How long do you think children should expect parents to support them?

[TheVrolok]

Didn't we have this topic not too long ago? Me? I'm 24, living at home for under a year while I have a break between college and med school. I partied hard/had tons of fun/lived on my own during college, I've got 0 problems living at home for a bit to save some cash before the big loans kick in this fall. I do enjoy when spidey pipes up in these threads; I guess I'm a failure at life. Oh well, I may as well just not go to med school now.

 

[sao123]

Wow... spidey your a fucking idiot.

according to your moronic definitions, theres is a complete disadvantage to becoming the "early" adult, instead of the late one.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you still living at home at age 24 you are a complete failure at life honestly. If you can't put a roof over your head and provide for your life and self, well that's failure at life.

Area707 - by providing a roof over the head still classifies as failure of the child. The now mid 20s child can't even meet it's basic needs without assistance. The child is a failure at life and the parents are enabling this failure.

18 is the bar. Above and beyond that will only lead to the child's failure in life.

I make well above 6 figures and can buy my own house anytime I feel like it. :roll:

I don't see any incentive to do so since I'm single and don't have a family.
Only a complete idiot would choose to rent an apartment when they can stay home for free.

I remember you mentioning that you eat only maybe twice a year and you don't see the fun in going out. How are you going to meet someone and start a family? Arranged marriage?

"going out" can mean different things.
You will never see me in a club, bar, or something similar which seem to be the popular things kids my age do these days. :roll:
However I go to zoos, aquarium, six flags/kings dominion, museums, parks, theatre, and other things once in a while.

I would rather spend my time doing something else(sleeping included) than doing something stupid like dancing in a smoke filled room to some music from a drugged rapper like 50 cents or getting drunk/shit faced in a bar or pub just for the sake of "going out".
I choose not to associate myself with either of those things.

You eat out when you have interest in meeting the person and learning more, not before.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Maybe he has no interest in that either?

Some guys aren't looking to start a family.

You are absolutely...wrong.
Some guys aren't looking to start a family, but I'm not one of them.

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Well, he talked about planning on paying for his children's college and expenses. Trying to figure out how he plans on eventually meeting someone if he only goes out twice a year. I'm guessing arranged marriage is in his future.

I never said I only go out twice a year.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shadow9d9


It is much more worthwhile for a child to sit in front of a forum all day trying to bash people to feel better about themselves.

Funny, I don't feel better about myself from this shit. It's an attempt to help others become an adult.

Part of being an adult is making smart financial decisions. You could move out when you're 18 (or 21) and spend $1500 a month on rent and utilities. Or you could live at home for 3 more years and use the $54,000 you would have spent on rent and utilities as a down payment on a house. Which is smarter? Which puts you in a better position for the rest of your life?

Most kids that live at home in their 20s don't save that $54K. They spend it on toys and knick knacks. Cell phones, laptops, cars. Those that actually have a goal they're working toward are few and far between.

And those goal oriented people are probably also helping their parents out in other ways. Chores around the house, helping pay for groceries, etc. Most of these immature punks are just mooches though.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: AreaCode707


If you're living at home, paying rent, that means that you CAN self-sufficiently meet your basic needs, you're just choosing to do so while living with your parents. My sister is a personality that could do this, for instance. She and my parents just enjoy each others' company that much. She's not doing this, but if she were then it would be the same as if she were providing for herself while living with roommates.

No. Not the same. Not anywhere near the same. While the 20+ something child lives at home it thinks itself an adult, but is still a child. It is defendant on the nest to provide it's basic needs - food, shelter, comfort. Even if it thinks it is contributing it is still a child and a child mentality. Until the child can learn to provide for itself it is still a child no matter what age.

Eh, I will respectfully disagree. I was out of the house at 18, so I'm not arguing in self-defense, but I do know people that are both self-sufficient ($70k+ a year, good social lives) and live at home.

Anyway, my question really pertained more to the kids that expect tuition, rent, car, gas, and spending money and, to end our difference of opinion, let's say live outside of the home.

