In-laws are broke, DH has offered to help

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old people want to age in place and stay in their houses and that's fair.

What's not fair is when they were young people who bought a luxury house on credit they can't afford, and tryd to scam their kid to pay for it.

I don’t think they are scamming kids.

My dad can no longer care for himself. He doesn’t want to go to a nursing home and wants to stay home. My elderly mom, brother and 2 home aids take care of him at home. He is not scamming anyone. He wants to die at home.

He is scamming others if he isn't paying for it himself.

Taking food from his grandchildrens mouths to pay for this is scamming them.

I think it teaches family values. My children have watched me care for my parents. We have given up family vacations to visit my parents. We have visited both my mom and dad in the hospital and rehab center and when they return home.

I hope that my children will visit me and take care of me when I’m old.

I’m alswayz surprised how selfish and disloyal people can be towards their family. Of course there are exceptions if there was abuse but these are the people who gave you life and raised you.

I'm always surprised how selfish parents can be. You'd rather your kids support you instead of funding their childrens college funds. You'd rather your kids support you instead of buying their own home. You'd rather your kids support you instead of funding their own retirement. How dare you call someone else selfish when you're this terrible of a parent and this terrible with money.

DH and I both went to college and grad school without parental support. I used to send my parents money when I could, even when I was in college.

Someone recently asked how to raise high achieving kids. Perhaps be destitute so your kids know they have to work hard to support themselves AND their parents.

If we couldn’t afford to help our parents financially, they would probably move in with us. I would work EXTRA hard for them NOT to live with me. While I love my mom, she drives me crazy. I will drive her to doc appointments, take her to surgery and back but I would not want to live with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute..I thought all Boomers were hoarding money by staying in their
house purchased with the low interest rates when they were young teens- that have now made them all wildly rich, preventing everyone else from owning any property ever. Oh, and taunting everyone with it.

So, no, it turns out it's not a thing? Oh.

Sample size of one and draws a sweeping conclusion . . . You know what that says about you don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This would be a marital dealbreaker for me. I’m not giving up my financial future for my inlaws or my own parents. Downsizing is not a reason to subsidize them. Now, keeping them from being homeless — that I would support. But that doesn’t sound like what is happening.

It is totally fair for you to push back on this.

This.
It’s not okay that it is your burden to help them live beyond their means.
No way.
Not if it means sacrificing opportunity to own your own home and send your kid to college.
If it meant not going on that European vacay for the third time, sure.
But this isn’t that.

In-laws need to downsize.

[Anonymous]

I strongly dislike my mother, she always made terrible financial decisions, and now in her old age I still sent her $500 a month to bridge the gap between Social Security and what she really needs to live. My spouse doesn’t like her either, but has no problem with this - because it’s what you just do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I strongly dislike my mother, she always made terrible financial decisions, and now in her old age I still sent her $500 a month to bridge the gap between Social Security and what she really needs to live. My spouse doesn’t like her either, but has no problem with this - because it’s what you just do.

Right, but I think it's all relative. Are you doing it at a cost of being able to save for a downpayment? Are you jeopardizing your own retirement? Are you saving to help your kids with college? The issue is finite resources and conflicting priorities within a marriage. It's particularly nuanced when one set of parents needs help and the other does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly dislike my mother, she always made terrible financial decisions, and now in her old age I still sent her $500 a month to bridge the gap between Social Security and what she really needs to live. My spouse doesn’t like her either, but has no problem with this - because it’s what you just do.

Right, but I think it's all relative. Are you doing it at a cost of being able to save for a downpayment? Are you jeopardizing your own retirement? Are you saving to help your kids with college? The issue is finite resources and conflicting priorities within a marriage. It's particularly nuanced when one set of parents needs help and the other does not.

And this is exactly why I asked OP to give us the specifics. How much money are we talking about and how much money do they make? She said they can afford it, but if they are really doing it at the cost of saving for a down payment and for the kids college then they can’t afford it. That’s why I want to see numbers before I make a decision whether or not, she’s just another nasty DCUM in law hater or whether she has a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute..I thought all Boomers were hoarding money by staying in their
house purchased with the low interest rates when they were young teens- that have now made them all wildly rich, preventing everyone else from owning any property ever. Oh, and taunting everyone with it.

So, no, it turns out it's not a thing? Oh.

Sample size of one and draws a sweeping conclusion . . . You know what that says about you don't you?

Yeah, it says that I know many many many many Boomers aged 58 ish to 75 who cannot afford to retire at all and not because of their own failures. They bought within their means, supported at least two children, paid for colleges, weddings, music lessons, camps, helped THEIR parents out- you name it, but the 2007 recession decimated their 401ks, with this being the 3rd big recession they lived through starting with graduating from college in the worst one, with interest rates at 18% (!), their houses were underwater for a long period of time from this last recession, and only were able to refinance to lower rates much later in the mortgage. They
only saw equity growth in these last 3 years.
They lose their health insurance if they retire and, even if they can wait to 65, they still pay for Medicare and a necessary supplemental plan- costing way more than everyone thinks. They drive 14 year old cars, take day trips,
and some are still helping their kids who lost jobs during the pandemic. Everyone is a professional with multiple degrees. It's worse for those who took a different route.

