Tension with Wife's Family over Finances

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lmao ok look I have another take. if her parents really cared about getting the money back for college, they would’ve documented it and made her sign it formally alongside a payment plan. At the same time, they probably would’ve agreed to pause the loan if she was a student again. I think it’s right that OP shouldn’t have to pay back this “loan” (which for all intents and purposes is really just a lesson in debt management), and the wife should just work it out with her parents without OP’s involvement or money.

I don’t see OP’s point about subsidizing though. You’re paying your own way for your own things on vacations. You have the option not to go. If the ILs complain you could be really blunt: we can’t currently afford it unless you pay for our flights and hotels.

For restaurants, you could lean in and force your FIL to itemize and not split 50/50 if you think it’s very unfair or lopsided.

What do you think forcing someone to sign something like that does? Are they going to take her to court and sue her?

DP. I mean, yes? If the parents expected to be paid back then everything should be done at an arms-length including the note. Leaving these things unclear is how people manipulate others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- He had her take out "loans" from him informally for college and a graduate degree. He was ticked off at me once I informed him the payments on these "loans" would come to an end once our marriage took place.

- He and my MIL invite us on very expensive vacations and then expect us to cover our own cost which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars for some of the trips he likes.

- Similar situation with restaurants. He will propose an expensive restaurant, order expensive items, and then want to split the check 50/50.

I cut down OP's post above to the examples.

OP, your FIL has a pay-as-you-go approach to life. He wants his kids to be responsible for their own choices but he is still generous enough to advance funds for your wife to do the schooling she wants to do.

You don't say if he has a sexist view of the world where a man/husband is responsible for his wife's money/debt/support but not the other way around. That may complicate things.

I agree that you do not have to pay your FIL for your wife's debts to him. Presumably she plans to work after getting the degree. And perhaps you are carrying the household expenses while she studies. Although maritally you may be jointly responsible for her debts legally, I think ethically she both undertook the obligation and should be prepared to pay it back. Have her settle the repayment plan on her parental loans with her parents and have the payments begin when she starts to earn money. Her dad wants to teach her responsibility. Marrying you so you could pay them off was not likely her plan. Have her figure it out.

Next the vacation. You and your wife should pay your own way if you go. If you do not want to go and do not want to pay, skip the vacation. Norms differ. Only some parents treat. Tell your FIL that your family of origin treats and you are not placing a priority on expensive vacations with your own money because you have x, y, z other goals. Let them get mad.

Restaurants. Split the check. It's another case of different norms. Neither party is more correct. Surely you can afford to socialize with them some of the time.

Your in-laws should be glad to have a son-in-law with zero debt. You should agree to do some things with them even if they aren't "worth it". Those are the concessions you make to be part of an in-law family. You cannot have everything your preferred way.

Sounds like your wife needs to step up her earning to stay in good grades with her family of origin. Encourage her to have a plan. If she decides to be an overexcited SAHM and wants to pay her dad back, you'd best get that hashed out ASAP.

OP here. The not paying the "loan" is a settled topic. There was no formal loan document. The "loan" was an absurd issue in my opinion. Due to her family's financial position she was a full pay student. She attended a private OOS school to the tune of over $200,000. The degree which she is currently pursuing (which I am paying for) is not a highly paid field and my wife will likely be doing a fair amount of charity work. I'm sorry, but the notion that her parents think its reasonable to try and saddle an 18 y/o with such a loan for a low paying degree at a private school is ridiculous and consequently they are the ones who paid after I came on the scene. This non-repayment though is such a miniscule percentage of their net worth that it did not make a difference in their circumstances.

PP. The idea of this "loan" is likely her father's comment on the usefulness of spending $200K on this degree.

There is obviously an attempt here to "teach" something to the daughter. You and your norms from your family of origin are external to it. Whether the lesson seems ridiculous to you is kind of beside the point.

It's not unusual for parents to try and get kids to pay for their college. Even rich ones. From my observation, it does take several generations of wealth to create the kind of family generosity engine that you have benefitted from.

An 18 year old is an adult. It may be the case that your wife could have picked a less expensive college and that a $200K education was an expensive choice she made as an adult. Her father may view that education as a pure luxury that she chose, knowing her career could never pay it back. As a self-made blue collar person, perhaps he did not agree with her path, despite providing the up-front money to fund it.

The more interesting thing here is that you appear to have signed up for an asymmetric financial relationship with your wife. Therefore, you will always be transferring your money (which you consider subsidized by your family's gifts) to cover your wife's expenses. You clearly do not see her as a 50% partner in your money since you do not want to fund the things that she would probably spend money on related to her parents if you did not object. It sounds like she has transferred her loyalty from one controlling man to another. That's why my sister and have chosen to remain high-earning working mothers. We don't want this kind of money-based financial dependency and guilt in our lives.

That's debatable- an 18yo is too young to do a lot of things, and they would never be able to take out this amount on their own. Blue collar dad should never have funded the path if he didn't agree with it.

Blue collar dad wanted to still support his daughter to get a college education. He probably did discuss with her about the ROI on the degree but she still chose this path.

I had a similar discussion with my DC about their chosen major and choosing to go to expensive oos. We discussed at length with DC about what it will mean for their future. They are still insistent. I want to be supportive but they should have skin in the game. We have saved enough in their college savings to pay for three years, and could probably pay for the fourth out of our savings, but we aren't going to do that because they would rather use all of their inheritance money from their grandparents to go to this school for this major than go to a cheaper school or pick a more lucrative major. Again, we have had discussed what this means for them at length. Yes, they are 17/18 and don't know better. Does that mean that we parents should dictate what school they go to and what to major in? You'd probably call that controlling.

IMO, they have a high likelihood of struggling after graduation, but this was their choice. If we had said no to this major, and that we'd only pay for something like business or engineering, I'm sure you would've said we were being jerks.

We literally have no way of knowing that. Good on you for having the hard discussions but plenty of parents don't.

FIL seems like the type of person who would do that if he told her that she had to payback the loan. IMO, she chose this path knowing this and thought it was fine. She, like many 18 year olds, don't think that far into the future. FIL probably knew this and wanted her to have skin in the game. IMO, the fact that he let her choose her path and gave her a 0% interest loan even as he knew the path she chose would mean she would struggle shows he was supportive of her.

