Should we expect our DC to support us financially for as long as we need the help?

[beenlurking]

I have been lurking on mumsnet for a while, and am astonished tbh at the parents who truly believe it is their right to be supported by their DC financially.

Whilst I am able to see that there are extremely poor families, and this is through no fault of their own, is it morally right to have the attitude that our DC are a viable form of financial support, of which we cannot cope under any circumstances without?

Shouldn't it be up to the govt to intervene and ensure that families who are living in abject poverty have enough money to support themselves, either by increasing opportunities in education, providing more help financially for those who cannot work, or helping people who can work to achieve a standard of living where they do not need their DC to make choices for the benefit of the whole family financially, even if that is not what the DC want to do?

Is it right that our DC cannot afford to go to university to study their chosen subject, because their parents cannot afford for them not to go straight to full time employment and contribute a large proportion of their income?
Or if they do go to university, that this is in the hope that they will, once they have finished and qualified, continue to support their families until their families can support themselves, which in some cases could be never?

How far should DC be responsible for their families financial situation?

I know of DC who are at college, even when they would rather not be there, because they know how much their parents rely on the CTC and CB, which for poor families can amount to over £70 a week, plus a reduction in council tax.

Whilst I do empathise with these parents, how far should our DC be expected to go to support their families? Should they continue even after they have left home, and set up home with a DH/DW and had DC of their own?

Is it right that some DC feel so guilty about their parents situation that they make choices, partly based on how it will affect their parents income, ie: CTC/CB?

Or is it all relative to how poor the parents in that particular family are?

this thre for those who are interested

Its Riven trying to afford to let her ds go to medical school.A misleading op imho.Fwiw I used to top up my mum's pension by £100 a month[in the 80s/early 90s]but she didnt expect it.

That thread isn't about Riven's ds supporting her, it's about Riven not being able to subsidise her ds through higher education which is completely the opposite.

'Not to mention the thread in chat about how much an adult costs to feed/provide for, because the OP cannot afford to live without the financial support from the govt for her DS, where jokey references are made about asking DC for handouts once they have qualified (nearer the end of the thread) and at least one other poster in same thread explaining how worried she is that one day, her CTC/CB will come to an end.'

That thread is clearly what the OP was asking about.

Then the OP should be ashamed of herself and think before she posts.

Another one here who doesn't see what the OP is seeing - teens/young adults at uni are a massive financial burden imo, not a money making machine.

We won't get any help and will be funding ds through med school if he gets in, at an estimated cost of £70k. In exchange, he promises he'll put us in a really nice nursing home which doesn't smell too much of wee

I'm sure that most parents of whatever income subsidise their children to some degree.

Never, ever seen anybody suggesting that here. The other way around maybe.

PMSL at the idea of my 16 yo son being to support us... Would be nice if he could remember to get the right books to school for the lessons he has.

I certainly expect my kids to support me in my disgraceful old age - and I plan to live a long, long time (and end up in a rocking chair by the fire poking people with a sharpened walking stick and terrorizing my daughters in law). Guess this is not the site to air these aspirations then ?

Dont you get richer once the kids move out?

No more food, clothing, expenses etc, in comparison to losing the small amount of CB.

op what political thinktank/ newspaper do you work for? whilst it is an interesting point to debate i can't help but feel massively distrustful of your motives for posting.

Actually, I do think it should cut both ways.

I am worried about (a few years down the line) being in the same situation as Riven, as my DS1 wants to go to uni. I am registered disabled, and my consultant has permanently signed me off sick. So I rely on disability benefits as a LP (my DP doesn't live with me, he's a min wage earner, if they get rid of tax credits, he'll NEVER move in,we couldn't possibly cover the expense of supporting 3 people with disabilities on one min wage). All my ChB AND CTC for DS1 would stop if he goes to uni. But if DS1's at uni, I can't afford to subsidise rented accomodation for him. I also can't feed DS1 if he stays living here, if I'm not getting any benefits for him. It's NOT about my DS1 'supporting' me, it's rather how do I feed him with no income to cover that expense??!!

