Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the only moral obligation one has is towards one's parents assuming that in general the parents were okay towards one while one was growing up, etc. As for siblings it also depends on the relationship one has with them and the individual circumstances surrounding how they became less fortunate, etc.
We have different circumstances within our family. We try to help out those who truly need help or just a helping hand. We do not throw money at situations where someone wants what they want and will not change. I think sometimes you just have to stand back and let someone fall, family or not, if they have the means to make a change, but aren't willing to help themselves.
How much money someone has in the bank doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it was hard earned, inherited, or won in a lottery. The other person is not obligated to spend it the 'poorer' person. I use the word 'poorer' because I can't call the person 'less fortunate'. I'd just say that person makes poor decisions.
There is a moral obligation to love your family members well.
Part of that is determining whether giving them money will help them along the road to financial success or enable them to continue making poor financial choices.
This is it.
What's the definition of "help"? Oftentimes--I might even say most times--lack of money isn't the problem that needs helping.
MOST people who make good decisions and work hard will be okay. Maybe not rich, but okay. And some few get hit with truly tragic circumstances. Sometimes giving people money in the middle of otherwise tragic circumstances can help them focus on the problem at hand, even though money is in fact just a secondary consideration (like a natural disaster, loss of spouse, terminal illness, etc.).
MOST people can come back from financial setbacks if they work hard and make good financial decisions. They might remain less well off, but they can maintain a roof over their heads and food in their bellies.
Anyone who can't "be okay" financially really has another set of problems (addiction, mental illness, physical or mental handicap, sometimes sheer laziness and entitled attitude--that is for sure a problem) that throwing money at it won't fix it. It's just going to stay the same. So if you're throwing money in that direction without the person solving their own problem, you will keep throwing it in that direction. Or just give a one-time gift to make a short period o their lives easier. Which is fine, as long as you're not under the impression that you're "changing a life" as the OP has said, with the money you've been "gifted" (which I would argue you very likely worked hard for, but semantics, yes?).
In this country, the majority of people in "poverty" have their daily needs met and are rich by world standards. Where is the line of how much each person is entitled to have to be "comfortable?" That's so subjective.
So what does "help" mean, what does "financial hardship" mean, and what is the source of that hardship? These are the questions I'd have to ask before I gave money to a family member. I'd be more inclined to offer conditional support as they met milestones of improved behavior. I don't think many people wanting money from me would be willing to do the work on their personal lives that I'd require in order to know I'm not enabling/throwing my money away. IOW, not helping.
And sometimes we'd rather throw money at someone and feel like we've helped when what they really need is our time, love, and support to help them get on the right path.
I believe i'm morally responsible to give a helping hand financially if I could. Nowhere did I say that i'm owed anything by anyone. It's not about owing, it's about recognizing a sincere need of those who are close to us, and why the subject of giving money is so contentious.
This is just a random example. You drive a Lexus, large house paid off, don't have to work, married to money.
Your sister married a man who turned out to be a chronic gambler, is in debt, drives a 1995 Chevy truck, works full time, a mortgage that takes up half of her monthly income which she will be paying into retirement, and has car trouble.
You have a quarter of a million in savings alone, so if you bought her a car, it wouldn't hurt you at all. Or you could pay down her mortgage to reduce the payments so she's not stretched so thin into retirement.
Is there a moral obligation to help family members financially (could be immediate or extended)? Why or why not?
It seems there is taboo surrounding finances within families. People don't share their wealth, especially if they see someone in genuine need and are too prideful to ask for help.
No. We all make our own choices in life and have to live with them. She made her bed, now she can sleep in it.
(Although, I do think it is good to give to a charity of your choosing.)
Why?
You may grow resentful if she doesn't reciprocate the grace- which can be done in other ways than giving money.
She may become dependant on you.
She may become expectant of monetary gifts and even get angry if you don't give enough.
I have learned people don't try to change or learn from their mistakes when they always have an enabler to fall back on.
One is well off financially and will continue to be well off financially, while the other one is burdened financially and needs help that the other can provide easily. The one that needs help is responsible, but happened to have bad luck along the way. They happen to be related.
The mere fact that one can help another does not obligate one to do so, family or not.