Those are the responsibility of the parents.
It is the child's responsibility to bring the good grades home.

As long as my children keep a 3.3 GPA and don't pick stupid majors like psychology, liberal arts, social science, medieval history, or any other equivalent stupid degree they can expect their undergrad tuition to be fully covered(after scholarships are accounted for).
In fact, if they decide that they want to also get a Masters/PhD, I will gladly give them an "interest free" loan for it.

I would prefer my child to bring an "A" on his/her report card than to bring a "C" due to him/her working a stupid $8-10/hr job at CVS or some other stupid job on campus.
If "work" is the issue preventing one from bringing me an "A" on their report card, then they need to quit it.

Your ideas only apply to parents who can afford those luxuries. I could get a 4.0GPA and my parents would say, "too bad, no tuition payment from us. We can't afford Harvard or even a public university. That 4.0GPA can get you scholarships, work it."

My parents live on a fixed income(not a large one), so they could not afford it.

IMO, if they didn't plan to save for college, they shouldn't have had kids. We planned financially before we had our child...

 

[TecHNooB]

Living at home is fucking sweet. They should pay for college, you should work your butt off. OR, you should have done well enough in HS to get scholarships and then work your butt off some more in college.

 

[Linflas]

As far as I'm concerned that expectation should end the day they march across the stage and receive their high school diploma or drop out and are 18 years old. 2 weeks after I graduated from high school I was in boot camp listening to an R. Lee Ermey clone and learning that mommy was no longer around to cater to me.

 

[sao123]

Spidey...
the road to adulthood is Not a Path To A Door, But A Road Leading Forever Towards The Horizon

You dont just become an adult the minute you have no safety net... if you're not an adult before that happes, you're just doomed to fail.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shadow9d9


It is much more worthwhile for a child to sit in front of a forum all day trying to bash people to feel better about themselves.

Funny, I don't feel better about myself from this shit. It's an attempt to help others become an adult.

Part of being an adult is making smart financial decisions. You could move out when you're 18 (or 21) and spend $1500 a month on rent and utilities. Or you could live at home for 3 more years and use the $54,000 you would have spent on rent and utilities as a down payment on a house. Which is smarter? Which puts you in a better position for the rest of your life?

Most kids that live at home in their 20s don't save that $54K. They spend it on toys and knick knacks. Cell phones, laptops, cars. Those that actually have a goal they're working toward are few and far between.

And those goal oriented people are probably also helping their parents out in other ways. Chores around the house, helping pay for groceries, etc. Most of these immature punks are just mooches though.

That is a pure assumption.

One of my best friends from high school stayed home a year, saved 50k, and bought a condo.

Another from college saves up 20k+ a year even after student loans and still stays at home.

None of my friends bought crap and stayed at home.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Linflas
As far as I'm concerned that expectation should end the day they march across the stage and receive their high school diploma or drop out and are 18 years old. 2 weeks after I graduated from high school I was in boot camp listening to an R. Lee Ermey clone and learning that mommy was no longer around to cater to me.

As a parent, I will do as my parents did. Help my child through college and be as supportive as reasonable(every child varies) and help them get a nice start in life. That is the whole point of being a parent.

You generally want your children to have a leg up on life.. why make things harder on them with no benefit?

If your child takes advantage of the extra opportunity, it should be done.

As I said, everyone varies. If the child doesn't save money while at home, then they shouldn't be allowed to stay. But if they save 20+K a year, why would a parent not want to help?

 

[L1FE]

For Asian families it's normal for children to stay at home well into adulthood. The philosophy is that each generation builds off the other so in the long run we become wealthier and wealthier. I only see this as a problem if the child does not take advantage of the savings he/she can gain at home and instead wanks all day/night acting as dead weight.

