AIBU to feel upset about my well-off in-laws being tight with money at Christmas?

[Gingerbreadcottage]

I’m feeling a bit sad and annoyed and just want to sanity-check whether I’m being unreasonable.

My in-laws are very comfortable financially - retired, mortgage paid off, big house, multiple holidays a year, no real financial worries. We, on the other hand, are on a low income and things are tough at the moment. They know all of this.

Back in the summer, they offered (we didn’t ask) to put £100 towards a new bike for our son. It was kind of framed as a nice gesture at the time. Then they later told us that because they’d contributed to the bike, they would only get him “something small” for his birthday, as the bike was his birthday present from them. Fine, I understood that.

Fast forward to the other day: we were at theirs and they asked what we all might like for Christmas. I said I wasn’t sure yet what our son would like, and I’d let them know. My MIL immediately said, “Oh don’t forget we bought that bike for him — that was birthday and Christmas, so we’ll just get him a book or something small.”

I just sat there feeling a bit stunned and honestly hurt. It’s not about wanting them to shower him with expensive gifts - it’s more that the £100 they offered months ago is now being used as a reason to opt out of both birthday and Christmas. Meanwhile they are extremely comfortable and spend freely on themselves in other areas.

They also very rarely help with anything practical or day-to-day with him, so it’s not like they’re involved in other ways.

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about it feels… mean? And I hate that feeling, because I don’t want to care about money like that. But I’m struggling with the idea that their grandson is basically getting a token gift at Christmas because of something they voluntarily contributed to back in July.

AIBU to feel upset and a bit angry about this? Or am I overthinking it?

Money stays with money as they say.
I would try to dwell on item my In laws are exactly the same. They have a lot of finances and have a holiday home which we are grateful to be able to use once a year. They don't buy any birthday or Christmas presents. It's a blessing in my eyes though as it's less plastic tat toys that crowds the house. They do get a lot from their other set of grandparents, so I am lucky with that. It's probably the opposite, where one side gives to many toys and presents and the other size do zero presents. They didn't even buy anything when they were born, which I found a little bit odd, but they did get a card.

@Gingerbreadcottage Maybe they had a discussion and felt like spending the £100 on the bike was giving your son preferential treatment over the other Grandkids. Rather than buy the other Grandkids more to restore the balance it's possible they decided the solution was to cut back on ds. Perhaps even your sibling/s might have voiced their bad feelings over your son having had help with the bike.

Some people are just really really anxious about money, they cling to it, they panic over it. Sometimes it's like a mental health disorder, especially when they have more than enough, because their fear isn't based in reality.

I know this feels like a personal insult to your son, like he is not loved, and also like they don't care about you enough. But if you can look at this from a place of compassion and understanding of where they are coming from, rather than resentment, then hopefully you'll be able to feel closer to them.

As someone on a low income like yourself and having 2 children this would anger me so no I don't think your being unreasonable. If they were in a difficult financial position and they said we can't afford to get your son anything big this year then that's completely fine but considering that they have no financial struggles then they have no reason to get one present for your son and split it for birthday and Christmas. Me and my husband have got to a point with certain members of our family where we will plan for our kids what we are buying and we set terms and we say don't spend a huge amount on the kids so that they deliberately can't say oh we spend a lot on your kids birthday so we won't be spending anything on Christmas. Also as for not spending much time with your son it sounds like to me that they don't see it as a privilege to have a grandson. I also know what this is like and sometimes you have to say enough is enough and do what's best for your kids.

I just cant with Grandparents like this fgs..if they have the money help them out..spend on your little grandchildren..I save all year so I can give my 4 girls aged 29 27 18 and 16 a good Christmas..I now have 2 grandchildren..aged 21 months and 6 months at Christmas..they all get treated great,the 21 month is getting more spent in her this year but my 27 year old daughter that has the 6 month old understands that Cormac dosent need as much this year as he 6 months old..next year they will have bought a house all going well so he will have same as Rìa..they don't mind what each other gets during the year if I buy the kids things they need..sorry you're going through this..your DH needs to just say something..especially about using the bike as an excuse again at Christmas..its so unfair..xx

Amazing result. Makes me feel for the nation - and other generations. Doesn't anyone buy their own kid's presents?

It seems the socialist government has already fed mothers their socialist principles of soaking the people they think are rich and giving it to others who cannot be bothered to work for it.

Before the rich are 'soaked' shouldn't someone ascertain the extent of their wealth.

Resentment towards someone who appears to have more stuff then them will eventually kill society.

Agree. I'd rather see my family benefit now than struggle and wait until I pop my clogs. Always been the same with my grandparents and parents.

*That’s why they have less money!” no. It isn’t why they have less money.