Also, saying that "the one that needs help is responsible" is a flat-out lie. The original post contained 2 examples of financial irresponsibility: chronic gambling & a mortgage payment that exceeds 25% of their take-home pay. The people in this example can't afford that house.
Last edited by Slowpoke_TX; 01-12-2015 at 01:53 PM..
Reason: Typo
There is never a moral obligation to help out a family member, especially given the situation you described. What you are basically doing, by giving her money in the form of helping with her mortgage is essentially the same thing if you gave her cash. So what you are really doing is giving her deadbeat loser husband money to gamble with.
I would help out my family member ONLY on the condition that they drop their loser spouse. At least then you know the money is not going to be flushed down the crapper.
I would help ONLY if she was nowhere nears that gambler. Gambling is a disease...What guarantee do you have this "gambler" won't sell this stuff now "that it is paid off" to make more money to gamble...DON'T DO IT. IF she divorces him, and has no connection with this guy ever again, then help her get back on her feet, otherwise, don't. (It sucks...I know...but you want to help her, not help the gambler gamble some more.)
Like many I find that the wealthier individuals in the family are often vilified for not helping or not helping enough .
In some circles it is completely OK to expect the money be handed over, and after all this, the borrower is often agitated and shocked when repayment terms need to be discussed. "What do you mean this was a loan?" they say, "I know you can do without such a small amount." No, that's not for you to decide. Not only this, but the really messed up families will often side with the "poorer" (lack of a better term as said above) sibling, such that the entire family is disappointed with any action of the monied sibling who simply cannot win. If they loan the money, it might as well be a gift and the requests keep on coming (as alluded to earlier in this thread). If they say no, they are greedy fat cats living a self absorbed life.
Meanwhile the troubled individual is not penalized for his or her own actions. Yes yes fate happens but how many "emergencies" are emergencies? Who in today's world should be expected to forgo their daily lattes in order to pay for life/car/renters/health insurance? Why save in that 401k at work when I can just live for right now? Who could've seen that the car was unaffordable when the monthly payments take up only 50% of my take home pay?
Given the OP's (fictional?) scenario, I see many are ok with loaning/gifting monies under certain conditions such as leaving the spouse or some other form of control. Myself, i'm OK with this. My money my rules, right? Wrong. In the dysfunctional families described above, this could totally backfire. I suspect that, in their minds, it's the matter of human relationships vs money, while the monied individual sees the pattern of bad behavior and that ultimately, their help will lead nowhere. Most people don't even read the "terms and conditions" outlined while renting cars, buying services, etc. Why on earth would they care about your "terms and conditions"? This makes the entire relationship to money and family way more complex than it needs to be. Sometimes, the answer just needs to be no, without explanation.
There is no moral obligation to one another. This in effect says that there is a moral obligation to take on the problems of another, which I seriously doubt any of the folks here would subscribe to. I may assist, but I may not. Should the afflicted demand assistance on moral grounds, I doubt i'd be able to contain myself. Said another way, the folks who I owe favors to or are genuinely in need of support won't need to appeal on moral grounds.
If you find yourself in a position of (relative) financial strength but aren't villified by your extended family members for your fortune (or lack of others fortune, pick one or both) then relish in this fact. Many of us are not so lucky.
From this thread, there is a taboo with money. Just wondering why that is. If I had so much in the bank that it was just sitting there, and I was guaranteed to have even more (inheritance coming from wealthy parents for example) then it wouldn't be a big deal to hand over enough to give a responsible family member who is in financial trouble a boost.
I've enjoyed reading all the responses.
I have a difficult time comprehending how you don't see the difference between a casserole and $50K
Very seldom do responsible, hard-working people find themselves in a $50K financial hole, through no fault of their own. Not saying it doesn't happen, it does - catastrophic medical bills, companies go completely under and people are unemployed and struggle finding employement etc. It happens. But most likely, the "random situation" you've described is to some extent the result of poor decisions and poor planning. No moral obligation there in my opinion. Moral obligation comes into play when said sister is fleeing an abusive relationship and needs temporary assistance/protection to make the move; or cannot work due to health issues and her disability insurance has run out etc. Now, if someone has a bunch of extra money just laying around (which I question), they are certainly welcome to help out any way they see fit - but morally obligated? No, not in the circumstance you presented.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