If she said she would pay him back, then she should be the one to honor her word and pay back the loan. The fact that she has now decided to go back to school and again, chose a graduate degree that has very low ROI indicates that she is the one taking advantage of her husband and father. She feels entitled to go into a low paying field because she knows someone will always pay her way.

Even OP sees that her chosen field does not lend itself to her being able to pay back the loan. When she does finally get a job, it will be low paying. So, her husband will be subsidizing her one way or the other. She chose to go back to school. Presumably she's now much older than 18 and should know what this means in terms of paying back the loan. But she chose this path anyways. Why should the FIL be the bad guy for her continued bad choices?

[Anonymous]

My wife feels stuck in the middle and I know it would be unproductive to tell my FIL that his cheap ways essentially mean my family wealth is being used to subsidize him.

But...you are the cheap one. You have had everything handed to you on a platter from your family and that has made you into a "taker". You just don't want to pay for your share while socializing with them. You have a poverty mind-set and you are greedy on top of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- He had her take out "loans" from him informally for college and a graduate degree. He was ticked off at me once I informed him the payments on these "loans" would come to an end once our marriage took place.

- He and my MIL invite us on very expensive vacations and then expect us to cover our own cost which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars for some of the trips he likes.

- Similar situation with restaurants. He will propose an expensive restaurant, order expensive items, and then want to split the check 50/50.

I cut down OP's post above to the examples.

OP, your FIL has a pay-as-you-go approach to life. He wants his kids to be responsible for their own choices but he is still generous enough to advance funds for your wife to do the schooling she wants to do.

You don't say if he has a sexist view of the world where a man/husband is responsible for his wife's money/debt/support but not the other way around. That may complicate things.

I agree that you do not have to pay your FIL for your wife's debts to him. Presumably she plans to work after getting the degree. And perhaps you are carrying the household expenses while she studies. Although maritally you may be jointly responsible for her debts legally, I think ethically she both undertook the obligation and should be prepared to pay it back. Have her settle the repayment plan on her parental loans with her parents and have the payments begin when she starts to earn money. Her dad wants to teach her responsibility. Marrying you so you could pay them off was not likely her plan. Have her figure it out.

Next the vacation. You and your wife should pay your own way if you go. If you do not want to go and do not want to pay, skip the vacation. Norms differ. Only some parents treat. Tell your FIL that your family of origin treats and you are not placing a priority on expensive vacations with your own money because you have x, y, z other goals. Let them get mad.

Restaurants. Split the check. It's another case of different norms. Neither party is more correct. Surely you can afford to socialize with them some of the time.

Your in-laws should be glad to have a son-in-law with zero debt. You should agree to do some things with them even if they aren't "worth it". Those are the concessions you make to be part of an in-law family. You cannot have everything your preferred way.

Sounds like your wife needs to step up her earning to stay in good grades with her family of origin. Encourage her to have a plan. If she decides to be an overexcited SAHM and wants to pay her dad back, you'd best get that hashed out ASAP.

OP here. The not paying the "loan" is a settled topic. There was no formal loan document. The "loan" was an absurd issue in my opinion. Due to her family's financial position she was a full pay student. She attended a private OOS school to the tune of over $200,000. The degree which she is currently pursuing (which I am paying for) is not a highly paid field and my wife will likely be doing a fair amount of charity work. I'm sorry, but the notion that her parents think its reasonable to try and saddle an 18 y/o with such a loan for a low paying degree at a private school is ridiculous and consequently they are the ones who paid after I came on the scene. This non-repayment though is such a miniscule percentage of their net worth that it did not make a difference in their circumstances.

PP. The idea of this "loan" is likely her father's comment on the usefulness of spending $200K on this degree.

There is obviously an attempt here to "teach" something to the daughter. You and your norms from your family of origin are external to it. Whether the lesson seems ridiculous to you is kind of beside the point.

It's not unusual for parents to try and get kids to pay for their college. Even rich ones. From my observation, it does take several generations of wealth to create the kind of family generosity engine that you have benefitted from.

An 18 year old is an adult. It may be the case that your wife could have picked a less expensive college and that a $200K education was an expensive choice she made as an adult. Her father may view that education as a pure luxury that she chose, knowing her career could never pay it back. As a self-made blue collar person, perhaps he did not agree with her path, despite providing the up-front money to fund it.

The more interesting thing here is that you appear to have signed up for an asymmetric financial relationship with your wife. Therefore, you will always be transferring your money (which you consider subsidized by your family's gifts) to cover your wife's expenses. You clearly do not see her as a 50% partner in your money since you do not want to fund the things that she would probably spend money on related to her parents if you did not object. It sounds like she has transferred her loyalty from one controlling man to another. That's why my sister and have chosen to remain high-earning working mothers. We don't want this kind of money-based financial dependency and guilt in our lives.

100% The fact that they still funded it with 0% interest means that they were willing to support her but wanted her to understand what her choices meant. That's on her.

Just because you have money doesn't mean you should spend it on something that has low ROI. That's not a good use of money, and the FIL knows that.

As a blue collar worker who built up his own wealth, he's given her the means to do the same, but she's chosen a different path.

You, OP, don't know what it's like to not be wealthy and build up your wealth on your own. You come across as an elitist snob.

Ok but he was setting up his own daughter to fail- $200k loan knowing shw was going into a non-lucrative career just to make a point? I'm sorry but that's crummy parenting, there were way better ways to handle this. No wonder she felt like she had to marry the douchebag OP.

It's scummy parenting to let your kids choose their own path but expect skin in the game? What?

If he had said he wouldn't pay for her college unless she majored in engineering or business, some would call that crummy parenting.

You know what's crummy? Saying you would pay back a loan and then deciding later not to even though your rich husband can afford to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- He had her take out "loans" from him informally for college and a graduate degree. He was ticked off at me once I informed him the payments on these "loans" would come to an end once our marriage took place.

- He and my MIL invite us on very expensive vacations and then expect us to cover our own cost which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars for some of the trips he likes.

- Similar situation with restaurants. He will propose an expensive restaurant, order expensive items, and then want to split the check 50/50.

