In-laws are broke, DH has offered to help

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

[Anonymous]

I think the purpose of the divorce discussion is more about helping OP see that her marriage isn't equitable if her husband is giving too much money to his parents at the expense of the rest of the family. It appears that she might be better off divorced than married. I don't think we want OP to get divorced over this issue as much as we want her to stand up for herself and her children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

Arent we?
OP cant save up for a downpayment on a home. Because her husband is giving their money to his parents.
OP cant fund a college fund for their child. Because her husband is giving their money to his parents.

Whats next? OP cant afford to fix their car because hubby cant cut the apron strings? These are very real scenarios. And thats why divorce is being mentioned, because this could have catastrophic impacts to their family. OP is not and should not let her own family drown because mommas boy cant prioritize his wife and child.

Instead of inlaws moving to a cheaper house. Or one of the many other options presented here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

You're right. At least an addict has an excuse, they have a disease. What does OPs husband have? A weak spine? Throwing your wealth away at the expense of your child is incredibly drastic and unnecessary. And stupid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

You're right. At least an addict has an excuse, they have a disease. What does OPs husband have? A weak spine? Throwing your wealth away at the expense of your child is incredibly drastic and unnecessary. And stupid!

Your parents raised you well. They should be so proud.

Hope you don’t sound as selfish in real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

You're right. At least an addict has an excuse, they have a disease. What does OPs husband have? A weak spine? Throwing your wealth away at the expense of your child is incredibly drastic and unnecessary. And stupid!

We don't have nearly enough information to decide divorce is the only option. People who toss that around are probably divorced themselves because they have miserable problem solving capabilities. Misery loves company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

You're right. At least an addict has an excuse, they have a disease. What does OPs husband have? A weak spine? Throwing your wealth away at the expense of your child is incredibly drastic and unnecessary. And stupid!

Your parents raised you well. They should be so proud.

Hope you don’t sound as selfish in real life.

How is wanting savings for your child selfish? Are you hearing yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

You're right. At least an addict has an excuse, they have a disease. What does OPs husband have? A weak spine? Throwing your wealth away at the expense of your child is incredibly drastic and unnecessary. And stupid!

We don't have nearly enough information to decide divorce is the only option. People who toss that around are probably divorced themselves because they have miserable problem solving capabilities. Misery loves company.

Literally never said the "only" option.

Btw I'm not divorced. But I wouldn't put up with this if my husband did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

You're right. At least an addict has an excuse, they have a disease. What does OPs husband have? A weak spine? Throwing your wealth away at the expense of your child is incredibly drastic and unnecessary. And stupid!

We don't have nearly enough information to decide divorce is the only option. People who toss that around are probably divorced themselves because they have miserable problem solving capabilities. Misery loves company.

Literally never said the "only" option.

Btw I'm not divorced. But I wouldn't put up with this if my husband did it.

Why is it so easy for you to give bad advice then? People put up with a lot of things they don't think they would, until they are in that situation. The knee jerk divorce response to almost any marital problem is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

You're right. At least an addict has an excuse, they have a disease. What does OPs husband have? A weak spine? Throwing your wealth away at the expense of your child is incredibly drastic and unnecessary. And stupid!

Your parents raised you well. They should be so proud.

Hope you don’t sound as selfish in real life.

How is wanting savings for your child selfish? Are you hearing yourself?

OP said her husband was on a path to make more money. She didn't say she was in her own career. Not sure how divorcing helps her achieve her own financial goals. She needs to think long term, not short term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

You're right. At least an addict has an excuse, they have a disease. What does OPs husband have? A weak spine? Throwing your wealth away at the expense of your child is incredibly drastic and unnecessary. And stupid!

Your parents raised you well. They should be so proud.

Hope you don’t sound as selfish in real life.

How is wanting savings for your child selfish? Are you hearing yourself?

OP said her husband was on a path to make more money. She didn't say she was in her own career. Not sure how divorcing helps her achieve her own financial goals. She needs to think long term, not short term.

You're all over the place here.

So you think wanting savings for your child is selfish.
You think its totally fine for a parent to funnel family funds to an irresponsible person.
You think it shows "family values" to fund your parents lifestyle to the detriment of your own children.

Goodness I feel really bad for your children. Why would you put adults who couldve worked their entire life over your children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose this is where reasonable minds differ. I would choose my kids, but in my case, it's not a choice between my parents and my kids, but a choice between my inlaws and my kids. And to clarify, no one is going to end up homeless or destitute any scenario in my family. But, I think it is harder to choose your inlaws over your kids, especially if your in-laws' fiscal irresponsible created the problem to begin with.

My parents were immigrants and came to this country with nothing so we could have a better life. They didn’t squander money on overspending or luxuries. They worked and spent every penny they had on me and my brother. I’m happy to give back to them.

My kids have every opportunity. Although my kids have trust funds, we always tell them that they are on their own after college.

You said you'd have an issue funding their mortgage if you couldn't afford to buy your own home. So whats your suggestion to the OP? Talking about how rich you are and able to fund everything for everyone is not very helpful here. Calling OP selfish because she wants to prioritize her childrens college and buying their own home is totally out of line. How about some helpful suggestions if this is your culture that aren't just "I'm rich" and "youre selfish if you dont pay for your parents/ILs life"

Fine, don’t help your elderly parents. Does that make you feel better? Many people on this thread would rather divorce than help out their in laws.

I know a lot of people who help out their parents. I personally would rather be married to someone who was on board with helping my parents out than divorce me over it.

It's a lot to ask of a spouse: honey, I need to sacrifice basic things like homeownership, your retirement, and your children's education so that we can supplement my parents. It's such a big ask that I can see why it would lead to a divorce.

If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run.

How so?
If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws.

If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble.

Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults.

It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%.

If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great.

I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws.

Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved.

If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway.

Of course it will. OP wont be squandering her money and her childrens money on inlaws. Her husband will have court ordered $ going to his children. He can give his parents whatever is left over, if there is any.

Funny you say the bolded - were you the one that said you'd choose your parents over your children? I'm ecstatic that OP cares about her children and wants them to have a home, college savings - unlike you.

Nope not me. I'm sure as a single mom on one income she'll be putting lots of money away for college and a down payment. Throwing divorce out as an option is one of the dumbest recommendations in this thread.

Sorry for the mistake.

I dont think divorce is right in all scenarios. But imagine a husband whos a drug addict or gambling addict. Would you rather they waste all your money and take you down with them? Thats what OPs husband is setting up. Giving away all their money to someone else irresponsible and wasting it.

There are so many other options besides OP funding their mortgage and lifestyle. Divorce is one of them, but I'd rather divorce someone funneling money out of a marriage (whether drugs, gambling, or irresponsible inlaws) than sink with them.

We're not talking about any of those situations. In the situation presented, divorce is drastic and unnecessary.

Arent we?
OP cant save up for a downpayment on a home. Because her husband is giving their money to his parents.
OP cant fund a college fund for their child. Because her husband is giving their money to his parents.

Whats next? OP cant afford to fix their car because hubby cant cut the apron strings? These are very real scenarios. And thats why divorce is being mentioned, because this could have catastrophic impacts to their family. OP is not and should not let her own family drown because mommas boy cant prioritize his wife and child.

Instead of inlaws moving to a cheaper house. Or one of the many other options presented here.

For all we now OP's earnngs are funding the nuclear famiy while the DH p1$$e$ his away on the inlaws. Perhaps it's time to speculate on who drives what?