children" contribute or there won't be food on the table.

Personally I think all working adults should contribute to household costs.

80 quid a month CB stops, but then you aren't buying school uniform and giving them money for school dinners and social activities so it balances out.
Kids shouldn't have to top up their parents benefits and wages they should be encouraged to save.

My DS earns more than me!

Yes, he pays a contribution to the running costs of the home/continuing to enjoying an easy lifestyle.

Food, use of car and petrol, electricity, numerous lifts, laundry, cleaning, streaming services we don't use, mending, life admin, errands, the list goes on.

He has started spending more time at his girlfriend's lately and i am conscious that I don't want to be "making a profit" so I did pay some money into his savings the other week.

It doesn’t balance out for single mums on benefits. Not only does their child benefit, child maintenance and child element of UC stop, they also lose their single person CT discount and they lose a proportion of housing benefit because the state assumes that as adults, they’re contributing to the household. A single adult UC is £90 week. Could you keep two adults and run a house on that? I couldn’t.

If you get housing allowance through UC because your earnings won't stretch to cover your rent (pretty common if you've a low paid job in a high rent area) then the calculation assumes that non dependent adults in the home will be making a contribution, and the amount of allowance is reduced accordingly. What would you suggest in these circumstances?

That's not what most people aspire to for their children. I don't anticipate DD will ever struggle to pay for food or college books, nor would I want her too. That would be piss poor parenting

This! We have 3 living at home paying £100 each towards their keep! Certainly doesn’t cover all their costs but its a contribution and they still have more disposable income than us! We could manage without it but are heading towards retirement without huge pension savings so every spare pound is going into savings now. My Dc are able to socalise, fund holidays, run a car, eat out, gym membership, save etc while contributing to their expenses so why shouldn’t they contribute ? They're adults!

No
You don't understand.

The income decreases, for example, my sister no longer received child benefit, and as soon as her son started working, the household income meant she lost housing allowance and council tax reduction.

So her income went down by the child benefit amount + housing allowance. Bit her rent remains the same AND she's paying 100% council tax.

(Made up figures, but will illustrate the issue...)

Before 18:
Wage £1000 + £500 benefits
Household income totals £1500.

To pay rent of £500 and Council Tax of £75. Total cost £575.
Leaving here £925 for the month.
She still has to pay, water, gas, electric, internet, insurance, travel, food etc. all "fixed" costs. Totaling £700.

Wih the remaining £225, she had to clothe her child, pay for haircuts, childcare, kitchen appliances, shoesetc.

Now (because another adult is earning)
Wage £1000 ... No benefits
Contribution from adult children £0.
Rent still £500, council tax is now £100. Totals of £600.
Leaving her £400 a month's for everything else. Obviously no need for childcare etc, but
She just can't afford the fixed costs.

So yes, adults that are earning money need to contribute.

My son moved out at 16 to join the RAF so not really relevant to us but one of his friends pays rent when he goes to his family home at weekends. So he is away with the raf Monday - Friday and goes home for weekends. He pays £100 a month and is only there for weekends. This is because his dad had lost his business and the family nearly went bankrupt. Very sad. I wouldn't charge either of my children rent because I don't need to although I don't have much spare cash. I completely understand if people need to though. I think if you can afford it you shouldn't. If you can't afford it you can't afford it.

I think people need to realise people on benefits maybe there by an ex spouse who refuses to pay. The may also have a new family.
My niece lives in a council house in a deprived area because her ex partner hid his self employed wages. She fought for two years to get anything. She works as a carer for me and others. She's paying a small amount of tax (carers at £3 per hour is taxable!).
Her children will have to help her if her situation doesn't change.
Previously I could afford to keep my DC aged 25 many times over but it's just bloody cheeky. He drives a sports car (since 18) and dines in Covent Garden. Technically his dad is working class, still working overtime at 61 and he's a cheeky fucker.
My daughter already said she'll pay some of her PhD sponsorship to us. Bless her.
Free things are not valued.

My ds is working away at the moment but it's sporadic. I will still ask him for housekeeping but it's very little and I will give it back at some point

And I bet those kids in poorer countries have to pay towards their keep as soon as they are able to! Not sure what point you're trying to make here?

This is what I don't understand and where I feel extremely lucky.
Our 4th child wasn't even born when my exH left and I chose to remain single to raise them. He didn't see them for about 10 years of that (his choice) Apart from when the last was a baby, I've always worked and managed to keep the house so have always had a mortgage. It has not always been easy but it was what I chose to do.
My children have always been contributors to our household. We've always been a team and I've made sure they never missed out on anything and they've always helped out around the house.
They didn't contribute financially whilst in school but part time jobs covered some of their own expenses. The 'wants' not the 'needs'

The first to work full time was the one to bring up paying 'rent' and was SO proud to do so. Each one after has been the same. It always started out nominal but as each of their incomes increased, they would raise the amount themselves. Even now, with 3 having moved out, they are generous children and would do anything they could for me. Not that I've ever asked but I do know they have helped each other out at times.
It was never really a question to them that they would continue to contribute to the household and their home, and that it would include financially. Anything contributed went towards bills/food etc. They were never getting that back like some big present when they left, nor would they have ever expected it. If others can do that, good for them, it was not a possibility for me. On the other hand, I've always done whatever I can, whenever they've needed, for them and will always continue to do so. I'm happy with my choices and very proud of my children 😊

My parents tell me that their generation (post war/boomers) had to give all their wages to their parents & were given back spending money to cover socialising, travel to work etc. This was in the days when many left school at 15 & were married by early 20s. Later generations have had a much longer childhood/youth. Young adults should be expected to contribute to their own costs as soon as they are able to.

Personally I think it's terrible

so my alternative, as a single person who has been single for many years now and who has brought up her children without any financial support from their father, would be to sell the family home and move myself into a one-bed flat when my children have all hit 18 because that’s what I can afford. Alternatively, I keep the family home for longer by charging a reasonable rent to the children that choose to continue to live with me. I mean terrible for expecting them to contribute? Whatever. We don’t all live charmed lives.

The other thing is, if some parents subsidise their adult children by letting them live in the family house without contributing, this makes it much harder for other young people to compete in the housing market because those that don't have the option of living at home will never be able to save as much as those than live rentfree with their parents.

DH and I both left home, went to University, got a job far from home and never had the option of living rent free with our parents. Both of us had siblings who lived at home rent free (all NT and with good degrees). Our parents would say 'Oh, I'd never charge any of my children rent' but in our 50s you can see the difference between the children who were heavily subsidised by living rent free and those that weren't. DH and I are not poor but while we have 1 house, SIL has 3 and DB has 2 (in his case both mortgage free). Same with childcare, DBro never paid childcare whereas we paid tens of thousands. Parents need to treat their children equally and that means not subsidising those who live at home.

@Shitshower I think you are spot on judging by the response!

@Ph3 I had my children when I was married. He fucked off with my wealthy friend when he realised my father hadn't left any money. He paid no maintenance for 6 years, then only a pittance.

Don't come at me with " you should only have children you can afford" crap.