I cut down OP's post above to the examples.

OP, your FIL has a pay-as-you-go approach to life. He wants his kids to be responsible for their own choices but he is still generous enough to advance funds for your wife to do the schooling she wants to do.

You don't say if he has a sexist view of the world where a man/husband is responsible for his wife's money/debt/support but not the other way around. That may complicate things.

I agree that you do not have to pay your FIL for your wife's debts to him. Presumably she plans to work after getting the degree. And perhaps you are carrying the household expenses while she studies. Although maritally you may be jointly responsible for her debts legally, I think ethically she both undertook the obligation and should be prepared to pay it back. Have her settle the repayment plan on her parental loans with her parents and have the payments begin when she starts to earn money. Her dad wants to teach her responsibility. Marrying you so you could pay them off was not likely her plan. Have her figure it out.

Next the vacation. You and your wife should pay your own way if you go. If you do not want to go and do not want to pay, skip the vacation. Norms differ. Only some parents treat. Tell your FIL that your family of origin treats and you are not placing a priority on expensive vacations with your own money because you have x, y, z other goals. Let them get mad.

Restaurants. Split the check. It's another case of different norms. Neither party is more correct. Surely you can afford to socialize with them some of the time.

Your in-laws should be glad to have a son-in-law with zero debt. You should agree to do some things with them even if they aren't "worth it". Those are the concessions you make to be part of an in-law family. You cannot have everything your preferred way.

Sounds like your wife needs to step up her earning to stay in good grades with her family of origin. Encourage her to have a plan. If she decides to be an overexcited SAHM and wants to pay her dad back, you'd best get that hashed out ASAP.

OP here. The not paying the "loan" is a settled topic. There was no formal loan document. The "loan" was an absurd issue in my opinion. Due to her family's financial position she was a full pay student. She attended a private OOS school to the tune of over $200,000. The degree which she is currently pursuing (which I am paying for) is not a highly paid field and my wife will likely be doing a fair amount of charity work. I'm sorry, but the notion that her parents think its reasonable to try and saddle an 18 y/o with such a loan for a low paying degree at a private school is ridiculous and consequently they are the ones who paid after I came on the scene. This non-repayment though is such a miniscule percentage of their net worth that it did not make a difference in their circumstances.

PP. The idea of this "loan" is likely her father's comment on the usefulness of spending $200K on this degree.

There is obviously an attempt here to "teach" something to the daughter. You and your norms from your family of origin are external to it. Whether the lesson seems ridiculous to you is kind of beside the point.

It's not unusual for parents to try and get kids to pay for their college. Even rich ones. From my observation, it does take several generations of wealth to create the kind of family generosity engine that you have benefitted from.

An 18 year old is an adult. It may be the case that your wife could have picked a less expensive college and that a $200K education was an expensive choice she made as an adult. Her father may view that education as a pure luxury that she chose, knowing her career could never pay it back. As a self-made blue collar person, perhaps he did not agree with her path, despite providing the up-front money to fund it.

The more interesting thing here is that you appear to have signed up for an asymmetric financial relationship with your wife. Therefore, you will always be transferring your money (which you consider subsidized by your family's gifts) to cover your wife's expenses. You clearly do not see her as a 50% partner in your money since you do not want to fund the things that she would probably spend money on related to her parents if you did not object. It sounds like she has transferred her loyalty from one controlling man to another. That's why my sister and have chosen to remain high-earning working mothers. We don't want this kind of money-based financial dependency and guilt in our lives.

That's debatable- an 18yo is too young to do a lot of things, and they would never be able to take out this amount on their own. Blue collar dad should never have funded the path if he didn't agree with it.

Blue collar dad wanted to still support his daughter to get a college education. He probably did discuss with her about the ROI on the degree but she still chose this path.

I had a similar discussion with my DC about their chosen major and choosing to go to expensive oos. We discussed at length with DC about what it will mean for their future. They are still insistent. I want to be supportive but they should have skin in the game. We have saved enough in their college savings to pay for three years, and could probably pay for the fourth out of our savings, but we aren't going to do that because they would rather use all of their inheritance money from their grandparents to go to this school for this major than go to a cheaper school or pick a more lucrative major. Again, we have had discussed what this means for them at length. Yes, they are 17/18 and don't know better. Does that mean that we parents should dictate what school they go to and what to major in? You'd probably call that controlling.

IMO, they have a high likelihood of struggling after graduation, but this was their choice. If we had said no to this major, and that we'd only pay for something like business or engineering, I'm sure you would've said we were being jerks.

We literally have no way of knowing that. Good on you for having the hard discussions but plenty of parents don't.

FIL seems like the type of person who would do that if he told her that she had to payback the loan. IMO, she chose this path knowing this and thought it was fine. She, like many 18 year olds, don't think that far into the future. FIL probably knew this and wanted her to have skin in the game. IMO, the fact that he let her choose her path and gave her a 0% interest loan even as he knew the path she chose would mean she would struggle shows he was supportive of her.

If she said she would pay him back, then she should be the one to honor her word and pay back the loan. The fact that she has now decided to go back to school and again, chose a graduate degree that has very low ROI indicates that she is the one taking advantage of her husband and father. She feels entitled to go into a low paying field because she knows someone will always pay her way.

Even OP sees that her chosen field does not lend itself to her being able to pay back the loan. When she does finally get a job, it will be low paying. So, her husband will be subsidizing her one way or the other. She chose to go back to school. Presumably she's now much older than 18 and should know what this means in terms of paying back the loan. But she chose this path anyways. Why should the FIL be the bad guy for her continued bad choices?

Because if wealthy FIL expected his wealthy son in law to be his piggy bank to repay the unaffordable debt he saddled his teen daughter with … then FIL should have actually created enforceable loan documents. FIL did not do so and now has no ground to stand on except some kind of fairness argument - and OP’s wife can equally say that she was the one treated unfairly. Reap what you sow. FIL wanted to control his daughter via money and guilt and now his son in law is turning the tables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- He had her take out "loans" from him informally for college and a graduate degree. He was ticked off at me once I informed him the payments on these "loans" would come to an end once our marriage took place.

