I can't work out where I lie on either side of this. I have a feeling there are good arguments on both sides. Can anybody give me their reasoning?
I like the idea that DC get pocket money based on their age, which is just an allowance, to teach them budgeting and give them a little bit of responsibility. When they aren't old enough to work, it's a bit of their own independence and it's about the idea that in a family we have a family income which is divided up between the members of the family, not that everybody is insular with their own funds that they earn personally.
But the other argument seems to be that it's not a good idea to encourage the mentality that you get money for nothing. That's not how it works in the real world and it's not helpful to teach children that it does. Therefore, there should be some conditions assigned to pocket money. Either behaviour conditions, or set jobs which have to be completed in order to get the money.
I think that DH leans to the second whereas I lean towards the first. I'm not keen on the idea of money being a reward for things which ought to be basic/just done, because I feel like it gives the impression these things are optional when they are not. But on the other hand, it is a useful sanction, and perhaps it is a good idea to instil the idea that money has to be earned.
I'm torn. What do you do?