Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real reason it bothers people is that it highlights the myth that the US is a meritocracy.

Exactly this. People who assume anyone who gets financial help from their parents are leeches on society are likely just uncomfortable with the idea that people who are hardworking ALSO often benefit from parents who have disposable income.

I have been working full-time since I graduated from grad school. My husband has as well. We do not take money from my parents for daily expenses, but my parents are wealthy and gave us $50,000 for our wedding. We used that money for a down payment on our first house. I am not going to apologize for accepting money my parents offered to us (I never asked for it). Without it we would've had to wait a much longer time to buy a home. We are a perfect example of how privilege can work.

No that is not true. I am fully independent. My parents did help me one time with a down payment. They also basically support my brother and his wife and their child despite the fact that wife chooses to be a SAHM and brother is fully capable of working. Brother is making choices that lower parents ability to retire/responsibly prepare for them self and consequently possibly endangering MY fiscal future as I will not let my parents live in destitution.

One time or even occasional gifts are NOT the same as needing your mom and dad to supplement your mortgage and grocery bills half the time. I don't think anyone here is really criticizing someone like you. They are criticizing the people like my brother.

Anonymous wrote:I think the real reason it bothers people is that it highlights the myth that the US is a meritocracy.

Exactly this. People who assume anyone who gets financial help from their parents are leeches on society are likely just uncomfortable with the idea that people who are hardworking ALSO often benefit from parents who have disposable income.

I have been working full-time since I graduated from grad school. My husband has as well. We do not take money from my parents for daily expenses, but my parents are wealthy and gave us $50,000 for our wedding. We used that money for a down payment on our first house. I am not going to apologize for accepting money my parents offered to us (I never asked for it). Without it we would've had to wait a much longer time to buy a home. We are a perfect example of how privilege can work.

Everyone is going to such extremes- either you NEVER accept a dime from your parents or you are completely 100% financially and emotionally dependent on them. There's a middle ground, you know...

I think the real reason it bothers people is that it highlights the myth that the US is a meritocracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like to be independent. I never take help. I raise my kids, pay my bills.

This. My parents are wealthy. My in-laws are wealthy. We would never accept money from them for anything other than an emergency, which in 30 years of marriage has never happened. The idea of taking money from our families to pay for our kids’ schools or for a down payment on a home would go against everything my DH and I value. We are adults. We take care of our kids. We pay our bills. I definitely think less of people who accept money from family. We will inherit one day. But we won’t take money from our families until then.

So you think you are morally superior? This, I do not get.

Np and I think this is a morally superior position, yes

It's morally superior to not accept help when a family member genuinely wants to provide help? I get it if you just like being independent, but how on earth is it a moral issue if the person providing the money can afford to give it to you and you use it for a purpose they approve of? Going through life without any help whatsoever isn't a morally superior position.

Needing help once or twice because of some type of crisis? That is what family is for, totally.

Having a family member support a functioning adult on a long term or semi regular basis? That adult is essentially robbing their family.

There is an enormous difference between let's say, woman who leaves abusive husband with 5 year old who's parents help her to get back on her feet over the course of a few years and who, lets say also help with a down payment and put a bunch of money in kid's college fun, and a guy who works on and off from age 20-50, gets married and divorced a time or two and relies on his parents whenever he can't make ends meet or goes through a cycle of unemployment.

One is a family member in need, one is a leech.

My Trump supporter relative loves to share welfare shaming memes on Facebook. In the meantime, she’s a SAHM and her husband can’t hold down a job. The only reason they are able to survive is because they both come from well off families who constantly float them through frequent and sometimes lengthy periods of unemployment.

I absolutely look down on them for continuing to have kids they can’t support while taking thousands and thousands of dollars in family help, all while judging and shaming those who have to reply on government assistance to get by.

No jealousy here, I’m happy I’m not in my 40s and running to mommy to pay my mortgage so my kids aren’t homeless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like to be independent. I never take help. I raise my kids, pay my bills.

This. My parents are wealthy. My in-laws are wealthy. We would never accept money from them for anything other than an emergency, which in 30 years of marriage has never happened. The idea of taking money from our families to pay for our kids’ schools or for a down payment on a home would go against everything my DH and I value. We are adults. We take care of our kids. We pay our bills. I definitely think less of people who accept money from family. We will inherit one day. But we won’t take money from our families until then.

So you think you are morally superior? This, I do not get.

Np and I think this is a morally superior position, yes

It's morally superior to not accept help when a family member genuinely wants to provide help? I get it if you just like being independent, but how on earth is it a moral issue if the person providing the money can afford to give it to you and you use it for a purpose they approve of? Going through life without any help whatsoever isn't a morally superior position.

I care for practical reasons. One of my SILs is very indulgent of her adult children. They take from her all the time but does not give anything back, even in times of need. There have been times when SIL had cash flow problems and we had to help them out (neither SIL nor her adult children have any savings). If they have an emergency, we know it's going to be on us to bail them out.