- He and my MIL invite us on very expensive vacations and then expect us to cover our own cost which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars for some of the trips he likes.

- Similar situation with restaurants. He will propose an expensive restaurant, order expensive items, and then want to split the check 50/50.

I cut down OP's post above to the examples.

OP, your FIL has a pay-as-you-go approach to life. He wants his kids to be responsible for their own choices but he is still generous enough to advance funds for your wife to do the schooling she wants to do.

You don't say if he has a sexist view of the world where a man/husband is responsible for his wife's money/debt/support but not the other way around. That may complicate things.

I agree that you do not have to pay your FIL for your wife's debts to him. Presumably she plans to work after getting the degree. And perhaps you are carrying the household expenses while she studies. Although maritally you may be jointly responsible for her debts legally, I think ethically she both undertook the obligation and should be prepared to pay it back. Have her settle the repayment plan on her parental loans with her parents and have the payments begin when she starts to earn money. Her dad wants to teach her responsibility. Marrying you so you could pay them off was not likely her plan. Have her figure it out.

Next the vacation. You and your wife should pay your own way if you go. If you do not want to go and do not want to pay, skip the vacation. Norms differ. Only some parents treat. Tell your FIL that your family of origin treats and you are not placing a priority on expensive vacations with your own money because you have x, y, z other goals. Let them get mad.

Restaurants. Split the check. It's another case of different norms. Neither party is more correct. Surely you can afford to socialize with them some of the time.

Your in-laws should be glad to have a son-in-law with zero debt. You should agree to do some things with them even if they aren't "worth it". Those are the concessions you make to be part of an in-law family. You cannot have everything your preferred way.

Sounds like your wife needs to step up her earning to stay in good grades with her family of origin. Encourage her to have a plan. If she decides to be an overexcited SAHM and wants to pay her dad back, you'd best get that hashed out ASAP.

OP here. The not paying the "loan" is a settled topic. There was no formal loan document. The "loan" was an absurd issue in my opinion. Due to her family's financial position she was a full pay student. She attended a private OOS school to the tune of over $200,000. The degree which she is currently pursuing (which I am paying for) is not a highly paid field and my wife will likely be doing a fair amount of charity work. I'm sorry, but the notion that her parents think its reasonable to try and saddle an 18 y/o with such a loan for a low paying degree at a private school is ridiculous and consequently they are the ones who paid after I came on the scene. This non-repayment though is such a miniscule percentage of their net worth that it did not make a difference in their circumstances.

PP. The idea of this "loan" is likely her father's comment on the usefulness of spending $200K on this degree.

There is obviously an attempt here to "teach" something to the daughter. You and your norms from your family of origin are external to it. Whether the lesson seems ridiculous to you is kind of beside the point.

It's not unusual for parents to try and get kids to pay for their college. Even rich ones. From my observation, it does take several generations of wealth to create the kind of family generosity engine that you have benefitted from.

An 18 year old is an adult. It may be the case that your wife could have picked a less expensive college and that a $200K education was an expensive choice she made as an adult. Her father may view that education as a pure luxury that she chose, knowing her career could never pay it back. As a self-made blue collar person, perhaps he did not agree with her path, despite providing the up-front money to fund it.

The more interesting thing here is that you appear to have signed up for an asymmetric financial relationship with your wife. Therefore, you will always be transferring your money (which you consider subsidized by your family's gifts) to cover your wife's expenses. You clearly do not see her as a 50% partner in your money since you do not want to fund the things that she would probably spend money on related to her parents if you did not object. It sounds like she has transferred her loyalty from one controlling man to another. That's why my sister and have chosen to remain high-earning working mothers. We don't want this kind of money-based financial dependency and guilt in our lives.

That's debatable- an 18yo is too young to do a lot of things, and they would never be able to take out this amount on their own. Blue collar dad should never have funded the path if he didn't agree with it.

Blue collar dad wanted to still support his daughter to get a college education. He probably did discuss with her about the ROI on the degree but she still chose this path.

I had a similar discussion with my DC about their chosen major and choosing to go to expensive oos. We discussed at length with DC about what it will mean for their future. They are still insistent. I want to be supportive but they should have skin in the game. We have saved enough in their college savings to pay for three years, and could probably pay for the fourth out of our savings, but we aren't going to do that because they would rather use all of their inheritance money from their grandparents to go to this school for this major than go to a cheaper school or pick a more lucrative major. Again, we have had discussed what this means for them at length. Yes, they are 17/18 and don't know better. Does that mean that we parents should dictate what school they go to and what to major in? You'd probably call that controlling.

IMO, they have a high likelihood of struggling after graduation, but this was their choice. If we had said no to this major, and that we'd only pay for something like business or engineering, I'm sure you would've said we were being jerks.

We literally have no way of knowing that. Good on you for having the hard discussions but plenty of parents don't.

FIL seems like the type of person who would do that if he told her that she had to payback the loan. IMO, she chose this path knowing this and thought it was fine. She, like many 18 year olds, don't think that far into the future. FIL probably knew this and wanted her to have skin in the game. IMO, the fact that he let her choose her path and gave her a 0% interest loan even as he knew the path she chose would mean she would struggle shows he was supportive of her.

If she said she would pay him back, then she should be the one to honor her word and pay back the loan. The fact that she has now decided to go back to school and again, chose a graduate degree that has very low ROI indicates that she is the one taking advantage of her husband and father. She feels entitled to go into a low paying field because she knows someone will always pay her way.

Even OP sees that her chosen field does not lend itself to her being able to pay back the loan. When she does finally get a job, it will be low paying. So, her husband will be subsidizing her one way or the other. She chose to go back to school. Presumably she's now much older than 18 and should know what this means in terms of paying back the loan. But she chose this path anyways. Why should the FIL be the bad guy for her continued bad choices?

There's ensuring your kids have skin in the game, and then there's coming across as a shady, predatory payday lender. FIL sounds like the latter. I can't imagine anyone would genuinely think this was the right approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- He had her take out "loans" from him informally for college and a graduate degree. He was ticked off at me once I informed him the payments on these "loans" would come to an end once our marriage took place.

- He and my MIL invite us on very expensive vacations and then expect us to cover our own cost which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars for some of the trips he likes.

