Boomer parents who don't help their children

[hoarderofthedough]

I will preface this by saying that my own Boomer parents DID help me and my sibling, and I will be forever grateful. They were wonderful.

BUT.....my DH's mother, on the other hand is the opposite, and it's giving me the rage. I wondered whether anyone else had experienced similar?

She is super rich, and by that I mean a multi millionaire. She lives in a 6 bed mansion, has around 8 properties that she rents out, providing an income of circa £10k a month, and she lavishes it ALL on herself and her boyfriend.

Her daughter (my SIL) lives in a tiny house in an awful (dangerous) part of town, and doesn't have a pot to piss in. Scrimping and saving, not able to put the heating on in winter, no treats ever - and all the while MIL is jet setting to exotic holidays, always in business class....with not one thought for her DD and grandkids welfare.

On the rare occasions we meet up for a meal, MIL will let DH and SIL pay. Or at best the bill will be split - but never are we treated with her paying. However, she is very happy to treat her boyfriend to lots of things.

She's almost 80 now, and still has no thoughts of gifting money to avoid inheritance tax.

Anyone else experience this? I find it truly baffling, because if I was in her position I would be filtering down money to my adult kids regularly.

If that’s what you took from my post then your reading comprehension could be the problem here, but l doubt it. I told you we bought a modest home and started out with very much less than young people expect of a first home these days, saved long and hard for the deposit and watched every penny, and you took that to mean that l’m now wealthy enough to afford luxury care in later life. Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s your own bitter take and very far removed from the reality for the majority of us ‘boomers’.

OMG, where did I say that she partied until her 40's and had addictions?

She worked overseas and was on minimum wage. She doesn't drink or smoke and has never done any drugs. She works hard, but part time around the kids on minimum wage. Her DH works FT but again, on minimum wage. Nothing reckless about either of them.

A gift of say £100k would lift them out of poverty. But MIL prefers to spend money on cruises, long haul holidays, meals out etc, no expense spared, as long as the recipient is her or her boyfriend. SIL scrapes by - just.

No one said you said anyone had addictions.

SIL and DH need better jobs. That's not the fault nor responsibility of MIL.

Life choices have consequences.

Is that you MIL?

£100,000? Wow.
What happens when the SIL and husband burn through that? Which they will.

I can't imagine being wealthy enough to give away that sum of money - or being able to receive it in a gift.

If I'm understanding correctly, the SIL's main problem is that she waited much longer than usual before settling down and trying to save money: she enjoyed herself travelling even through her 30s, a time when most people are establishing themselves in their career and trying to save and/or pay for a mortgage. She sacrificed security for enjoyment - her choice, I guess.

I see more extreme versions of that round here.

When I was still teaching, I recall (a handful of) pupils who informed me that they didn't need their qualifications because they were going to inherit the family business and/or a grandparent's house.

One time I suggested to a lad that he needed to concentrate on his maths and English if he wanted to run the business successfully. I got a disdainful look and "You pay someone to do that for you."

In my own neighbourhood there's a lady who worked with her husband to pay for their own house and to save enough money for their old age (including sensible life insurance policies).

Her middle aged sons have expected handouts from their parents all their days, to the extend that she's confessed that they don't know about the life insurance payment she got when her husband died - she doesn't want them hassling her for more money.

One son did work, but lost his job. The other never has. She has grandchildren. I think she's keeping her money back to pay for the care that she might need and to ensure that it goes to the two grandchildren rather than being frittered away.

This sounds like bragging, but my 22 yr old son is starting his first job at £ 50 k. He hasn't had a holiday outside the UK in 6 years because he has been grinding through A levels, uni and a masters. He wanted to take a gap year but his employer won't wait, so he's gone for the job because the market is terrible. He is not unusual amongst his friends. All working hard to establish themselves.

If he had been frittering away his 20s and 30s travelling, I would be much less inclined to give him money.

Not bragging at all. Well done to your son. Sensible young man.

Ha, and where are all these multitude of jobs? We have graduates working on the checkouts there days (if they're lucky!)

So basically don't try and go on a gap year for 20 years?
My other DC is not earning very much but still working and trying to get additional skills. No gap year travelling for her either.

I also might point out that this SIL was in the job market 20 years ago. When there were jobs. Not in 2026. She had 20 years to get a higher paying job and could have made that 100 k by now. So could her husband.

As has been observed, some of us born in the 1950s have lived through a long period of generally increasing prosperity, and we were fortunate to be able to start our own business in the depths of the early 1990s recession, which is still going: DH was at work this morning.

Because I worked in the pensions industry as an analyst, (and because we were geriatric parents) we started taking pension provision seriously much younger than some. Following the 2024 budget, we accelerated plans to transfer money to our child, taking the lump sum out of our estate before the pension fund was rolled into it, which will happen in April 2027. DC has just bought a modest house which will suit until such time as there's a second child.

I do sympathise with the difficulties for youngsters these days. In contrast with the neighbour's feckless sons, I know young men and women who are working two part-time jobs in order to earn a living. (This particularly the case with the young instructors I see at the local gym.)

One of the neighbour's sons actually had a good job, but wasn't very good at getting there on time on a Monday morning in particular.

Even when I was teaching, there were issues with a tiny number of young classroom teachers - you'd see them coming in looking rather rough on a Monday morning or phoning in sick and then laughing about 'duvet days'.

I recall having to tell one young woman that - no, it wasn't acceptable to have a 'duvet day' when you're working.

There were also some youngsters who decided to have a career break and go travelling or to take another qualification.

In some cases it worked well and they found another job that they liked better; however, some got the travelling bug and didn't come back to their permanent position at the end of the two years. Fair enough, but it then became increasingly difficult to get a steady job with a decent pay.

It's true that you only live once, but these difficult decisions do have consequences.