I see it as poor financial parenting. It's akin to giving kids candy whenever they want, and they suffer cavities as a natural consequences. Love your kids and provide help here and there, sure. But to give without restraint is enabling them to be leeches and ultimately, it affects other family members too.

Anonymous wrote:I get annoyed when my parents give money to support my brother, who could be self sufficient if he chose to be. As the kid who is most financially successful, I will be expected to support my parents in their old age. The more they give away to him, the most support I will have to give them.

I hope that we can all agree this is a problem. Have you discussed this with your parents in terms of asking them what provisions they've made for themselves for old age?

I get annoyed when my parents give money to support my brother, who could be self sufficient if he chose to be. As the kid who is most financially successful, I will be expected to support my parents in their old age. The more they give away to him, the most support I will have to give them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like to be independent. I never take help. I raise my kids, pay my bills.

This. My parents are wealthy. My in-laws are wealthy. We would never accept money from them for anything other than an emergency, which in 30 years of marriage has never happened. The idea of taking money from our families to pay for our kids’ schools or for a down payment on a home would go against everything my DH and I value. We are adults. We take care of our kids. We pay our bills. I definitely think less of people who accept money from family. We will inherit one day. But we won’t take money from our families until then.

If you’d never accept money from them, decline your inheritance or donate it.

+1. Exactly. Such hypocrisy.

+2

Inheritance is money your parents don't need. If you are taking from your parents you are taking from their retirement. When they are gone the money should go to whoever they want it to go to. But don't act like it is the same thing.

A competent self sufficient adult who has supported themselves for decades getting a small or even big inheritance that will improve their life but not save their life is not the same as someone who is never able to stand on their own two feet and slowly bleeds their parents dry as they age.

I never want my parents end of life medical care or retirement dreams/aspirations to suffer because I effed up. And I never want them to feel like they have influence over my life choices because they have a financial investment in them. That is stuff that can only happen when they are alive (which is hopefully for a very long time!)

Anonymous wrote:because it’s pathetic to be a 50-something adult who expects an 80+ year old parent to pay your bills.

If you help your kids too much as adults, they will come to expect it and never be able to stand on their own two feet.

This.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't care, but it does seem to me that people who receive subsidies in their 20s sometimes don't develop as good financial habits or the idea that they must live within their means. That can really come back to bite them later in life, especially if the parents aren't actually rich, just bad with money. Now that I'm in my late 30s I'm definitely seeing chickens come home to roost for some of my peers.

I don’t care either about what other people chose to do. I come from a big family and most of us have helped each other through school and during emergencies. Everyone has turned out well except two siblings who are still trying to find their way in life.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't care, but it does seem to me that people who receive subsidies in their 20s sometimes don't develop as good financial habits or the idea that they must live within their means. That can really come back to bite them later in life, especially if the parents aren't actually rich, just bad with money. Now that I'm in my late 30s I'm definitely seeing chickens come home to roost for some of my peers.

This. I don't care if your parents helped you out with a down payment or bought your first car or whatever, but I do think that having your parents subsidize your expenses on a regular basis can be a problem. You never learn to live within your means, and you get wedded to a lifestyle you can't afford on your own. If the spigot gets cut off, you have nothing but bills and bad habits. And I think there is value in learning that you can stand on your own two feet and support yourself. Also, those gifts often come with strings attached--your parents can reasonably expect a much bigger say in your decisions if they are paying for them. I've seen some pretty crappy family relationships that involved overbearing but financially generous parents and adult children who were unwilling to rock the boat, despite being unhappy, because they were afraid of losing the money.

Many wealthy people set up their adult children with seed money to start their own businesses too. I have no problem with this either.

My only issue is when the grown children are layabouts who live off their parents without working. I've seen this with my extended family and it's a very unhealthy dynamic. One cousin (Gen 2) never got a job and his dad (Gen 1) paid for everything - homes, bills, cars, lavish vacations and gifts. Then his kids (Gen 3) went to college but never got real jobs. Parents also bought them homes, cars, pay their bills, etc. None of them has any ambition or contributes in any meaningful way. Only one of them has a job, but not even earning six figures and her husband only had a hobby job that costs more than it makes. It's sad because there are all these control games around the money, and at this rate it will be gone within another generation. These grown kids are completely under their surviving parent's thumb because they can't earn their own living and two of them have spouses who also aren't gainfully employed either. I'm worried about their kids (Gen 4) who also grew up in the lap of luxury but never learned from their parents how to support themselves or budget. They've only seen 2 generations of helplessness, shiftlessness, begging, and manipulation. It's sad, because despite the incredible opportunity of inheriting tens of millions of dollars, a couple generations down the line and these kids will be worse off than kids from lower or middle class families who at least know how to get a job and support themselves.

It's better when the parents help their grown kids by giving them a head start to earn their own money too. The grown children would feel better about themselves. Giving money is fine, but there needs to be an expectation that this is a head start to begin your own productive life and not enabling a charity case.