- Similar situation with restaurants. He will propose an expensive restaurant, order expensive items, and then want to split the check 50/50.

I cut down OP's post above to the examples.

OP, your FIL has a pay-as-you-go approach to life. He wants his kids to be responsible for their own choices but he is still generous enough to advance funds for your wife to do the schooling she wants to do.

You don't say if he has a sexist view of the world where a man/husband is responsible for his wife's money/debt/support but not the other way around. That may complicate things.

I agree that you do not have to pay your FIL for your wife's debts to him. Presumably she plans to work after getting the degree. And perhaps you are carrying the household expenses while she studies. Although maritally you may be jointly responsible for her debts legally, I think ethically she both undertook the obligation and should be prepared to pay it back. Have her settle the repayment plan on her parental loans with her parents and have the payments begin when she starts to earn money. Her dad wants to teach her responsibility. Marrying you so you could pay them off was not likely her plan. Have her figure it out.

Next the vacation. You and your wife should pay your own way if you go. If you do not want to go and do not want to pay, skip the vacation. Norms differ. Only some parents treat. Tell your FIL that your family of origin treats and you are not placing a priority on expensive vacations with your own money because you have x, y, z other goals. Let them get mad.

Restaurants. Split the check. It's another case of different norms. Neither party is more correct. Surely you can afford to socialize with them some of the time.

Your in-laws should be glad to have a son-in-law with zero debt. You should agree to do some things with them even if they aren't "worth it". Those are the concessions you make to be part of an in-law family. You cannot have everything your preferred way.

Sounds like your wife needs to step up her earning to stay in good grades with her family of origin. Encourage her to have a plan. If she decides to be an overexcited SAHM and wants to pay her dad back, you'd best get that hashed out ASAP.

OP here. The not paying the "loan" is a settled topic. There was no formal loan document. The "loan" was an absurd issue in my opinion. Due to her family's financial position she was a full pay student. She attended a private OOS school to the tune of over $200,000. The degree which she is currently pursuing (which I am paying for) is not a highly paid field and my wife will likely be doing a fair amount of charity work. I'm sorry, but the notion that her parents think its reasonable to try and saddle an 18 y/o with such a loan for a low paying degree at a private school is ridiculous and consequently they are the ones who paid after I came on the scene. This non-repayment though is such a miniscule percentage of their net worth that it did not make a difference in their circumstances.

PP. The idea of this "loan" is likely her father's comment on the usefulness of spending $200K on this degree.

There is obviously an attempt here to "teach" something to the daughter. You and your norms from your family of origin are external to it. Whether the lesson seems ridiculous to you is kind of beside the point.

It's not unusual for parents to try and get kids to pay for their college. Even rich ones. From my observation, it does take several generations of wealth to create the kind of family generosity engine that you have benefitted from.

An 18 year old is an adult. It may be the case that your wife could have picked a less expensive college and that a $200K education was an expensive choice she made as an adult. Her father may view that education as a pure luxury that she chose, knowing her career could never pay it back. As a self-made blue collar person, perhaps he did not agree with her path, despite providing the up-front money to fund it.

The more interesting thing here is that you appear to have signed up for an asymmetric financial relationship with your wife. Therefore, you will always be transferring your money (which you consider subsidized by your family's gifts) to cover your wife's expenses. You clearly do not see her as a 50% partner in your money since you do not want to fund the things that she would probably spend money on related to her parents if you did not object. It sounds like she has transferred her loyalty from one controlling man to another. That's why my sister and have chosen to remain high-earning working mothers. We don't want this kind of money-based financial dependency and guilt in our lives.

100% The fact that they still funded it with 0% interest means that they were willing to support her but wanted her to understand what her choices meant. That's on her.

Just because you have money doesn't mean you should spend it on something that has low ROI. That's not a good use of money, and the FIL knows that.

As a blue collar worker who built up his own wealth, he's given her the means to do the same, but she's chosen a different path.

You, OP, don't know what it's like to not be wealthy and build up your wealth on your own. You come across as an elitist snob.

Ok but he was setting up his own daughter to fail- $200k loan knowing shw was going into a non-lucrative career just to make a point? I'm sorry but that's crummy parenting, there were way better ways to handle this. No wonder she felt like she had to marry the douchebag OP.

It's scummy parenting to let your kids choose their own path but expect skin in the game? What?

If he had said he wouldn't pay for her college unless she majored in engineering or business, some would call that crummy parenting.

You know what's crummy? Saying you would pay back a loan and then deciding later not to even though your rich husband can afford to.

This was not “skin in the game.” It was financial manipulation of a naive child. Refusing to pay anything for college when you have plenty of money is crummy parenting. Putting reasonable conditions and limits on what you would pay is fine - but that’s not what FIL did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You told your father-in-law that your wife wouldn’t be paying back a family loan? No wonder he’s pissed.

OP here. She would not be paying it back with marital income. Since she is now back in school and not earning income that means that I would not be making payments on it with my income.

That’s not how debt works. Jesus, I would hate you too.

Meh. If the FIL wanted to be repaid like a bank then he should have set the loan up with formalities or just made his daughter take out actual loans. While I think in good conscience OP’s wife should try to pay something back, it also seems like the FIL is a cheapskate and possibly using the money to try to control his daughter. Possibly the FIL had no intention of ever collecting on the “loan” but is now acting like a bank that he has a rich son in law. And of course, one expects and hopes that a parent has more regard for the affordability of debt as compared to a shady payday lender …

Yeah I was wondering that too. Like if she didn't marry someone wealthy would FIL still be inivitng them on expensive pay-your-own-way trips while collecting on this loan? Because when I was paying back my loans (not nearly as much as the one in question here) as young professional there was no way I could afford expensive travel. I was scouring Southwest deals.

But she is married to a rich man, and they can afford to pay back the loan. They can also choose to not go to these dinners and trips.

Where is the wife in all this? Does she say no to the parents when they say they want to go to an expensive trip or dinner? She seems to have no backbone but wants the men in her life to subsidize her poor choices, and then not have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

She chose twice to get a degree that doesn't pay much. She seems to have gone from one rich man to another expecting them to pay her way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lmao ok look I have another take. if her parents really cared about getting the money back for college, they would’ve documented it and made her sign it formally alongside a payment plan. At the same time, they probably would’ve agreed to pause the loan if she was a student again. I think it’s right that OP shouldn’t have to pay back this “loan” (which for all intents and purposes is really just a lesson in debt management), and the wife should just work it out with her parents without OP’s involvement or money.

