Do you have an age cut off on supporting adult kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think it is ridiculous for parents to be supporting "kids" well into their 40s. my neighbor does this, and she has some money, but nothing like 30 million. IMO it hinders their growing up and being responsible for themselves.

my kids have been on their own since starting their first jobs. each has lived at home for a bit. one, until she got married (a year or so) and the other, during the covid times. she paid for an apartment in another city while she lived with us.

we do take them on a vacation once a year, but other than that, they are on their own.

we don't have enough to help with down payments.

So you might think differently if you had "more money". We are at the 30M+ level, so yes we will help our kids as we deem appropriate. However, they must all have a career path and be working 40 hour/week jobs for this to happen. It doesn't "hinder their growing up". Our funds help ensure they max their retirement (this 24 yo would be putting away 15-18% without our help). Instead of driving a 10+ year old vehicle, they got a new one, so there are not any mechanical issues (they have a job they have to be in office for---limited amount of time to work from home for appointments/taking car in for servicing, etc). But the old care was running fine and they could have gotten another 3-5 years out of it. But we have the $$ so why make them wait?
Our kid also saves for other things and lives within a budget (they can afford their apartment and all monthly living expenses...but they wouldn't save as much---only 15% for retirement and another 5%). If they chose to buy a $100K vehicle, we wouldn't fund that.

Stop controlling your kids with money. My parents did that and then threw it up to us and finally we wouldn't accept a dime and it destroyed our relationship as they didn't know how to have one without controlling us. In 15 years they haven't given us anything and we pay if we go out to eat. They barely have a relationship with their grandkids as they try control them with money too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think it is ridiculous for parents to be supporting "kids" well into their 40s. my neighbor does this, and she has some money, but nothing like 30 million. IMO it hinders their growing up and being responsible for themselves.

my kids have been on their own since starting their first jobs. each has lived at home for a bit. one, until she got married (a year or so) and the other, during the covid times. she paid for an apartment in another city while she lived with us.

we do take them on a vacation once a year, but other than that, they are on their own.

we don't have enough to help with down payments.

So you might think differently if you had "more money". We are at the 30M+ level, so yes we will help our kids as we deem appropriate. However, they must all have a career path and be working 40 hour/week jobs for this to happen. It doesn't "hinder their growing up". Our funds help ensure they max their retirement (this 24 yo would be putting away 15-18% without our help). Instead of driving a 10+ year old vehicle, they got a new one, so there are not any mechanical issues (they have a job they have to be in office for---limited amount of time to work from home for appointments/taking car in for servicing, etc). But the old care was running fine and they could have gotten another 3-5 years out of it. But we have the $$ so why make them wait?
Our kid also saves for other things and lives within a budget (they can afford their apartment and all monthly living expenses...but they wouldn't save as much---only 15% for retirement and another 5%). If they chose to buy a $100K vehicle, we wouldn't fund that.

Stop controlling your kids with money. My parents did that and then threw it up to us and finally we wouldn't accept a dime and it destroyed our relationship as they didn't know how to have one without controlling us. In 15 years they haven't given us anything and we pay if we go out to eat. They barely have a relationship with their grandkids as they try control them with money too.

DP. Where did pp say they were controlling their children with money and "throwing it up" to them? You are projecting. They paid for a new car for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think it is ridiculous for parents to be supporting "kids" well into their 40s. my neighbor does this, and she has some money, but nothing like 30 million. IMO it hinders their growing up and being responsible for themselves.

my kids have been on their own since starting their first jobs. each has lived at home for a bit. one, until she got married (a year or so) and the other, during the covid times. she paid for an apartment in another city while she lived with us.

we do take them on a vacation once a year, but other than that, they are on their own.

we don't have enough to help with down payments.

