Is it wrong to subsidize lower earning children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A family reunion in another continent is a ridiculous ask

Agree. You daughter also has to use her precious vacation to spend with her deadbeat siblings and mom who favors them. Hard pass.

It sucks all around.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is wrong

[Anonymous]

Yes, you were wrong. You can apologize and offer to pay for her too, and tell her how much you’d love for her to come. A family reunion on another continent is a big trip. You’re asking a lot and by not at least offering to pay, you’ve sent her a signal that you really don’t care if she goes.

[Anonymous]

Why would you share that?
You should pay for all or none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you were wrong. You can apologize and offer to pay for her too, and tell her how much you’d love for her to come. A family reunion on another continent is a big trip. You’re asking a lot and by not at least offering to pay, you’ve sent her a signal that you really don’t care if she goes.

This..however she may still decline. She probably is busy and the timing plus length of the trip..which is an obligation not a vacation. By calling her and telling her how you are treating her siblings for expenses but not her, you gave her an opening to decline. She is probably relieved that she doesn’t need to go.

Seriously though unless paying for 3 rather 2 was a big financial burden, what were you thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You shouldn't have told the oldest. If one is a CPA and the other two are public school teachers, the teachers will never have the earning potential of the CPA. You should have kept it quiet.

But that is a choice they ALL made! Unless one is independently wealthy, you don't give them less. Anyone could choose to do the work and become a CPA or an engineer or whatever. You get to pick what you do, and then it's up to you to live with your choices. but the CPA shouldn't get less from their parents because they chose a better career path.

It’s not a better career path, simply a more lucrative one. If the only way these siblings can attend the family reunion is to have their travel paid for, I don’t think it’s wrong. Equity is not equality.

The parent is not responsible for equity. They are only responsible for equality. Treat your kids equal - especially this non-essential fun trip.

That’s silly. If one child needs various supports and therapies, the other child doesn’t get to demand equal funds be spent on them. Furthermore, it’s OP’s money and she can allocate it exactly as she wishes. OP’s only mistake was telling her daughter about her plans.

Got it. Lie to your more successful kid by omission. As if it isn't going to come out. You are the kind of parent who creates divisions.

Once again, for the people in the back. Making more money doesn’t make your kid more successful. I’d be more proud of a kid in Doctors Without Borders than one in private equity.

Exactly this.

But the OP stated her wealthier child is the successful one, therefore equating money with success.

For all we know the other two are hard working, disciplined people in service professions who are doing remarkably important work.

But if you only equate success with money, those who will never be successful in OP’s eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me so happy to have an only child.

Because you could see yourself treating them differently and having favorites? That's silly. I am hyperaware of these dynamics due to being the oldest and neglected one so I am extra careful NOT to do this with my own kids.

Right! Why is it always younger children that get everything??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me so happy to have an only child.

Because you could see yourself treating them differently and having favorites? That's silly. I am hyperaware of these dynamics due to being the oldest and neglected one so I am extra careful NOT to do this with my own kids.

Right! Why is it always younger children that get everything??

It... isn't? The golden child is often the oldest or one of the oldest. In my family it's the oldest daughter, second oldest overall.

I think older children sometimes never get over their resentment at having a younger sibling in the first place, a perceive their younger siblings getting anything as "getting everything." Often they are unable to see the benefits and advantages they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have three adult kids and, while I generally agree you should treat them equally, in your case I can certainly understand your approach. I think your "rich" kid needs a lot of growing up to do. As a parent, I'd be greatly disappointed in your shoes.

I think being able to choose how you spend your money and time is part of being grown up. OPs daughter didn’t want to spend hers buying a trip everyone else was gifted. Pretty reasonable.

[Anonymous]

IDC if our kids eventually make more than us. I will ALWAYS pay for them to see us if that moves the needle. Also, if I pay for one, I pay for the other.

This is $1500. Not a huge sum for you to tack on.

[Anonymous]

You are punishing her for being successful. Bad move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me so happy to have an only child.

Because you could see yourself treating them differently and having favorites? That's silly. I am hyperaware of these dynamics due to being the oldest and neglected one so I am extra careful NOT to do this with my own kids.

Right! Why is it always younger children that get everything??

In my family my older sibling gets everything. I don’t even get a birthday gift or cheap meal.

[Anonymous]

So wrong imo. Treat her worse because she is successful? You pay for all or none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think you should treat all children equally.

+1 they made their choices and you are penalizing dd for hers. This would make me very angry, especially if she worked/works harder. If it's about a clear ability difference (like a documented learning challenge) fine, but short of that, equal all the way. I would be very apologetic if you want to keep your family relationships (including between siblings) positive.

Working harder doesn’t mean making more money. Some fields just don’t pay as much, but a person might work 60-80 hours a week. (Like me, a teacher)

That said, I would be *pissed* if my parents offered to pay for me but not my sibling, for any reason, unless one of us had a disability

[Anonymous]

My DH’s parents punish us all the time because we are frugal. We are 2 government workers who, until DOGE, were doing ok. My SIL is also a government worker, but she chose to follow a man to a different state where the cost of living is way lower and so are government salaries. (FWIW, we live in NOVA and she lives in a place where a very nice 3 bedroom townhouse rents for $680/mo.)

Not only has she had every major purchase for her child (laptops, iPads, everything) paid for, she has been given 2 new cars since college, was the only one of 3 siblings to have everything fully paid for college, and just recently we were told that she is the only 1 of 3 who will inherit any money.

Because she’s “poor.”

I cut my own hair, don’t wear makeup, don’t eat out, and we drove just 1 car for over a decade, even after kids. She spends all her money on her hobbies and clothes and ordering Door Dash multiple times a week. We have owned a house for a decade and she still rents. And we travel every summer, because I scrimp and save for it.

But the fact that we travel and we own a house (as does DH’s brother) is why we were told DH and brother don’t need to be in the will but she does, so maybe she could use the money to buy a house.

DH and his brother will never speak to her again when their parents die; that’s how corrosive this favoritism has been for all these years.

If you want your kids to hate each other someday, OP, keep it up.