I don’t see OP’s point about subsidizing though. You’re paying your own way for your own things on vacations. You have the option not to go. If the ILs complain you could be really blunt: we can’t currently afford it unless you pay for our flights and hotels.

For restaurants, you could lean in and force your FIL to itemize and not split 50/50 if you think it’s very unfair or lopsided.

What do you think forcing someone to sign something like that does? Are they going to take her to court and sue her?

DP. I mean, yes? If the parents expected to be paid back then everything should be done at an arms-length including the note. Leaving these things unclear is how people manipulate others.

Do OP's elders have a contract with him to pay for everything as they age? I don't think they do so maybe wife should put her foot down on that. Who do they think they are asking the young to pay for the old?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- He had her take out "loans" from him informally for college and a graduate degree. He was ticked off at me once I informed him the payments on these "loans" would come to an end once our marriage took place.

- He and my MIL invite us on very expensive vacations and then expect us to cover our own cost which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars for some of the trips he likes.

- Similar situation with restaurants. He will propose an expensive restaurant, order expensive items, and then want to split the check 50/50.

I cut down OP's post above to the examples.

OP, your FIL has a pay-as-you-go approach to life. He wants his kids to be responsible for their own choices but he is still generous enough to advance funds for your wife to do the schooling she wants to do.

You don't say if he has a sexist view of the world where a man/husband is responsible for his wife's money/debt/support but not the other way around. That may complicate things.

I agree that you do not have to pay your FIL for your wife's debts to him. Presumably she plans to work after getting the degree. And perhaps you are carrying the household expenses while she studies. Although maritally you may be jointly responsible for her debts legally, I think ethically she both undertook the obligation and should be prepared to pay it back. Have her settle the repayment plan on her parental loans with her parents and have the payments begin when she starts to earn money. Her dad wants to teach her responsibility. Marrying you so you could pay them off was not likely her plan. Have her figure it out.

Next the vacation. You and your wife should pay your own way if you go. If you do not want to go and do not want to pay, skip the vacation. Norms differ. Only some parents treat. Tell your FIL that your family of origin treats and you are not placing a priority on expensive vacations with your own money because you have x, y, z other goals. Let them get mad.

Restaurants. Split the check. It's another case of different norms. Neither party is more correct. Surely you can afford to socialize with them some of the time.

Your in-laws should be glad to have a son-in-law with zero debt. You should agree to do some things with them even if they aren't "worth it". Those are the concessions you make to be part of an in-law family. You cannot have everything your preferred way.

Sounds like your wife needs to step up her earning to stay in good grades with her family of origin. Encourage her to have a plan. If she decides to be an overexcited SAHM and wants to pay her dad back, you'd best get that hashed out ASAP.

OP here. The not paying the "loan" is a settled topic. There was no formal loan document. The "loan" was an absurd issue in my opinion. Due to her family's financial position she was a full pay student. She attended a private OOS school to the tune of over $200,000. The degree which she is currently pursuing (which I am paying for) is not a highly paid field and my wife will likely be doing a fair amount of charity work. I'm sorry, but the notion that her parents think its reasonable to try and saddle an 18 y/o with such a loan for a low paying degree at a private school is ridiculous and consequently they are the ones who paid after I came on the scene. This non-repayment though is such a miniscule percentage of their net worth that it did not make a difference in their circumstances.

PP. The idea of this "loan" is likely her father's comment on the usefulness of spending $200K on this degree.

There is obviously an attempt here to "teach" something to the daughter. You and your norms from your family of origin are external to it. Whether the lesson seems ridiculous to you is kind of beside the point.

It's not unusual for parents to try and get kids to pay for their college. Even rich ones. From my observation, it does take several generations of wealth to create the kind of family generosity engine that you have benefitted from.

An 18 year old is an adult. It may be the case that your wife could have picked a less expensive college and that a $200K education was an expensive choice she made as an adult. Her father may view that education as a pure luxury that she chose, knowing her career could never pay it back. As a self-made blue collar person, perhaps he did not agree with her path, despite providing the up-front money to fund it.

The more interesting thing here is that you appear to have signed up for an asymmetric financial relationship with your wife. Therefore, you will always be transferring your money (which you consider subsidized by your family's gifts) to cover your wife's expenses. You clearly do not see her as a 50% partner in your money since you do not want to fund the things that she would probably spend money on related to her parents if you did not object. It sounds like she has transferred her loyalty from one controlling man to another. That's why my sister and have chosen to remain high-earning working mothers. We don't want this kind of money-based financial dependency and guilt in our lives.

100% The fact that they still funded it with 0% interest means that they were willing to support her but wanted her to understand what her choices meant. That's on her.

Just because you have money doesn't mean you should spend it on something that has low ROI. That's not a good use of money, and the FIL knows that.

As a blue collar worker who built up his own wealth, he's given her the means to do the same, but she's chosen a different path.

You, OP, don't know what it's like to not be wealthy and build up your wealth on your own. You come across as an elitist snob.

Ok but he was setting up his own daughter to fail- $200k loan knowing shw was going into a non-lucrative career just to make a point? I'm sorry but that's crummy parenting, there were way better ways to handle this. No wonder she felt like she had to marry the douchebag OP.

It's scummy parenting to let your kids choose their own path but expect skin in the game? What?

If he had said he wouldn't pay for her college unless she majored in engineering or business, some would call that crummy parenting.

You know what's crummy? Saying you would pay back a loan and then deciding later not to even though your rich husband can afford to.

This was not “skin in the game.” It was financial manipulation of a naive child. Refusing to pay anything for college when you have plenty of money is crummy parenting. Putting reasonable conditions and limits on what you would pay is fine - but that’s not what FIL did.

Asking your grown children to pay for your old ass is selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- He had her take out "loans" from him informally for college and a graduate degree. He was ticked off at me once I informed him the payments on these "loans" would come to an end once our marriage took place.

