Under what circumstances should your son/daughter start contributing?

[Dis86]

Xordium, smart. Although how many kids?!

 

[RaohNS]

Not sure people are actually saying this. The point is to teach them life is not free and that you have to pay your pay way through it. People have different ways of looking at it. Either they take the money and save it for them (I think this is hardly treating them like an adult and it continuing an unhealthy pattern into adulthood) or you tell them they can stay for free but they have to save up the money themselves so they get the discipline and knowledge to do it themselves. I've got 5 kids - all of which have been treated like that latter option. Encouraged to earn money from an early age - starting off by doing small chores eg tidying up their own room through to more as they get older. All of my kids over the age of 18 have their own places - 2 with flats and 1 with a house in pretty good areas. They got that by learning the discipline from the off.

My youngest lad tidies his room up - he gets pocket money for that - when we go out he takes some (he saves over half) he then chooses what he wants to buy to remember the place rather than me treating him - that way he gets the ownership, he feels like what he has got has been earned, and already at a tender age he knows that tat falls apart and because he is paying for it with his money and making his own choices and learning not to just spend someone else's money on the superficial but to actually think is this worthwhile etc.

I am sure all the parents in here saving for their kids will give them a good deposit but like others in here have said parents can't always be trusted to keep their word. From the other side I am sure some kids will blow their savings on tat and crap. There are risks both ways but you as a parent have a job to prepare your child for the world and all it's little trick and keeping them in a comfort blanket does them no favours. They need to learn to plan for the future and also ensure they enjoy the present. That is a balancing act that is easily learned at early ages before bad habits commence.

It's not about bleeding them dry as you seem to strangely think it's about preparing them for a future when you as a parent may not be there tomorrow because of fate and then they have their whole support blanket pulled out from under them. It's down to parenting style at the end of the day. I believe a parents job is to give a child the skills and opportunities to forge their own way in the world. I know some disagree and believe that a parents job is to protect their child throughout life. I don't disagree with that just I believe what some people are suggesting in here is an extrapolation of helicopter parenting. We won't be here for ever our kids need the skills to face the world without us.

Its a good point. Nobody is going to disagree with the principle.

I can be trusted with my children's money. I'm not talking about the chav down the street who uses child benefit as "fag money". Birthday money goes up, Christmas up.

My Sons first Xmas (2-3m at the time) had 3 presents. The rest we asked for money to put up. Same for his 1st birthday and second Christmas. He's 3 this year and we may spend a touch more as we want get him a bike.

Nobody wants to bleed their kids dry and nobody is implying that. They are saying they enjoy doing things for their children and if one of their chosen ways of doing that is financially that's their choice.

 

[cheesyboy]

I have read the thread, we have one about once every two years and my answer is always the same.
My eldest is now putting down a rather large deposit on a new house because we didn't take her money.

Fine, so it worked out for you doing it your way - congrats.

That doesn't make other peoples' choice in the matter 'selfish', particularly when the reason for their choice is their belief to be doing it for the good of their children. Surely that would, in fact, be the opposite of 'selfish'?

 

[Xordium]

My Sons first Xmas (2-3m at the time) had 3 presents. The rest we asked for money to put up..

I am sure you are doing this but one of the best things you can do for your children is start a pension for them when they are born. I've done this for all of mine and the pot they get at 18 when they have to take it over is very substantial. I've always been of the opinion if it's there they'll add to it (and they have) but if they have to start one then they are more likely to put it off to 25 then think at 30 then think 35 and then panic and have left it too late.

 

[RaohNS]

I am sure you are doing this but one of the best things you can do for your children is start a pension for them when they are born. I've done this for all of mine and the pot they get at 18 when they have to take it over is very substantial. I've always been of the opinion if it's there they'll add to it (and they have) but if they have to start one then they are more likely to put it off to 25 then think at 30 then think 35 and then panic and have left it too late.

A pension when born? Don't they need a national insurance number for this? I've got 3 pensions and all I had to have an NI number for.

I was planning to open a pension at 16 for mine and give then a £1k start. The rest is up to them. The sad thing is that in order to get a decent pension pot these days you need £200+ in there

 

[Xordium]

A pension when born? Don't they need a national insurance number for this? I've got 3 pensions and all I had to have an NI number for.

I was planning to open a pension at 16 for mine and give then a £1k start. The rest is up to them. The sad thing is that in order to get a decent pension pot these days you need £200+ in there

No, they don't you can start it from when they are born and by the time they are 16 they would already have a projected sum that would put many on this forum to shame.

You need to open it for them (obviously) and they need to be a UK resident and they get tax relief (just under 3k per year), it transfers at 18 obviously and the earliest they could possibly take it is 55.

