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.
Example An adult child who has blithely done whatever he wants. Because 'he isn't going to live to be
old anyway'. Consequently has nothing. Parents have supplied a place to live - can't picture him
homeless; but how does that help?
They are older and won't live forever; he's mid forties. How much do they owe him?
BYW he's very capable of surviving, but refuses to do so.
In a case like that, where the parents have enabled so long, IMO they 'owe' him a little time before the deadline for kicking him out. Maybe 2/3 months.
Example An adult child who has blithely done whatever he wants. Because 'he isn't going to live to be
old anyway'. Consequently has nothing. Parents have supplied a place to live - can't picture him
homeless; but how does that help?
They are older and won't live forever; he's mid forties. How much do they owe him?
BYW he's very capable of surviving, but refuses to do so.
IMO, what you owe your kids is a good start. So it would include things like a good moral foundation, maybe a place to stay during while they save up for something important (like a first house) or while serving an internship (depends on situation), maybe a college education (if you can swing it).
Although you might choose to give your kids a place to stay if they hit hard times in their 40s, you certainly don't owe them anything by that point in their lives.
Owe equates to guilt in this context. I did a reasonable job of raising my son and don't owe him anything. He was fed/clothed, had a roof over his head, and put through college. I don't feel that I owe him anything.
If I were guilty about how I was as a parent, maybe I would though.
Our son is a good parent and husband and he treats us with respect. He's kind and thoughtful. We've just returned to FL for the season and he's genuinely happy to see us. Not only because I watch the grandkids a few days a week, but he likes to do things with us as a family. We are included in most everything if we want to and they treat the other set of grandparents the same way when they are here for their six months.
It's a good family dynamic with give and take. I don't owe anything, but I have a lot I want to give that comes from the heart and not from guilt.
Interest.com found that despite their children's misgivings, more than six in 10 older Americans (those 60 and older) replied that they expect to leave behind an inheritance. Of those, 22 percent thought they'd be able to bequeath between $100,000 and $500,000.
As the article points out it may not play out the way folks think but at least they feel they have a shot at it.
Not quite. Consider history and you'll remember that the US went against the long-entrenched tradition of other civilizations (from biblical to European) who followed the custom of passing on wealth.
In biblical (eastern and middle eastern) and European traditions, inheritances - primarily land - were passed down intact to the oldest son in order that the family legacy not be fragmented. Anyone other than the eldest son was poop-out-of-luck. This custom resulted in land barons holding and increasing wealth while everyone else missed the boat.
There's no doubt that our founding fathers adamantly opposed the tradition of inherited wealth and preferred earned wealth. The basis of our estate tax is to prevent passing on wealth in order to prevent economic dynasties. Existing estate tax laws reflect this opposition. I'm conflicted re estate taxes; on the one hand I think they're grossly unfair and punitive and ineffective, on the other, I respect their origin. I lean more toward the US notion of earned rather than inherited wealth. That doesn't prevent me from wanting to pass on my own meager wealth to my heirs.
This is a very Anglo Saxon point of view. Many non Anglos here (especially the ones hailing from Non European cultures) will go to amazing lengths to set their kids up at an early age. Of course, there are usually strings attached. Nonetheless, what this means is, the Anglo kids are competing for housing, jobs and everything else, with people from other cultures who are subsidized by the parents.
This is a very Anglo Saxon point of view. Many non Anglos here (especially the ones hailing from Non European cultures) will go to amazing lengths to set their kids up at an early age. Of course, there are usually strings attached. Nonetheless, what this means is, the Anglo kids are competing for housing, jobs and everything else, with people from other cultures who are subsidized by the parents.
Having trouble picturing how that competition works. Anglo kid, ivy-league education provided by parents, applies for a job. Non-Anglo kid, ivy-league education provided by parents, applies for same job. They interview, qualifications & references etc. are scrutinized. What subsidy do the non-Anglo parents provide that gets their kid the job?
Housing is equally confusing. Anglo kid makes offer, non-Anglo kid makes offer to buy a house. Bigger offer wins, regardless of where the financing comes from. It's not a competition. Both will find homes they can afford.
My parents paid for my college education. We could only pay for part of our kids' education, especially after they did grad school. I still feel a little guilty about this, as they owe money even after years of working.
We have begun putting money away for our two grands. I don't know if we could do this if we had more than two, though.
I do feel a little better to know that our kids won't have to take care of us though. We finally had to save for our retirement. We simply couldn't afford to pay for all of it, for all of them and save for our old age.
We never mortgaged our home to pay for college. I insisted that any second mortgage had to go back into the house, I paid on college debts out of of my paycheck for what seems like forever.
Having trouble picturing how that competition works. Anglo kid, ivy-league education provided by parents, applies for a job. Non-Anglo kid, ivy-league education provided by parents, applies for same job. They interview, qualifications & references etc. are scrutinized. What subsidy do the non-Anglo parents provide that gets their kid the job?
Housing is equally confusing. Anglo kid makes offer, non-Anglo kid makes offer to buy a house. Bigger offer wins, regardless of where the financing comes from. It's not a competition. Both will find homes they can afford.
It is true some Anglo families subsidize their kids, however the age old American distrust of hereditary wealth, not to mention the pride of saying offspring are independent, often result in even very wealthy families either not subsidizing or only minimally subsidizing. Meanwhile, a non Anglo (most often Asian, in some cases, immigrant European) family will subsidize to the hilt. So, of course, this fuels real estate inflation and makes a higher bar for entry. Also, a subsidized kid will take lower pay than one who is independent, unless the independent one is at the point of last resort. So, score one in the job arena for the subsidized kid.
By being doctrinaire about distrust of hereditary wealth, and prideful about the independence of offspring, a parent following the American norm will disadvantage their kid. Such a kid will also, in many cases, be saddled with student debt, to boot.
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.
