If your kids grow up and become rich, do they owe you $$? (chores, grandmother)
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.
Back when my son was growing up and working so hard and we pushed him for success because we saw a special talent in him, we always said once you are an adult and are a millionaire, you can support your Mom and Dad.
Now that boy is a man and is in fact a millionaire. We would like to believe that part of his success is a result of us pushing him to succeed. So we are in part responsible for his success.
Is it his responsibility to send us money now we don't work anymore and no employer will hire my wife and I- too old?
The way you've phrased this... I think you should be ashamed. You sound like you fully EXPECT that he should be sending you money.
That's not how it works. Having kids is YOUR choice, not his. That includes whatever amount you spent on him for school, raising him, etc. That money wasn't a loan, nor is it some future obligation that your son must pay back.
That being said... if you did a good job raising your children, and they are old enough to realize just how much you did for them (I hope you actually did things for them, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on at all) then they will probably feel grateful for the good life they had and being set up for success. My parents gave up things for me. They gave up having newer cars more frequently to send me to college. My mother gave up her career to raise me. The list goes on and on... but they've never asked nor expected for me to take care of them.
Between my wife and I, we make almost 200k a year. It was always the plan that when my parents are too old to care for themselves, they will move in with us, and we will be glad to have them. But they don't need our money, nor do they like it when we buy them things, because they have their own money and they planned for their own retirement. Even if they had nothing though, they wouldn't expect help from me. They'd get it, but they certainly wouldn't ask or demand for it.
This makes me wonder if our opinions of the OP would change based on exactly what occurred. If his son is a millionaire because he pushed him to play baseball or football, hoping to get out of the ghetto on his son's talent, I'm sure most people would say his child doesn't owe him a thing.
The kind of parents the OP+ spouse actually were is the missing piece of the puzzle here. There is a reason why that tie of genuine affection between son and parents is not there. If it was - the son would have likely offered help.
And I'm pointing out that her choice to carry debt and remain at school isn't her parent's fault. They made a decision based on priorities between an able bodied young adult and two elderly family members. She made the decision to carry debt based on her priorities---credits, major, friends, whatever. Instead of resenting and blaming her parents, she should take ownership for her own decision to carry debt. I can't fathom someone waiving promises in the face of an unexpected development of a grandparent and great-grandparent needing help. That's not the way any generation of my family has responded to a family crisis. I'm not saying people should do it my way. I'm just saying these are the values of my family.
wow. This has gone beyond ridiculous. None of what you wrote here was included in the brief story about the girl and her college debt. you don't know how she felt. All we know is that her parents ppro missed to pay for college. Then they didn't. It doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of this thread.
But you didn't answer my question about what she does or does not owe her parents.
So where would the Amish fit in with your theory? They're one of the most conservative groups of people in our country and they take care of family. (It would take me a while to process "Amish" and "liberal" in the same sentence.)
Many people are not conservative and liberal "whole-sale" style.
It is obvious that the Amish are conservative but it is also true that many conservative Americans who are NOT Amish promote an atomized view of the family. In this view the adults parents are strictly responsible to raise the child until the legal age of 18. Then it's "fend for yourself" land. I see little genuine affection in this type of family model.
In all fairness, this has a lot more to do with American culture, overall, than with political affiliation.
I have seen the "fend-for-yourself" family style practiced in liberal and conservative families alike.
I wouldn't make much of the liberal/conservative labels in this case.
Perhaps the OP should have titled the post something along the lines of "should we feel disappointed that our millionaire son....blah?".
If you don't feel it yourself that you "owe" something to your significant others (on both ends, children AND parents) - then something went wrong in your family.
You may like it just fine the way your family functions, but some of us very much dislike this model.
This whole thread is about entitlement! The op thinks he's entitled to part of his son's fortune. I say he's not.
I don't think supporting a family member out of obligation is nearly as nice as supporting a family memebemember because you want to.
What's new is applying individualism from government to individualism from their own families. Individualism isn't only applied to individuals. It is applied to groups too---a group's right to hold unique ideals from the overall population. Our Constitution represents and protects both individuals and groups. Individualism from society and government. Last time I checked, my family wasn't society or government. It's a subgroup that has the rights of individualism as separate people and as a group.
I always get pegged on the wrong side of my political beliefs when discussing family. Somewhere along the line conservatives stole "family" as a talking point. People hear the word and automatically assume someone is taking a conservative stance. The reality is that our family's choice to help one another is a very liberal concept. It's like micro social security. What's conservative is the belief that everyone fend for themselves and suffer the consequences if they fail.
Why does it even have to be political? The most family oriented people I know are conservatives. Out of the people I know, those that are most likely to help out family members are ALL very conservative people. Does your experience outweigh my experience? No. How about, this isn't political at all.
It's a redundant question that has been asked and answered. My position has been very clear in this thread.
Yes very clear - you have bigger and better "family values" than the rest of us. My position has been largely ignored and misinterpreted.
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.
My position has been largely ignored and misinterpreted.
