Anonymous wrote:I think people who don't have this situation just cannot relate. My parents are financially secure (not remotely rich, but planned well). It is a stress free relationship based on love, emotional support. My in-laws are a financial mess, and also more emotionally selfish, not good grandparents, constantly make my dh feel bad. Dh and I are now helping them out with his grandparents' care because in laws can't even do basic things for them. It bothers me hugely to see them so inept, and it weighs on our marriage. I see them as irresponsible teens who never grew up, got tons of help and squandered it all. My dh is now facing helping THREE generations of his family. I have put my foot down on the financial part. We are not rich, and there is NO way I would ever do this to my own kids.

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"

Anonymous wrote:Pp again. I have 2 friends who married guys who were supporting their moms.

1 friend thinks it is such an admirable trait that her husband takes care of his mom. She thought this would make him a good husband and father and hopes her kids are equally good to them.

1 friend HATES her in laws and thinks they are leeches. Even though her husband earns 10x what she earns and provides her with a great life, it bothers her greatly that the MIL planned so poorly that they have no money.

Friend 2’s husband earns much more than Friend 1. Friend 1 has a good relationship and Friend 2 is always fighting with her husband about giving money to in laws.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 grew up in a rental and had no college fund. I had a stable home.

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.