A few years ago my sister and her boyfriend (now husband) moved back in (after 5 years away) with my mom. This was primarily for my mother's benefit. Not only did they help pay for the mortgage and utilities, but they kept her company since my jackass dad is off somewhere in China doing "business." Considering my sister's and her husband's income combine at over $160k, it wasn't as if they had no other option. They did it specifically to help my mother out.

Each situation should be judged differently. It is true that when you live at home, you really don't experience true independence. Yes, you may pay rent and might do chores, but there's always a safety net. At the same time, a child could be living at home to BE the safety net as well. Human beings are social animals, so it's unrealistic (and frankly kind of stupid) to expect people to just go it alone.

 

[CPA]

My kids know it's 18 and they're out.

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
If your kids still want to live with you at the age of 23-27, you did something wrong.

Question isn't really about living at home (despite Spidey's interpretation) but about financial support even after they're out of the home. My coworker has a daughter who decided to quit a full ride scholarship to college and is shocked that mommy and daddy aren't going to give her the car and are now going to charge her (well under market, with insurance paid) rent to use it. She even called her grandparents to whine about how unfair her parents are! And she's 22.

ha!
That's sick man. But in a way you can blame the parents for creating that sense of entitlement early on, by spoiling her as a child

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Linflas
As far as I'm concerned that expectation should end the day they march across the stage and receive their high school diploma or drop out and are 18 years old. 2 weeks after I graduated from high school I was in boot camp listening to an R. Lee Ermey clone and learning that mommy was no longer around to cater to me.

Semper Fi!

Boot camp is possibly the best education I ever had...and they paid me to get it!

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Linflas
As far as I'm concerned that expectation should end the day they march across the stage and receive their high school diploma or drop out and are 18 years old. 2 weeks after I graduated from high school I was in boot camp listening to an R. Lee Ermey clone and learning that mommy was no longer around to cater to me.

As a parent, I will do as my parents did. Help my child through college and be as supportive as reasonable(every child varies) and help them get a nice start in life. That is the whole point of being a parent.

You generally want your children to have a leg up on life.. why make things harder on them with no benefit?

If your child takes advantage of the extra opportunity, it should be done.

As I said, everyone varies. If the child doesn't save money while at home, then they shouldn't be allowed to stay. But if they save 20+K a year, why would a parent not want to help?

Not saying you shouldn't do that but the OP question is not how long the parents should expect to support their kids but rather how long the kids should expect this support from the parents.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Linflas
As far as I'm concerned that expectation should end the day they march across the stage and receive their high school diploma or drop out and are 18 years old. 2 weeks after I graduated from high school I was in boot camp listening to an R. Lee Ermey clone and learning that mommy was no longer around to cater to me.

Semper Fi!

Boot camp is possibly the best education I ever had...and they paid me to get it!

Heh Semper Fi misplaced, I did not go through the hell that is Marine bootcamp, but the lighter version of it that the Navy provided but I have to say that watching that 1st half of Full Metal Jacket there are more similarities than differences. It is the closest to reality depiction of boot camp I have seen in any movie. And the pay was really nice since you just sat on the checks since there was nothing to spend it on anyway for the next 9 weeks.

 

[Homerboy]

I love some of these responses.... ATOT never fails to disappoint in humor and entertainment. Keep em coming kids!

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: AreaCode707


If you're living at home, paying rent, that means that you CAN self-sufficiently meet your basic needs, you're just choosing to do so while living with your parents. My sister is a personality that could do this, for instance. She and my parents just enjoy each others' company that much. She's not doing this, but if she were then it would be the same as if she were providing for herself while living with roommates.

No. Not the same. Not anywhere near the same. While the 20+ something child lives at home it thinks itself an adult, but is still a child. It is defendant on the nest to provide it's basic needs - food, shelter, comfort. Even if it thinks it is contributing it is still a child and a child mentality. Until the child can learn to provide for itself it is still a child no matter what age.

Eh, I will respectfully disagree. I was out of the house at 18, so I'm not arguing in self-defense, but I do know people that are both self-sufficient ($70k+ a year, good social lives) and live at home.