There’s been a lot of research on the effects of wealth and poverty on behaviour. People with less are more inclined to share because they’re well aware that they need to make alliances in order to survive. People with more have less need of others. This has been investigated in numerous experiments.

What is also interesting is why people like to have these ideas about the behaviour of wealthy and poor individuals. I think it’s because if you believe that the poor bring their destitute circumstances on themselves and the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, it place less demands on one’s own obligations to assist others.

Nobody likes to acknowledge the luck that, for example, has had them bornin a particularly wealthy country, to have been born when one’s mother was less stressed than she was with other siblings, to have the good job that they have or to have had otherlucky events in their life that helped them and so on.

Many people can’t even recognise these moments of luck until they are talked through their life stories- this has been researched, too.

Resentment towards someone who appears to have more stuff then them will eventually kill society.

I'm not sure you've understood what OP is upset about in fairness. She isn't upset that her child is getting a book for Christmas or feels entitled to the GP money, she's upset that the GP OFFERED (not asked) to help with a bike and use it as a birthday present (absolutely fair enough), but instead they've now carried that on to Christmas too..

Will it be next birthday as well? Next Christmas too? Why not just be upfront at the time so everyone knew what to expect.. I assume because OP may have turned their offer down for the bike if they'd had known. They would probably prefer their child to, instead, be treated the same as the other grandchildren around Christmas and birthdays so as not to be singled out or made to feel inferior/confused.

This is just irrational.

The OP has zero right to “expect” anything from grandparents. Zero.

So she doesn’t need to “know what to expect.”

Gifts should be received gratefully. If gifts don’t materialize, it’s crass, greedy and entitled to sit around whining about their absence.

Irrational my arse.

Gifts should be received gratefully.

Of course they should, but if your parents gifted all your nieces and nephews a £40-£50 gift at Christmas, and bought your child a book. Would you thank your lucky stars that they have been given anything at all and be grateful? or would you think, I have no right to expect anything for my child anyway so I'm happy that they are being singled out and treated differently! Load of tosh and pure virtue signaling IMO.

I'd be disappointed if my parents generously offered to buy my child a BIRTHDAY gift, then in the run up to Christmas decided, actually it was too much at the time and it should also be a Christmas present too, because in that case it wasn't a generous gift at all was it?? Just their regular birthday present amount which happened to include a £50 advance for next time? So why not just say that rather than pretend it is something it's not?

In fairness, I have issues with taking money off people for things that I think we should be buying anyway, and would never be spending £100+ on a bike in the first place, I'd rather my family get my DD something that I know she'd like from a charity shop than waste money on something unnecessary just to hold the value of it over her for months to come.

If the OP were capable of buying the bike herself, why did she take their cash?

Do you know how gifts work?

Yes. She could have said “Thanks, but we’ll buy the bike.”

She... could have, yes. Do you refuse gifts from everyone you know if you can afford things yourself?

I accept graciously and don't impugn the givers' character behind their back, or begrudge them their holidays and personal spending.

This notion that the grandparents are "moving the goalposts" or "disappointing the OP's expecations" because they offered to help with the bike and then, when reviewing their annual spending on ALL the grandchildren, evened it up - is absurd. They didn't owe OP an explanation of their annual budget at the time they offered to assist with the bike. Why were they even drawn into that conversation in the first place? "Thanks, mum, but we've got it covered," on the OP's part would have saved everyone a lot of aggravation.

This expectation that grandparents who have worked all of their lives are supposed to set aside their own hopes for the last decade or two of their lives and instead be generous benefactors to the younger generation who have barely put any time into the workforce is insane.

No one asked them to helped pay for a bike, they didn’t have to do it at all, and if they thought the annual spending was too much and out of balance then they really shouldn’t have offered in the first place.

you either offer because you genuinely want to do it, or you don’t offer because it would go over your yearly budget.. what you SHOULDN'T be doing is giving a no strings attached ‘gift’ then attaching strings later when you feel like it..

I’m quite interested though, would you do this? Offer to pay for something for a child as an ‘early birthday present’, then when Christmas rolls round tell them that you’ve already spent enough on them that year so you’ll buy them a book but nothing else?

There are no strings whatsoever attached to the bike gift. The OP isn't required to do anything in return.

People don't necessarily plot every conversation out to the nth degree. A spontaneous conversation is not a binding contract.
"We're thinking of getting a bike for Oliver's birthday this summer."
"Oh, great! Which one? Oh, that's expensive. We could contribute 100 quid."
"Oh, thank you, that will help make it possible."

Later at home, GPs talk: "We can't really afford 100 for each grandchild, now that I think about it. How's that going to work?"
"Hmm, you're right. But we already committed the £100. I guess this can be Oliver's big gift from us for birthday AND Christmas. We'll get him a book or something so he has a present to open. And that way we'll be sticking to the £100 per grandchild annual limit."