So you might think differently if you had "more money". We are at the 30M+ level, so yes we will help our kids as we deem appropriate. However, they must all have a career path and be working 40 hour/week jobs for this to happen. It doesn't "hinder their growing up". Our funds help ensure they max their retirement (this 24 yo would be putting away 15-18% without our help). Instead of driving a 10+ year old vehicle, they got a new one, so there are not any mechanical issues (they have a job they have to be in office for---limited amount of time to work from home for appointments/taking car in for servicing, etc). But the old care was running fine and they could have gotten another 3-5 years out of it. But we have the $$ so why make them wait?
Our kid also saves for other things and lives within a budget (they can afford their apartment and all monthly living expenses...but they wouldn't save as much---only 15% for retirement and another 5%). If they chose to buy a $100K vehicle, we wouldn't fund that.

Stop controlling your kids with money. My parents did that and then threw it up to us and finally we wouldn't accept a dime and it destroyed our relationship as they didn't know how to have one without controlling us. In 15 years they haven't given us anything and we pay if we go out to eat. They barely have a relationship with their grandkids as they try control them with money too.

We don't control our kids with money.
But we refuse to help them out to just sit at home and do nothing. And yes if you think you can buy a $100K veichlenin a $85k salary well then I guess you don't need any financial assistance.
Thankfully we raised our kids well and they are fiscally sound people with goals in life.
They are happy to join us on trips and to visit any chance they get and we happily pay.
They also know they have trust funds for the future. But they don't just get to sit at home and play video games and use that to fund their lives. We are setting them up to be successful in life.


Sorry your parents were controlling. We are not. And our kids don't think so rather--they are happy to have college and grad school paid for, new cars after graduation paid for and help setting up their first apartment

[Anonymous]

I think students need “skin in the game” for grad school to avoid becoming professional students. Rent and living expenses at a minimum, so for PP I’d pay the tuition but no more. If she doesn’t want to figure out her living expenses, I guess she doesn’t want to go that badly. Who she lives with is up to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think students need “skin in the game” for grad school to avoid becoming professional students. Rent and living expenses at a minimum, so for PP I’d pay the tuition but no more. If she doesn’t want to figure out her living expenses, I guess she doesn’t want to go that badly. Who she lives with is up to her.

Depends on the kid. My parents paid for all of law school - I still graduated in the top 10%, law review, then started in Big Law with no debt. If anything, because they paid, I felt like I needed to do my part and succeed. It wasn't until 5 years in Big Law that I started feeling burnt out and losing motivation, but then I had kids, and kids are good for motivation.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a set-in-stone cut-off. It really depends on the circumstances and the needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think students need “skin in the game” for grad school to avoid becoming professional students. Rent and living expenses at a minimum, so for PP I’d pay the tuition but no more. If she doesn’t want to figure out her living expenses, I guess she doesn’t want to go that badly. Who she lives with is up to her.

Depends on the kid. My parents paid for all of law school - I still graduated in the top 10%, law review, then started in Big Law with no debt. If anything, because they paid, I felt like I needed to do my part and succeed. It wasn't until 5 years in Big Law that I started feeling burnt out and losing motivation, but then I had kids, and kids are good for motivation.

Parents can always pay the loans later. It’s still a good litmus test IMO. Prevents the masters in Art History kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think students need “skin in the game” for grad school to avoid becoming professional students. Rent and living expenses at a minimum, so for PP I’d pay the tuition but no more. If she doesn’t want to figure out her living expenses, I guess she doesn’t want to go that badly. Who she lives with is up to her.

Depends on the kid. My parents paid for all of law school - I still graduated in the top 10%, law review, then started in Big Law with no debt. If anything, because they paid, I felt like I needed to do my part and succeed. It wasn't until 5 years in Big Law that I started feeling burnt out and losing motivation, but then I had kids, and kids are good for motivation.

Parents can always pay the loans later. It’s still a good litmus test IMO. Prevents the masters in Art History kids.

If you don't give kids spending money starting at 16 so they have to get a job and learn to budget, and you set expectations that (1) they can't move back home after school and (2) you won't provide them any financial support after school, they should be interested intrinsicslly motivated to choose a good major. It would be tough to go from a high to a low standard of living. Most kids who know their parents will cut them off after graduation are motivated to get a good-paying job. It just can't be an empty threat.