So, I'm here busting the big myth, sorry if you prefer to remain in a delusional state of whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute..I thought all Boomers were hoarding money by staying in their
house purchased with the low interest rates when they were young teens- that have now made them all wildly rich, preventing everyone else from owning any property ever. Oh, and taunting everyone with it.

So, no, it turns out it's not a thing? Oh.

Many are! The rest are out spending like there's no tomorrow and expecting their kids to pick up the tab.

If they are spending it is because they have the money, so no one is picking up the tab, and because it isn't a crime to spend their own money. And no, they didn't game the system- they paid the same dues, no low interesr rates 20 , 30 years ago, and it took both salaries and 35 + years of work to qualify. It's nice if there is an inheritance, but it shouldn't be assumed.
This thread subject is more realistic. Many Boomers are not sitting in the lap of luxury and it isn't because they were reckless. They never had all this supposed wealth .

Are you reading the correct thread? They can't afford their mortgage. There is no inheritance, there is no money, there is debt and potential homelessness looming. GMAFB here. They cant afford their lifestyle and their kids are paying the price.

Yes, you are confused becaus I am answering the PP not the OP's comment. You didn't check that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP needs to provide specifics. How much money are we talking about, and how much money does OP and her husband make?

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly dislike my mother, she always made terrible financial decisions, and now in her old age I still sent her $500 a month to bridge the gap between Social Security and what she really needs to live. My spouse doesn’t like her either, but has no problem with this - because it’s what you just do.

Right, but I think it's all relative. Are you doing it at a cost of being able to save for a downpayment? Are you jeopardizing your own retirement? Are you saving to help your kids with college? The issue is finite resources and conflicting priorities within a marriage. It's particularly nuanced when one set of parents needs help and the other does not.

And this is exactly why I asked OP to give us the specifics. How much money are we talking about and how much money do they make? She said they can afford it, but if they are really doing it at the cost of saving for a down payment and for the kids college then they can’t afford it. That’s why I want to see numbers before I make a decision whether or not, she’s just another nasty DCUM in law hater or whether she has a point.

Why do the numbers matter? They cannot afford it. That's all that matters. They are risking their own futures and their childrens future to provide for parents who have made shockingly bad decisions. Why is it the grandchildrens fault? Why should their college funds be empty because grandparents couldn't stop shopping or vacationing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute..I thought all Boomers were hoarding money by staying in their
house purchased with the low interest rates when they were young teens- that have now made them all wildly rich, preventing everyone else from owning any property ever. Oh, and taunting everyone with it.

So, no, it turns out it's not a thing? Oh.

Sample size of one and draws a sweeping conclusion . . . You know what that says about you don't you?

Yeah, it says that I know many many many many Boomers aged 58 ish to 75 who cannot afford to retire at all and not because of their own failures. They bought within their means, supported at least two children, paid for colleges, weddings, music lessons, camps, helped THEIR parents out- you name it, but the 2007 recession decimated their 401ks, with this being the 3rd big recession they lived through starting with graduating from college in the worst one, with interest rates at 18% (!), their houses were underwater for a long period of time from this last recession, and only were able to refinance to lower rates much later in the mortgage. They
only saw equity growth in these last 3 years.
They lose their health insurance if they retire and, even if they can wait to 65, they still pay for Medicare and a necessary supplemental plan- costing way more than everyone thinks. They drive 14 year old cars, take day trips,
and some are still helping their kids who lost jobs during the pandemic. Everyone is a professional with multiple degrees. It's worse for those who took a different route.

So, I'm here busting the big myth, sorry if you prefer to remain in a delusional state of whining.

+1. Said it better than I could. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute..I thought all Boomers were hoarding money by staying in their
house purchased with the low interest rates when they were young teens- that have now made them all wildly rich, preventing everyone else from owning any property ever. Oh, and taunting everyone with it.

So, no, it turns out it's not a thing? Oh.

Many are! The rest are out spending like there's no tomorrow and expecting their kids to pick up the tab.

If they are spending it is because they have the money, so no one is picking up the tab, and because it isn't a crime to spend their own money. And no, they didn't game the system- they paid the same dues, no low interesr rates 20 , 30 years ago, and it took both salaries and 35 + years of work to qualify. It's nice if there is an inheritance, but it shouldn't be assumed.
This thread subject is more realistic. Many Boomers are not sitting in the lap of luxury and it isn't because they were reckless. They never had all this supposed wealth .

Are you reading the correct thread? They can't afford their mortgage. There is no inheritance, there is no money, there is debt and potential homelessness looming. GMAFB here. They cant afford their lifestyle and their kids are paying the price.

Yes, you are confused becaus I am answering the PP not the OP's comment. You didn't check that.