Maybe if DLA for a child or adult ACTUALLY covered the income that is lost/expenditures caused by having that disability, People like Riven and I wouldn't be put in a situation where things like this become a serious issue.

The key seems to me to be ensuring that independent children (ie children that are of an age where the state deems them independent of the parent & therefore removes benefits from the parent), are in fact able to be independent. That there isn't an unspoken expectation by the state of a "top up" from the parent regardless of income.

It's probably the case that the child from a very low income family has to be smarter financially: looking at courses/institutions that have bursaries, looking at living away from home if paid for accommodation is easier to come by than money to pay into the family pot to "lodge" at home, looking at courses that are part financed by an employer, looking at courses that have hours which are compatible with part-time work.

Family money buys you an easier ride for sure.

I know Riven, which given your family's circumstances seems particulary stupid, and actually cruel if it meant that your ds couldn't see his sister as much as he wants to.

Medicine is one of the subjects where bursaries are often available - I really hope this is something that your ds can access and you can all work it out.

Where does the OP mention 'scrounging off ds'?

I'm not sure what I think tbh, but wasn't the OP asking what possible solutions there are to this problem, if it indeed exists?

Why oh why is mnet sometimes so keen to only read the sentences they feel like reading, and not answer the OP's questions?

I do think there is a debate to be had, but am very interested in seeing any more suggestions for family's who possibly do suffer financially when their DC go to uni?

2 scenarios from RL. My nephew and nieces were all activly discouraged by their parents from staying at school after 16. All 3 have worked hard and got jobs, (carpenter, chef and hairdresser) and the reasoning given by their parents was that it is about time they started contributing financially.

Contrast a family that make great sacrifices to support their children for the 5 years or so of 6th form and Uni or whatever, who might get a bit of state support during the first 2 years. That family is far far worse off than the first who have 5 wages coming in.

Whether or not my DB and his wife were right financially they are far far better off than they would have been if their children had remained in school post 16.

agree with riven. it is morally wrong to expect our children to sipport us. sort out your own finances/pension/money for the later stages of your life.
I don't expect to support my mum. she doesn't want that either. i don't want my sons (aged 6 and 1) to support me.
what nonsense.

The OP's point is not that children are supporting their parents but that parents are using children to secure more benefits from the government. The OP is talking bollocks.

Well, if the OP's figures are correct , £70+ per week is alot of money to suddenly lose.

Does CTC get phased out? Or is it just abruptly stopped?

If it is abruptly stopped as the OP suggests, then I agree that this is probably a huge impact on a families income and I would struggle to absorb the loss of that.

I don't think that is a difficult point to see.

Mumblechum I am interested in the solutions, if there are any, for the parents who can't afford to subsidise their DC.

Lets be honest, I have no idea how low a persons income would have to be to qualify for over £70 a week of CTC, and I am not even sure CTC goes up to that amount per week, but if it did, I would have thought the household income would have to be incredibly low, imvho, so it makes sense that a sudden £70+ drop in income every week would be extremely worrying for these family's.

Maybe it is not morally right to rely on that money, but I am sure that if OP has anywhere near the right figures, it is understandable that some extremely poor family's would panic at the loss of this money, and tbh, I am sure those family's need every penny of that money every week, even though imvho, it probably doesn't cost over £70 a week to provide the basics for one adult, and so that money is possibly going towards other household bills that will still remain the same price once the CTC has abruptly stopped.

If CTC is relied upon as a contribution towards household bills that are static, then this will of course present a problem if it is abruptly stopped, wont it?

It seems to me that when DC go to uni, they are studying full time, as they were at college, and yet they have to work too to support themselves. Maybe this is the travesty, that the government can't seem to help poorer families until their DC have finished their education, and extend the help to include university, and thereby giving all DC, regardless of their parents income an equal opportunity to escape the poverty trap and succeed?

Or am I barking completely up the wrong tree?