My friend majored in art and now owns two profitable galleries in resort markets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think students need “skin in the game” for grad school to avoid becoming professional students. Rent and living expenses at a minimum, so for PP I’d pay the tuition but no more. If she doesn’t want to figure out her living expenses, I guess she doesn’t want to go that badly. Who she lives with is up to her.

Nah. Lots of my law school friends has trust funds and they were, to a one, very hard working people and did well. So was I, but I was saddled with debt. While they were buying homes and investing, I was living paycheck to paycheck in my job (not big law b/c that was not something I wanted to do).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two in college, and it's obviously the most they have ever cost us. Tuition/ dorm we pay for with 529, but there is car insurance, healthcare, huge amounts of food they consume when at home which is a large part of the year given college schedule. They do work but so far are only using their money for their own "fun spending" and saving. At what point do you stop supporting kids financially? Did you stop cold turkey after college? Or did you phase things out so they progressively became independent? I read that 64% of parents support their Gen Z kid but that is not such a helpful stat given the age range of gen Z including college kids.

When they finish college and get set up, if you cannot afford to help them anymore.

We help our kids after college for extras, because they live within their means but we want them to save more for retirement and a future downpayment, and because they will get millions eventually so it's best to gift it earlier to impact their lives. However, that only happens if they are working and leading a meaning full life (ie. they have a job, they live within their budget for that job, etc basically they need to be responsible and have goals in life and not just spend spend spend)

This is the part I struggle with. We are fine and stable financially but not DCUM wealthy. We had zero help ourselves after 18 so everything we have is just through saving and hard work, which also has meant a lot of sacrificing and not that much life enjoyment just for ourselves. If we spend thousands a month supporting dcs, we cannot also spend every month for fun things like going out to eat or travel. And at some point, maybe I am feeling selfish but I would like to do these things more.

I think it is completely reasonable to take your own circumstances into account. There is no need to be a martyr for your adult kids. And this doesn’t have to be all or nothing, what I think is critical is that your kids understand what help they will get and when it will end.

Maybe that is they can move home after college and live rent free and all other expenses are on them. Maybe it is less or maybe it is more.

Getting them through college debt free is a huge gift. I think at that point all you owe them is honesty so they are not surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think it is ridiculous for parents to be supporting "kids" well into their 40s. my neighbor does this, and she has some money, but nothing like 30 million. IMO it hinders their growing up and being responsible for themselves.

my kids have been on their own since starting their first jobs. each has lived at home for a bit. one, until she got married (a year or so) and the other, during the covid times. she paid for an apartment in another city while she lived with us.

we do take them on a vacation once a year, but other than that, they are on their own.

we don't have enough to help with down payments.

So you might think differently if you had "more money". We are at the 30M+ level, so yes we will help our kids as we deem appropriate. However, they must all have a career path and be working 40 hour/week jobs for this to happen. It doesn't "hinder their growing up". Our funds help ensure they max their retirement (this 24 yo would be putting away 15-18% without our help). Instead of driving a 10+ year old vehicle, they got a new one, so there are not any mechanical issues (they have a job they have to be in office for---limited amount of time to work from home for appointments/taking car in for servicing, etc). But the old care was running fine and they could have gotten another 3-5 years out of it. But we have the $$ so why make them wait?
Our kid also saves for other things and lives within a budget (they can afford their apartment and all monthly living expenses...but they wouldn't save as much---only 15% for retirement and another 5%). If they chose to buy a $100K vehicle, we wouldn't fund that.

Stop controlling your kids with money. My parents did that and then threw it up to us and finally we wouldn't accept a dime and it destroyed our relationship as they didn't know how to have one without controlling us. In 15 years they haven't given us anything and we pay if we go out to eat. They barely have a relationship with their grandkids as they try control them with money too.