- He and my MIL invite us on very expensive vacations and then expect us to cover our own cost which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars for some of the trips he likes.

- Similar situation with restaurants. He will propose an expensive restaurant, order expensive items, and then want to split the check 50/50.

I cut down OP's post above to the examples.

OP, your FIL has a pay-as-you-go approach to life. He wants his kids to be responsible for their own choices but he is still generous enough to advance funds for your wife to do the schooling she wants to do.

You don't say if he has a sexist view of the world where a man/husband is responsible for his wife's money/debt/support but not the other way around. That may complicate things.

I agree that you do not have to pay your FIL for your wife's debts to him. Presumably she plans to work after getting the degree. And perhaps you are carrying the household expenses while she studies. Although maritally you may be jointly responsible for her debts legally, I think ethically she both undertook the obligation and should be prepared to pay it back. Have her settle the repayment plan on her parental loans with her parents and have the payments begin when she starts to earn money. Her dad wants to teach her responsibility. Marrying you so you could pay them off was not likely her plan. Have her figure it out.

Next the vacation. You and your wife should pay your own way if you go. If you do not want to go and do not want to pay, skip the vacation. Norms differ. Only some parents treat. Tell your FIL that your family of origin treats and you are not placing a priority on expensive vacations with your own money because you have x, y, z other goals. Let them get mad.

Restaurants. Split the check. It's another case of different norms. Neither party is more correct. Surely you can afford to socialize with them some of the time.

Your in-laws should be glad to have a son-in-law with zero debt. You should agree to do some things with them even if they aren't "worth it". Those are the concessions you make to be part of an in-law family. You cannot have everything your preferred way.

Sounds like your wife needs to step up her earning to stay in good grades with her family of origin. Encourage her to have a plan. If she decides to be an overexcited SAHM and wants to pay her dad back, you'd best get that hashed out ASAP.

OP here. The not paying the "loan" is a settled topic. There was no formal loan document. The "loan" was an absurd issue in my opinion. Due to her family's financial position she was a full pay student. She attended a private OOS school to the tune of over $200,000. The degree which she is currently pursuing (which I am paying for) is not a highly paid field and my wife will likely be doing a fair amount of charity work. I'm sorry, but the notion that her parents think its reasonable to try and saddle an 18 y/o with such a loan for a low paying degree at a private school is ridiculous and consequently they are the ones who paid after I came on the scene. This non-repayment though is such a miniscule percentage of their net worth that it did not make a difference in their circumstances.

PP. The idea of this "loan" is likely her father's comment on the usefulness of spending $200K on this degree.

There is obviously an attempt here to "teach" something to the daughter. You and your norms from your family of origin are external to it. Whether the lesson seems ridiculous to you is kind of beside the point.

It's not unusual for parents to try and get kids to pay for their college. Even rich ones. From my observation, it does take several generations of wealth to create the kind of family generosity engine that you have benefitted from.

An 18 year old is an adult. It may be the case that your wife could have picked a less expensive college and that a $200K education was an expensive choice she made as an adult. Her father may view that education as a pure luxury that she chose, knowing her career could never pay it back. As a self-made blue collar person, perhaps he did not agree with her path, despite providing the up-front money to fund it.

The more interesting thing here is that you appear to have signed up for an asymmetric financial relationship with your wife. Therefore, you will always be transferring your money (which you consider subsidized by your family's gifts) to cover your wife's expenses. You clearly do not see her as a 50% partner in your money since you do not want to fund the things that she would probably spend money on related to her parents if you did not object. It sounds like she has transferred her loyalty from one controlling man to another. That's why my sister and have chosen to remain high-earning working mothers. We don't want this kind of money-based financial dependency and guilt in our lives.

100% The fact that they still funded it with 0% interest means that they were willing to support her but wanted her to understand what her choices meant. That's on her.

Just because you have money doesn't mean you should spend it on something that has low ROI. That's not a good use of money, and the FIL knows that.

As a blue collar worker who built up his own wealth, he's given her the means to do the same, but she's chosen a different path.

You, OP, don't know what it's like to not be wealthy and build up your wealth on your own. You come across as an elitist snob.

Ok but he was setting up his own daughter to fail- $200k loan knowing shw was going into a non-lucrative career just to make a point? I'm sorry but that's crummy parenting, there were way better ways to handle this. No wonder she felt like she had to marry the douchebag OP.

It's scummy parenting to let your kids choose their own path but expect skin in the game? What?

If he had said he wouldn't pay for her college unless she majored in engineering or business, some would call that crummy parenting.

You know what's crummy? Saying you would pay back a loan and then deciding later not to even though your rich husband can afford to.

Again, I cannot genuinely beleive that some of you think this approach was good parenting- you do you though. "Skin in the game" to me means defining up front how much we plan to contribute and helping our kids figure out how they can finance the rest if there is a differntial at their chosen school- e.g., summer/part-time job (which I would encourage regardless), applying for scholarships, modest loan if needed but only what they would qualify for indenpendently. No 17-18yo child would be able to take out $200k on their own, GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- He had her take out "loans" from him informally for college and a graduate degree. He was ticked off at me once I informed him the payments on these "loans" would come to an end once our marriage took place.

- He and my MIL invite us on very expensive vacations and then expect us to cover our own cost which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars for some of the trips he likes.

- Similar situation with restaurants. He will propose an expensive restaurant, order expensive items, and then want to split the check 50/50.

I cut down OP's post above to the examples.

OP, your FIL has a pay-as-you-go approach to life. He wants his kids to be responsible for their own choices but he is still generous enough to advance funds for your wife to do the schooling she wants to do.

You don't say if he has a sexist view of the world where a man/husband is responsible for his wife's money/debt/support but not the other way around. That may complicate things.

I agree that you do not have to pay your FIL for your wife's debts to him. Presumably she plans to work after getting the degree. And perhaps you are carrying the household expenses while she studies. Although maritally you may be jointly responsible for her debts legally, I think ethically she both undertook the obligation and should be prepared to pay it back. Have her settle the repayment plan on her parental loans with her parents and have the payments begin when she starts to earn money. Her dad wants to teach her responsibility. Marrying you so you could pay them off was not likely her plan. Have her figure it out.