Yet that is what this thread is about. Parents who cannot afford their lifestyle, children who are subsidizing it, and yet you want to use a broad brush to paint adult kids as selfish for not subsidizing it. How dare you call someone else selfish when the reality is that their kids wont have a college fund or a stable home to live in because of their grandparents sh#tty choices and the "family values" of supporting their debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute..I thought all Boomers were hoarding money by staying in their
house purchased with the low interest rates when they were young teens- that have now made them all wildly rich, preventing everyone else from owning any property ever. Oh, and taunting everyone with it.

So, no, it turns out it's not a thing? Oh.

Sample size of one and draws a sweeping conclusion . . . You know what that says about you don't you?

Yeah, it says that I know many many many many Boomers aged 58 ish to 75 who cannot afford to retire at all and not because of their own failures. They bought within their means, supported at least two children, paid for colleges, weddings, music lessons, camps, helped THEIR parents out- you name it, but the 2007 recession decimated their 401ks, with this being the 3rd big recession they lived through starting with graduating from college in the worst one, with interest rates at 18% (!), their houses were underwater for a long period of time from this last recession, and only were able to refinance to lower rates much later in the mortgage. They
only saw equity growth in these last 3 years.
They lose their health insurance if they retire and, even if they can wait to 65, they still pay for Medicare and a necessary supplemental plan- costing way more than everyone thinks. They drive 14 year old cars, take day trips,
and some are still helping their kids who lost jobs during the pandemic. Everyone is a professional with multiple degrees. It's worse for those who took a different route.

So, I'm here busting the big myth, sorry if you prefer to remain in a delusional state of whining.

The market has ups and downs but it keeps going up. If they've lived within their means including saving the recommended 20% toward retirement, avoiding consumer debt, and they owned a home from the time interest rates were 18% (over 30 years ago, so it'd be paid off by now), then they'd be doing fine. Along the way it may have meant they paid less for weddings, music lessons, camps and amount of $$ given to their own parents. They are struggling now because they did not actually live within their means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute..I thought all Boomers were hoarding money by staying in their
house purchased with the low interest rates when they were young teens- that have now made them all wildly rich, preventing everyone else from owning any property ever. Oh, and taunting everyone with it.

So, no, it turns out it's not a thing? Oh.

Many are! The rest are out spending like there's no tomorrow and expecting their kids to pick up the tab.

If they are spending it is because they have the money, so no one is picking up the tab, and because it isn't a crime to spend their own money. And no, they didn't game the system- they paid the same dues, no low interesr rates 20 , 30 years ago, and it took both salaries and 35 + years of work to qualify. It's nice if there is an inheritance, but it shouldn't be assumed.
This thread subject is more realistic. Many Boomers are not sitting in the lap of luxury and it isn't because they were reckless. They never had all this supposed wealth .

Are you reading the correct thread? They can't afford their mortgage. There is no inheritance, there is no money, there is debt and potential homelessness looming. GMAFB here. They cant afford their lifestyle and their kids are paying the price.

Yes, you are confused becaus I am answering the PP not the OP's comment. You didn't check that.

Yet that is what this thread is about. Parents who cannot afford their lifestyle, children who are subsidizing it, and yet you want to use a broad brush to paint adult kids as selfish for not subsidizing it. How dare you call someone else selfish when the reality is that their kids wont have a college fund or a stable home to live in because of their grandparents sh#tty choices and the "family values" of supporting their debt.

I think you are referring to my family values response. You sound really defensive. My kids’ college funds are already funded. If I had a choice between supporting my parents if they were struggling financially and saving to pay for my kids’ college, I would choose my parents.

I don’t necessarily think this is the situation that OP’s in laws are in. I can’t tell who is who but someone posted that their parents had $1m and were in their seventies. If that was OP, it sounds like the in laws are in fine financial shape and I would also have a problem with assisting with their mortgage when we could not even afford to buy our own home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute..I thought all Boomers were hoarding money by staying in their
house purchased with the low interest rates when they were young teens- that have now made them all wildly rich, preventing everyone else from owning any property ever. Oh, and taunting everyone with it.

So, no, it turns out it's not a thing? Oh.

Many are! The rest are out spending like there's no tomorrow and expecting their kids to pick up the tab.

If they are spending it is because they have the money, so no one is picking up the tab, and because it isn't a crime to spend their own money. And no, they didn't game the system- they paid the same dues, no low interesr rates 20 , 30 years ago, and it took both salaries and 35 + years of work to qualify. It's nice if there is an inheritance, but it shouldn't be assumed.
This thread subject is more realistic. Many Boomers are not sitting in the lap of luxury and it isn't because they were reckless. They never had all this supposed wealth .

Are you reading the correct thread? They can't afford their mortgage. There is no inheritance, there is no money, there is debt and potential homelessness looming. GMAFB here. They cant afford their lifestyle and their kids are paying the price.

Yes, you are confused becaus I am answering the PP not the OP's comment. You didn't check that.

Yet that is what this thread is about. Parents who cannot afford their lifestyle, children who are subsidizing it, and yet you want to use a broad brush to paint adult kids as selfish for not subsidizing it. How dare you call someone else selfish when the reality is that their kids wont have a college fund or a stable home to live in because of their grandparents sh#tty choices and the "family values" of supporting their debt.

I grew up in a rental and had no college fund. I had a stable home.