They do not owe OP an explanation of how they budget.

So you WOULD accept it? Even if you could afford something yourself? That's really all I wanted to know - if you understood the concept of gift-giving.

This is the upshot of it, yes.

So they, completely unprompted, OFFER to pay £100 towards a birthday gift, then decide between them to secretly deduct it from the boys Christmas presents.

I'm glad you've got a handle on what has actually happened and what OP is upset about, the fact that you think it is okay for the child to now be penalised because of their godawful decision making and communication is quite worrying though.

You shouldn't offer to "pay for a gift" if you then need to claw back that money off the receiver in other ways further down the line.. because then it wasn't a "gift" at all, it was a LOAN and should have been communicated as such at the time (which, ironically, I'm sure would have been fine if they'd have just said that!), bonkers behaviour from the grandparents, and I'm completely with OP as to why she is annoyed, in her shoes I would have refused the "gift" if I knew they were just going to deduct the cost of it further down the line.

GIFT
a thing given willingly to someone without payment; a present.

What the fuck? "Secretly decide to deduct it" from what, exactly? The grandparents aren't obliged to spend quid one on the grandkids, let alone explain their math to anyone outside the two of them. Now you are accusing them of "secrecy" because they had a household chat and decided they needed to even things out among the grandkids?

And in what way are they clawing back anything? Only a greedy, entitled, grabby person would see it that way. Talk about delusional.

Did they say "We will pay £100 toward the bike AND of course you can "expect" that we also will spend at least £50 on Oliver at Christmas, no worries!" Doesn't sound like it, from anything the OP has posted. and even if they had, newsflash: they are allowed to change their minds midstream about their gift-giving budget.

In what world is it OK for the OP or anyone else to EXPECT anything from the grandparents? a £5 book is a generous gift. If they feel like offering more, fine, but if they don't, it's really not on to accuse them of some nefarious plot to deprive OP's child of additional largess.

Oliver got a bike this year. Maybe Bronwyn and Evvie and Sam got a small present for their birthdays and will receive larger presents at Christmas. Or maybe not. It's entirely the giver's prerogative. If they want to take a cruise instead of giving any kid more than a postcard and a bar of chocolate, that's their choice, too.

Those of you who somehow think your elders owe you as adults are really out of line. If you chose to have kids, it's up to YOU to provide for them. Get a second job if necessary.

I can see your DH's point: if your MIL spent e.g. 40 quid on each of the other grandkids for their birthdays and a similar amount for Christmas it's not exactly 'fair' to give your DC similar presents on top of £100 towards a bike. Kids do notice that sort of thing, and your in laws don't want to be perceived as playing favourites. They should have mentioned it at the time they gave you the cash though, to be clear about expectations.

They sound mean, petty and selfish. I don’t understand that sort of pettiness. I wonder what your DH thinks? I’d be embarrassed if my parents were like that.

What sort of presents did your husband get as a child? I suspect thy see bikes as very big one off gifts.

I'm not delusional OR grabby, and I certainly wouldn't have accepted an offer of my parents paying for something for one of my children if they were without telling me going to turn round and penalise them later on for it.

I'm not sure why you are so up in arms about it, the fact is they HAVE decided to deduct the bike money from the Christmas present without communicating it at the time, it's there in OPs posts, even you said it in your little stage play!

"Hmm, you're right. But we already committed the £100. I guess this can be Oliver's big gift from us for birthday AND Christmas. We'll get him a book or something so he has a present to open.

I personally don't buy into this bullshit of getting kids exactly the same and making everything exactly "even", if you are a fair and loving grandparent with no favouritism, things will naturally even themselves out anyway, and the monetary value should be irrelevant to that.. it could be £5 or £50 or £500, it is set by what the grandparents decide to gift, not what people are expecting of them.

But if it was so crucially important to them to make things exactly even, then it would be fairer to over time give the others more, not take gifts away?? Bronwyn could have £100 towards a game console, or in a couple of years buy Sam a new tv at £100 and then treat all the children the same at birthday and Christmas the rest of the time.

Or they could have just said, we'll give you £100 towards a new bike but it would be a birthday AND Christmas gift this year from us .. see, easy peasy! I wonder why they didn't?

Instead they have pretended they are "gifting" him £100 for his birthday, but then removed the amount from what they were VOLUNTARILY going to spend on him at Christmas, THEY set the amount they were going to, or normally spend, and now THEY have decided to deduct the money for the bike, while no doubt giving the other grandchildren the £50 they normally spend.

I personally wouldn’t make a big deal about their birthday / christmas presents.

What is petty about providing £100 to a young child?