We don't control our kids with money.
But we refuse to help them out to just sit at home and do nothing. And yes if you think you can buy a $100K veichlenin a $85k salary well then I guess you don't need any financial assistance.
Thankfully we raised our kids well and they are fiscally sound people with goals in life.
They are happy to join us on trips and to visit any chance they get and we happily pay.
They also know they have trust funds for the future. But they don't just get to sit at home and play video games and use that to fund their lives. We are setting them up to be successful in life.


Sorry your parents were controlling. We are not. And our kids don't think so rather--they are happy to have college and grad school paid for, new cars after graduation paid for and help setting up their first apartment

You are controlling them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think students need “skin in the game” for grad school to avoid becoming professional students. Rent and living expenses at a minimum, so for PP I’d pay the tuition but no more. If she doesn’t want to figure out her living expenses, I guess she doesn’t want to go that badly. Who she lives with is up to her.

I expect my kids to get masters degrees, or even PhD's if they want to teach and we will fund it to the best of our ability. You are setting her up to fail. I had to work 24 hours in college and grad school for an internship/free and it was very difficult on top of 5-6 classes. The students who had to work on top of that barely were passing their classes and getting through it as it was an impossible task.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think it is ridiculous for parents to be supporting "kids" well into their 40s. my neighbor does this, and she has some money, but nothing like 30 million. IMO it hinders their growing up and being responsible for themselves.

my kids have been on their own since starting their first jobs. each has lived at home for a bit. one, until she got married (a year or so) and the other, during the covid times. she paid for an apartment in another city while she lived with us.

we do take them on a vacation once a year, but other than that, they are on their own.

we don't have enough to help with down payments.

So you might think differently if you had "more money". We are at the 30M+ level, so yes we will help our kids as we deem appropriate. However, they must all have a career path and be working 40 hour/week jobs for this to happen. It doesn't "hinder their growing up". Our funds help ensure they max their retirement (this 24 yo would be putting away 15-18% without our help). Instead of driving a 10+ year old vehicle, they got a new one, so there are not any mechanical issues (they have a job they have to be in office for---limited amount of time to work from home for appointments/taking car in for servicing, etc). But the old care was running fine and they could have gotten another 3-5 years out of it. But we have the $$ so why make them wait?
Our kid also saves for other things and lives within a budget (they can afford their apartment and all monthly living expenses...but they wouldn't save as much---only 15% for retirement and another 5%). If they chose to buy a $100K vehicle, we wouldn't fund that.

Stop controlling your kids with money. My parents did that and then threw it up to us and finally we wouldn't accept a dime and it destroyed our relationship as they didn't know how to have one without controlling us. In 15 years they haven't given us anything and we pay if we go out to eat. They barely have a relationship with their grandkids as they try control them with money too.

We don't control our kids with money.
But we refuse to help them out to just sit at home and do nothing. And yes if you think you can buy a $100K veichlenin a $85k salary well then I guess you don't need any financial assistance.
Thankfully we raised our kids well and they are fiscally sound people with goals in life.
They are happy to join us on trips and to visit any chance they get and we happily pay.
They also know they have trust funds for the future. But they don't just get to sit at home and play video games and use that to fund their lives. We are setting them up to be successful in life.


Sorry your parents were controlling. We are not. And our kids don't think so rather--they are happy to have college and grad school paid for, new cars after graduation paid for and help setting up their first apartment

You are controlling them.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think students need “skin in the game” for grad school to avoid becoming professional students. Rent and living expenses at a minimum, so for PP I’d pay the tuition but no more. If she doesn’t want to figure out her living expenses, I guess she doesn’t want to go that badly. Who she lives with is up to her.

What's wrong with being a professional student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think students need “skin in the game” for grad school to avoid becoming professional students. Rent and living expenses at a minimum, so for PP I’d pay the tuition but no more. If she doesn’t want to figure out her living expenses, I guess she doesn’t want to go that badly. Who she lives with is up to her.

Should have started working way earlier so it wouldn't even come to this.