Are you paying or contributing to your kids weddings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two boys. Neither will get married with a big party. Maybe courthouse and a restaurant.
They don't like attention and are conservative with money. If they do, it's all their partner's doing and they'd better pay for it too.
NW is plenty to pay for a wedding. I just don't want to.

That's a lot to assume without even a SO in sight. It's ok to admit you're tight.

[Anonymous]

Gave DD 25K for her wedding a few years ago which was most of what the wedding cost. The couple spent more on some extras. 100 people. Married outside the DMV. For DS will contribute the same. The sooner he uses it the better, not increasing it for inflation. We are a Retired Fed/SAHM. Net worth a few million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

Yeah, team boy mom.

When the bride is willing to relinquish all or half of the decision making to the groom and future mother in law, then your post would make sense.

But weddings are planned almost 100% by the bride, even today, down to the shoes the groom wears, and approval of or guidelines for the dress that the mother in law wears.

A wedding is one of those things where the old adage of if you are going to expect money from someone, then get ready to earn the money in the form of their (often unwelcome) opinions

Unless a bride is willing to let the groom's side be involved in decision-making and planning, then weddings should continue to follow the traditional route of the bride's side paying for it.

DH and I did this. Equal say. Each side paid a third and we paid the rest. His side had more family attending but we didn't ask his parents for more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gave DD 25K for her wedding a few years ago which was most of what the wedding cost. The couple spent more on some extras. 100 people. Married outside the DMV. For DS will contribute the same. The sooner he uses it the better, not increasing it for inflation. We are a Retired Fed/SAHM. Net worth a few million.

That's generous.

[Anonymous]

is it?
or are you being sarcastic, I can't tell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will give my daughters a gift for them to spend as they see fit. It won’t be enough to pay for the wedding, probably the max fed amount is (19k in 2025). I’ve paid for private education and I’m paying for undergrad and medical/law school. Then they are on their own. I also have some stock and a vacation property in trust for each - profit generating ski condos in CO. That will be with a prenup, so definitely not a gift to the couple, but to my girls. Their spouses will obviously benefit from using them.

A donor owes gift tax only after exceeding the lifetime exemption, which is $13.99 million in 2025 and $15 million in 2026 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s tax savings. Until that point, amounts above the annual exclusion simply reduce the remaining exemption. This structure means that large gifts often have no immediate tax cost as long as the donor’s total lifetime gifting and estate transfers stay under the limit.

https://smartasset.com/estate-planning/gift-tax-explained-2021-exemption-and-rates

[Anonymous]

It depends on how much I like their prospective spouse. 😈

Seriously, though, we will probably set aside $100-200K/kid for wedding/down payments. I’d rather help the kids when we are still around to see them benefit than have the kids wait around for us to die. 3 kids in their teens, $6M+NW.

[Anonymous]

I have a son and a daughter. They will receive whatever they need to get married, within reason. Thus, if one set of in-laws contributes nothing or very little compared to the other set, I can make up the difference if my child wants it. My kids are very rational creatures and not demanding at all. If they get married to someone with lavish dreams, we'll negotiate a compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends on how much I like their prospective spouse. 😈

Seriously, though, we will probably set aside $100-200K/kid for wedding/down payments. I’d rather help the kids when we are still around to see them benefit than have the kids wait around for us to die. 3 kids in their teens, $6M+NW.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

Yeah, team boy mom.

When the bride is willing to relinquish all or half of the decision making to the groom and future mother in law, then your post would make sense.

But weddings are planned almost 100% by the bride, even today, down to the shoes the groom wears, and approval of or guidelines for the dress that the mother in law wears.

A wedding is one of those things where the old adage of if you are going to expect money from someone, then get ready to earn the money in the form of their (often unwelcome) opinions

Unless a bride is willing to let the groom's side be involved in decision-making and planning, then weddings should continue to follow the traditional route of the bride's side paying for it.

Disagree. A lot of grooms are very interested, especially in the pricier things like premium open bar, the cake, the food, photography, bus to a hotel.

I was married at 25 and my family didn’t help plan anything. None of my friends had family help planning either, so I’m not sure why you think brides family is doing this. Seems to be mostly brides and grooms doing 99% of the work.

My grooms family wanted 3x the amount of people invited than I invited. I limited their friends to one table, none of their cousins, none of dhs great aunts and uncles. I only invited grandparents, dhs cousins, aunts and uncles. We couldn’t afford anything more since we were just 25.

[Anonymous]

got married to a 29 year old guy when it was pretty clear even then that this was going to be the only wedding in his family. They offered to pay for the wedding entirely if we had the wedding they wanted (400+ invited just on their side), but i just couldn't cope with all of the excess. Instead they gave us a gift of $50k for a future house fund and we had a "small" 70-person wedding that cost us around $10k.

I think their net worth was around $15mil at that point, but that was not very important to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gave DD 25K for her wedding a few years ago which was most of what the wedding cost. The couple spent more on some extras. 100 people. Married outside the DMV. For DS will contribute the same. The sooner he uses it the better, not increasing it for inflation. We are a Retired Fed/SAHM. Net worth a few million.

That's generous.

How do you do a catered wedding with alcohol for $25k for 100 people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

I didn’t say I expect them to pay. Some families might want to host the wedding as is transition. If they don’t, that’s fine. I’m happy to host or pay for it while my son and the bride host. I don’t care. Whatever they want. If they don’t want a big, fancy wedding (one probably won’t) then we’d give money toward a down payment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have one gay son. When he marries, we will be delighted to contribute.

Thank you. My gay friend is engaged and has two sisters. His parents paid a lot for each of their weddings, but have not offered to help with his. He will probably be perpetually engaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

Yeah, team boy mom.

When the bride is willing to relinquish all or half of the decision making to the groom and future mother in law, then your post would make sense.

But weddings are planned almost 100% by the bride, even today, down to the shoes the groom wears, and approval of or guidelines for the dress that the mother in law wears.

A wedding is one of those things where the old adage of if you are going to expect money from someone, then get ready to earn the money in the form of their (often unwelcome) opinions

Unless a bride is willing to let the groom's side be involved in decision-making and planning, then weddings should continue to follow the traditional route of the bride's side paying for it.

Really! Your response is another sexist post. The is 2026 not 1786. Of course the groom’s family should get a voice in the planning and everything else! And you should expect to pay equally for your sons and daughters.

(Well, maybe not you. You will reap what you sow.)

They should, but they don't.

In 2026, weddings are planned and dominated by what the bride and occassionally her mother wants.

Rare is the bride that lets her future husband have a significant voice in the wedding planning.

Even rarer is the bride that gives the groom's parents a voice in the wedding planning.

Until brides join this century and give the groom's side equal voice in the wedding planning, the bride's family should be respinsible for the bulk of the wedding cost.