In-laws are broke, DH has offered to help

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I think you missed my original point which wasn't directly answering OP, but, in fact, pointing out the dissonance that occurs all the time on DCUM about Boomers hoarding wealth. OP's example here is exactly the point- Boomers aren't all sitting in the lap of luxury at the behest of younger generations. I gave zero opinion regarding OP's dilemma, actually. You are confused here, and reading the wrong response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

No again. They absolutely lived within their means, but you assume there's one house along a 30 to 40 year trajectory. People move. People lose jobs, change jobs. People took some years off to have kids, raise kids, or return to work later. You forget- the previous generation did not have parental leave, and forget parental leave with pay, I mean actual leave without pay. Or sick leave for catastrophic events or illness , or job security for these things. There was no DEI, so women were overlooked for advancement, and that was white women- women of color had a bad time even getting the job in the first place, or to ever move up. And daycare- you have zero idea what that nightmare was. Don't forget the work environment- Sexual advances at work, playing
up all the time to toxic bosses just to keep the job. Being fired for breast cancer, yes, that was thing. Being fired for being pregnant, yes, that was a thing. Getting half the pay as men. Oh, and if there was a divorce- game over. Women generally never recouped any wealth after a divorce, and frankly, that's still a problem. Women had largely "second income" jobs- not the salaries you think everyone had.
We plowed through this mud for your generation so those weren't "things" for you.
Yes, all the financial safeguards were followed, people tried to save, but the end result is millions of Boomers who really can't retire and it has nothing to do with what they did or didn't do.

[Anonymous]

This middle class sandwich generation will get squeezed. They have parents who don’t have enough saved for retirement and they have kids to raise and pay for college and likely not qualify for financial aid.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why do you keep posting about how rich you are and how much you love supporting your parents? It has nothing to do with this thread and only the bolded holds any weight here. OP and fam cannot afford their own home, but are paying the mortgage of someone else who refuses to downsize to a home they can afford. Your advice of supporting parents at the detriment of their own finances is bad advice. Straight up. Go spend your hubbys money, you clearly have no idea how to budget or prioritize financial goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Not being able to save for a down payment or kids' college means they are not really able to afford 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:

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?

There are multiple posters. My parents lived through war. My extended family helps one another when they need help. My parents immigrated to America with nothing for a better life. Money isn’t everything. I never had financial security and I turned out fine. I went to college on scholarships. My employer paid for grad school. DH went to college and grad school with a mix of grants, scholarships and loans. We both earned six figures after graduation. DH now earns seven figures. DH is trustworthy, loyal and has integrity. Besides being smart and highly competent, his success mostly comes from his relationships. He is just an all around good guy. I would not have married someone who would be the type of person who would divorce me over wanting to help my parents. He thinks I am a good daughter and hopes our kids take as good care of us in our old age.

I hope you stop giving advice to chose your parents OVER your kids when its clear you arent in that situation. 7 figures, congrats to him and you. You're so rich you can absolutely afford to pay for your kids and your parents.

OP cant. She should prioritize her children instead of grown adults who made poor decisions. I'm flabbergasted as to why you think thats "selfish", because a mother taking care of her child (when her husband refuses) is one of the most unselfish things one can do. My allegiance will always always be to the person I brought into this world. Who had no choice in any of this. Not to some irresponsible people who refuse to downsize their home.

I don’t feel an obligation to pay for my kids’ college. I also don’t think they will have a drastically different childhood if they grow up in a home that we own or rent. I do feel obligated to provide a warm safe home.

Yes, we are rich. Even if we weren’t, I would prioritize my parents over savings. We can agree to disagree.

But this technically isn't *savings* but money being held for specific future expenses. Or at least that's how we look at such money in our HH.

[Anonymous]

I'm grateful that DH never faltered at the prospect of assisting my parents, even if it was very minor in the end. He knew they worked hard, didn't earn much, and lived frugally. But I would not have been open wallet with no conditions if it was jeopardizing our family's well-being.

OP's concerns seem reasonable as it is not clear the ILs have any intention of turning off their spigot and moving to a more resource-friendly model of cash flow. If the ILs were taking steps to right their prior financial missteps - moving to a less costly residence and cutting their vaca expenses by 4/5ths - then some support may be warranted. But that's not the case here. Shame on OP's ILs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm grateful that DH never faltered at the prospect of assisting my parents, even if it was very minor in the end. He knew they worked hard, didn't earn much, and lived frugally. But I would not have been open wallet with no conditions if it was jeopardizing our family's well-being.

OP's concerns seem reasonable as it is not clear the ILs have any intention of turning off their spigot and moving to a more resource-friendly model of cash flow. If the ILs were taking steps to right their prior financial missteps - moving to a less costly residence and cutting their vaca expenses by 4/5ths - then some support may be warranted. But that's not the case here. Shame on OP's ILs.

+1

[Anonymous]

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.

Again, I think you missed my original point which wasn't directly answering OP, but, in fact, pointing out the dissonance that occurs all the time on DCUM about Boomers hoarding wealth. OP's example here is exactly the point- Boomers aren't all sitting in the lap of luxury at the behest of younger generations. I gave zero opinion regarding OP's dilemma, actually. You are confused here, and reading the wrong response.

Gosh, it's almost as if all of the posters have the same name or something

Anyway, my parents aren't asking for help (yet) but are similarly living a lifestyle above their income and not sure how long it will last. They downsized before paying off their mortgage but refused to get rid of stuff so they ended up in a luxury condo that's almost as big as my childhood home. Their rent is more than their mortgage was, although I know they have peace of mind not having to worry about maitenance or property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Not being able to save for a down payment or kids' college means they are not really able to afford it.

Right- and it's not like the kids are going to get financial aid because they gave away a significant chunk of their income to their parents. You'd really be screwing your kids over, OP.

[Anonymous]

This is going to sound harsh. The fact that you didn’t go absolutely ballistic on him when he stated paying their mortgage when you don’t own your own home or have college savings tells me there’s no hope for your situation.

[Anonymous]

Not OP but that is harsh & weird advice. No one needs to "go ballistic". However, it is reasonable to expect your husband to sit down with you and come up with a plan together.

[Anonymous]

I feel your pain. My in laws were like this—we paid their mortgage for years because they couldn’t afford it. Then we stopped and they said they were fine….and then they stopped paying without telling us, and the home went into foreclosure. Poof, gone. This was early in our marriage and it still makes me so angry. The money could have gone to my kids’ 529s or our own home.

[Anonymous]

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.

Again, I think you missed my original point which wasn't directly answering OP, but, in fact, pointing out the dissonance that occurs all the time on DCUM about Boomers hoarding wealth. OP's example here is exactly the point- Boomers aren't all sitting in the lap of luxury at the behest of younger generations. I gave zero opinion regarding OP's dilemma, actually. You are confused here, and reading the wrong response.

Well actually the OP’s situation makes exactly that point. In her case her boomer parents don’t have their own wealth but they sticking it dry from their millennial children and taking college away from gen z grandkids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel your pain. My in laws were like this—we paid their mortgage for years because they couldn’t afford it. Then we stopped and they said they were fine….and then they stopped paying without telling us, and the home went into foreclosure. Poof, gone. This was early in our marriage and it still makes me so angry. The money could have gone to my kids’ 529s or our own home.

so what did they do? where did they live?