 

[RaohNS]

No, they don't you can start it from when they are born and by the time they are 16 they would already have a projected sum that would put many on this forum to shame.

You need to open it for them (obviously) and they need to be a UK resident and they get tax relief (just under 3k per year), it transfers at 18 obviously and the earliest they could possibly take it is 55.

I did not know that. I thought you originally meant a trust then transfer to Pension.

Might be worth setting a little tenner a month job then.

 

[Xordium]

I did not know that. I thought you originally meant a trust then transfer to Pension.

Might be worth setting a little tenner a month job then.

Yep, well worth doing that. There are plenty of options to look at to suit whatever you want. The beauty of it is that they can't touch till they are 55.

 

[RaohNS]

Will go and have a look see.

 

[Things change I've changed]

Thank you, I've had another good chat with my mum and she has had a read over some of these comments on here and she is now told them to pay £30 a week each, it's not a lot but it's a start, very interesting thread, she will always give more than she takes, it's not about bleeding your kids dry lol, I personally believe it's a matter of respect and responsibility when you come of age to contribute to the house while your living with your parents.

 

[Xordium]

A result for OcUK - mumsnet would be proud of us!

 

[RaohNS]

All posters agree on something. This thread needs go in a hall of fame

 

[shaf]

Good result.

 

[Akagi]

My parents got me to start paying a monthly contribution when I got my first 'proper' job. They decided not to ask me for anything when I was on my apprenticeship because I wasn't earning much, and asked when I got a job after that

Its not much, £175 a month for a room, cooked meals and having my washing done at the same time as everyone elses.

I don't think my Mum wanted me to pay anything buy my Dad talked her into it.

I'm happy to pay it as it is their house and their choice, but I find the concept a bit odd and old fashioned... My Dad earns a lot of money and doesn't need my money, and it means it will take me a bit longer to save up for a deposit...

Seems like a good way to hinder your kid and force them to live with you for longer because you keep taking their money.

 

[EvilRob]

Contribute once full time education is finished and you have a "proper" job.

This is how my parents did it, and it worked well. I had various jobs since I was 14, and was allowed to keep the money from these. In the beginning, this was in lieu of pocket money. Later, it was towards living costs at uni.

After uni I paid 10% of net. This seemed fair to start with when it was less than £200 a month, but started to rankle as my pay increased rapidly. I guess that was a good motivator to move out.

Unlike some of the posters in this thread, my parents did not save any of my contribution. However, they were not really in a position to.

 

[VirtualHobbit]

My lad is 19 & just out of education... He's looking for a job ATM... I will ask him for £50 a week. That should part cover what he eats & that's a lot more than £50 lol
As long as he has respect & does his chores I'm happy!

 

[HungryHippos]

It is obvious. Interest rates on mortgages are Imo deeply deeply unfair.

I think it stands to reason that if you manage the quoted stuff I posted earlier the reality is that as well as saving the initial x years by extension as the LTV rate comes down then you can be in a position to overpay again thus adding more mortgages years gone

I disagree with the statemental that interest rates are unfair myself. Interest rates on mortgages are about as low as they've ever been at the moment. The banks need to make money too and the debt is a very long term one - as such what you pay needs to account for this fact as well as inflation to some degree.

I agree as before that paying more than the minimum is a good idea to reduce overall payments.

 

[RaohNS]

I disagree with the statemental that interest rates are unfair myself. Interest rates on mortgages are about as low as they've ever been at the moment. The banks need to make money too and the debt is a very long term one - as such what you pay needs to account for this fact as well as inflation to some degree.

I agree as before that paying more than the minimum is a good idea to reduce overall payments.

Interest rates are deliberately manipulative mind. The 1.99% is not that at all unless you pay it off in 1year. That's hat I mean.

Prime example: My old home for £80k would have needed me to pay off £234k... That doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[EvilRob]

Interest rates are deliberately manipulative mind. The 1.99% is not that at all unless you pay it off in 1year. That's hat I mean.

Prime example: My old home for £80k would have needed me to pay off £234k... That doesn't seem fair to me.

How is that deliberately manipulative?
Interest rates are always expressed as APRs. Not just for mortgages but for everything. This is in part to promote fairness by making what you have to pay back easy to understand and comparisons between providers easy.

 

[RaohNS]

How is that deliberately manipulative?
Interest rates are always expressed as APRs. Not just for mortgages but for everything. This is in part to promote fairness by making what you have to pay back easy to understand and comparisons between providers easy.

Not to me as the actual rate over the term is really what you want to be told. I'll save us the trouble: We will have to agree to disagree