Next the vacation. You and your wife should pay your own way if you go. If you do not want to go and do not want to pay, skip the vacation. Norms differ. Only some parents treat. Tell your FIL that your family of origin treats and you are not placing a priority on expensive vacations with your own money because you have x, y, z other goals. Let them get mad.

Restaurants. Split the check. It's another case of different norms. Neither party is more correct. Surely you can afford to socialize with them some of the time.

Your in-laws should be glad to have a son-in-law with zero debt. You should agree to do some things with them even if they aren't "worth it". Those are the concessions you make to be part of an in-law family. You cannot have everything your preferred way.

Sounds like your wife needs to step up her earning to stay in good grades with her family of origin. Encourage her to have a plan. If she decides to be an overexcited SAHM and wants to pay her dad back, you'd best get that hashed out ASAP.

OP here. The not paying the "loan" is a settled topic. There was no formal loan document. The "loan" was an absurd issue in my opinion. Due to her family's financial position she was a full pay student. She attended a private OOS school to the tune of over $200,000. The degree which she is currently pursuing (which I am paying for) is not a highly paid field and my wife will likely be doing a fair amount of charity work. I'm sorry, but the notion that her parents think its reasonable to try and saddle an 18 y/o with such a loan for a low paying degree at a private school is ridiculous and consequently they are the ones who paid after I came on the scene. This non-repayment though is such a miniscule percentage of their net worth that it did not make a difference in their circumstances.

PP. The idea of this "loan" is likely her father's comment on the usefulness of spending $200K on this degree.

There is obviously an attempt here to "teach" something to the daughter. You and your norms from your family of origin are external to it. Whether the lesson seems ridiculous to you is kind of beside the point.

It's not unusual for parents to try and get kids to pay for their college. Even rich ones. From my observation, it does take several generations of wealth to create the kind of family generosity engine that you have benefitted from.

An 18 year old is an adult. It may be the case that your wife could have picked a less expensive college and that a $200K education was an expensive choice she made as an adult. Her father may view that education as a pure luxury that she chose, knowing her career could never pay it back. As a self-made blue collar person, perhaps he did not agree with her path, despite providing the up-front money to fund it.

The more interesting thing here is that you appear to have signed up for an asymmetric financial relationship with your wife. Therefore, you will always be transferring your money (which you consider subsidized by your family's gifts) to cover your wife's expenses. You clearly do not see her as a 50% partner in your money since you do not want to fund the things that she would probably spend money on related to her parents if you did not object. It sounds like she has transferred her loyalty from one controlling man to another. That's why my sister and have chosen to remain high-earning working mothers. We don't want this kind of money-based financial dependency and guilt in our lives.

100% The fact that they still funded it with 0% interest means that they were willing to support her but wanted her to understand what her choices meant. That's on her.

Just because you have money doesn't mean you should spend it on something that has low ROI. That's not a good use of money, and the FIL knows that.

As a blue collar worker who built up his own wealth, he's given her the means to do the same, but she's chosen a different path.

You, OP, don't know what it's like to not be wealthy and build up your wealth on your own. You come across as an elitist snob.

Ok but he was setting up his own daughter to fail- $200k loan knowing shw was going into a non-lucrative career just to make a point? I'm sorry but that's crummy parenting, there were way better ways to handle this. No wonder she felt like she had to marry the douchebag OP.

It's scummy parenting to let your kids choose their own path but expect skin in the game? What?

If he had said he wouldn't pay for her college unless she majored in engineering or business, some would call that crummy parenting.

You know what's crummy? Saying you would pay back a loan and then deciding later not to even though your rich husband can afford to.

This was not “skin in the game.” It was financial manipulation of a naive child. Refusing to pay anything for college when you have plenty of money is crummy parenting. Putting reasonable conditions and limits on what you would pay is fine - but that’s not what FIL did.

Expecting your children to pay some of their way through college is the definition of "skin in the game". They didn't refuse to pay for college. They gave her a 0% interest loan to pay for an expensive college majoring in something with low ROI. She needed skin in the game.

More than likely, she has her entire life to pay off the loan, again, with 0 % interest. Perhaps they never expect her to pay back all of the loan, but they want her to have some skin in the game, so they gave her the lifetime 0% interest.

The wife sounds entitled, IMO.

[Anonymous]

OPs family is gross. Blatant nepotism and clan behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My wife feels stuck in the middle and I know it would be unproductive to tell my FIL that his cheap ways essentially mean my family wealth is being used to subsidize him.

But...you are the cheap one. You have had everything handed to you on a platter from your family and that has made you into a "taker". You just don't want to pay for your share while socializing with them. You have a poverty mind-set and you are greedy on top of that.

No you are missing the point. OP is a taker and a giver - the older generations gave to the younger in his family, and how he is also giving to the younger generation (as well as supporting his wife gladly in what appears to be a non-lucrative but personally and societally rewarding career).

The FIL seems to have a different and confusing attitude towards money. While requiring that your children make prudent college decisions is sensible at any income level, FIL’s “loan” idea seems to suggest that his idea about family and money is based on control and manipulation. If you have not grown up with that, it is very weird and upsetting to be thrust into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My wife feels stuck in the middle and I know it would be unproductive to tell my FIL that his cheap ways essentially mean my family wealth is being used to subsidize him.

But...you are the cheap one. You have had everything handed to you on a platter from your family and that has made you into a "taker". You just don't want to pay for your share while socializing with them. You have a poverty mind-set and you are greedy on top of that.

No you are missing the point. OP is a taker and a giver - the older generations gave to the younger in his family, and how he is also giving to the younger generation (as well as supporting his wife gladly in what appears to be a non-lucrative but personally and societally rewarding career).

The FIL seems to have a different and confusing attitude towards money. While requiring that your children make prudent college decisions is sensible at any income level, FIL’s “loan” idea seems to suggest that his idea about family and money is based on control and manipulation. If you have not grown up with that, it is very weird and upsetting to be thrust into.

Put simply, OP doesn't see FIL as family. He makes all sorts of excuses to help his people, whether they deserve it or not, but sees the in-laws as outsiders and feels no shame in cheating them. This is a cultural issue, obviously.