Anyway, my question really pertained more to the kids that expect tuition, rent, car, gas, and spending money and, to end our difference of opinion, let's say live outside of the home.

Those are the responsibility of the parents.
It is the child's responsibility to bring the good grades home.

As long as my children keep a 3.3 GPA and don't pick stupid majors like psychology, liberal arts, social science, medieval history, or any other equivalent stupid degree they can expect their undergrad tuition to be fully covered(after scholarships are accounted for).
In fact, if they decide that they want to also get a Masters/PhD, I will gladly give them an "interest free" loan for it.

I would prefer my child to bring an "A" on his/her report card than to bring a "C" due to him/her working a stupid $8-10/hr job at CVS or some other stupid job on campus.
If "work" is the issue preventing one from bringing me an "A" on their report card, then they need to quit it.

Your ideas only apply to parents who can afford those luxuries. I could get a 4.0GPA and my parents would say, "too bad, no tuition payment from us. We can't afford Harvard or even a public university. That 4.0GPA can get you scholarships, work it."

My parents live on a fixed income(not a large one), so they could not afford it.

IMO, if they didn't plan to save for college, they shouldn't have had kids. We planned financially before we had our child...

LOL this one takes the cake.
ROFLOL!!!!

 

[zerogear]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
In many parts of the world, sometimes children NEVER leave home. And with homes costing $250,000 on up and peoples desire to remain single, 20 somethings at 'home' will become more and more common.

I actually get the 20-somethings at home just fine, but you can still be at home and living on your own dime (paying rent, buying your own car/gas, doing your own housework). By itself living at home doesn't mean expecting your parents to support you.

I think being 20s something and at home is fine. For some people living at home is a method of saving money for that big move in the future.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
If you're living at home, paying rent, that means that you CAN self-sufficiently meet your basic needs, you're just choosing to do so while living with your parents. My sister is a personality that could do this, for instance. She and my parents just enjoy each others' company that much. She's not doing this, but if she were then it would be the same as if she were providing for herself while living with roommates.

My mom doesn't charge me any rent.
If she starts to, there would be little incentive for me to stay.

Originally posted by: spidey07
No. Not the same. Not anywhere near the same. While the 20+ something child lives at home it thinks itself an adult, but is still a child. It is defendant on the nest to provide it's basic needs - food, shelter, comfort. Even if it thinks it is contributing it is still a child and a child mentality. Until the child can learn to provide for itself it is still a child no matter what age.

:roll:

dude, how old are you? why are you making 6 figures and not helping out your parents (unless they are uber rich and don't need your help)?
i can understand the living at home part, sorta... but making a good living, not contributing to the home, not in a relationship...

and then the attitude where if she starts charging, you're incentive to stay is gone?
you must be a total loser.

 

[BW86]

I'm 22, turning 23 and I'm still living at home. Its not that I want to still live home. It's just to expensive.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: zerogear

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
In many parts of the world, sometimes children NEVER leave home. And with homes costing $250,000 on up and peoples desire to remain single, 20 somethings at 'home' will become more and more common.

I actually get the 20-somethings at home just fine, but you can still be at home and living on your own dime (paying rent, buying your own car/gas, doing your own housework). By itself living at home doesn't mean expecting your parents to support you.

I think being 20s something and at home is fine. For some people living at home is a method of saving money for that big move in the future.

Saving money at your parents expense. No matter how much you think you are "pulling your own weight" at home, you simply are not. I dont care if you pay rent or whatever, you're still an expense to your parents.

I'm venturing to guess that EVERYONE saying "20+ is ok to live it home is 20ish themselves and without kids?

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: BW86
I'm 22, turning 23 and I'm still living at home. Its not that I want to still live home. It's just to expensive.

Yes living on your own is. You think its not expensive for your parents to raise you for 20+ years? Welcome to ADULT HOOD. You have to make sacrifices to survive.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Lothar
I make well above 6 figures and can buy my own house anytime I feel like it.

The rest of us don't count the cents in our salary as figures.