Anonymous wrote:I think the real story here is how well Boomers have done as a generation. I don't think the premise that previous generations were "emancipated" from their families because of some moral choice is right. Rich people gonna rich, and that means passing money to their children throughout their lives. It always has! There are just more of those families. These examples aren't of boomer parents eating canned soup so they can pay grandson's NYC private school tuition. These are boomer parents who can afford it.
Most of these examples are directly related to the tax code. If you are a rich boomer and you're trying to minimize your/your heirs tax burden, it makes sense to max out the cash gift every year (I think it's $14k?) and pay any tuition or medical expense you can, because it avoids the gift tax. I think the Times is really irresponsible for writing this story without pointing out the estate planning angle - not that it's not still a huge and arguably unfair boost for the millennials, but it is only logical that affluent boomers would do that.
Anonymous wrote:Our son lives at home and buys his own food and pays the cable bill. His field does pay well and we will allow him to stay home for no more than two more years.
Our daughter makes $70,000 and we pay her monthly garage fee of $250. She has a student loan of $400 she will pay for the next year. Once the loan is paid we won’t pay for the garage. At some point, hubby wants to give them $20,000 each for a deposit on a home.
Anonymous wrote:People who are “enraged” by this: I hope you remember your rage at the voting booth when you consider the tax policies that make this so advantageous.
Anonymous wrote:The survey for these results is very odd:
More than half (53 percent) of Americans ages 21 to 37 have received some form of financial assistance from a parent, guardian or family member since turning 21, according to a 2018 report by Country Financial, a financial services firm in Bloomington, Ill. This may include paying bills for a cellphone (41 percent), groceries and gas (32 percent), rent (40 percent) or health insurance (32 percent).
First, as others have noted the age range is 21 to 37. People at the lower end of that age range are still in college, a time when parents typically do pay a lot of expenses.
The inclusion of health insurance is also odd--under the law parents' health insurance covers children until age 26 and in many cases that coverage is superior and often cheaper than what what young people could get on their own.
Finally, as many have pointed out, children's cell expenses can be very cheap on the margin under their parents' family plan and it would make little sense for parents to drop them and have the child get much more expensive single service.
While the article may be capturing a true trend, it needs much better numbers to document it.
Anonymous wrote:Our son lives at home and buys his own food and pays the cable bill. His field does pay well and we will allow him to stay home for no more than two more years.
Our daughter makes $70,000 and we pay her monthly garage fee of $250. She has a student loan of $400 she will pay for the next year. Once the loan is paid we won’t pay for the garage. At some point, hubby wants to give them $20,000 each for a deposit on a home.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think the real story here is how well Boomers have done as a generation. I don't think the premise that previous generations were "emancipated" from their families because of some moral choice is right. Rich people gonna rich, and that means passing money to their children throughout their lives. It always has! There are just more of those families. These examples aren't of boomer parents eating canned soup so they can pay grandson's NYC private school tuition. These are boomer parents who can afford it.
Most of these examples are directly related to the tax code. If you are a rich boomer and you're trying to minimize your/your heirs tax burden, it makes sense to max out the cash gift every year (I think it's $14k?) and pay any tuition or medical expense you can, because it avoids the gift tax. I think the Times is really irresponsible for writing this story without pointing out the estate planning angle - not that it's not still a huge and arguably unfair boost for the millennials, but it is only logical that affluent boomers would do that.
I agree with you. Especially in the DCUM demographic there are lots of rich boomer parents who have more money than they know what to do with in retirement. Most people don't have enough money that the gift tax is going to matter, but, it certainly is a smart way to transfer wealth when your adult kids could actually use it (school tuition or enrichment activities for grandkids, nicer vacations, downpayment on house, unexpected medical expenses etc.). I wish my parents would follow this lead, but they are just hoarding their money and complaining about paying taxes!
Anonymous wrote:I think the real story here is how well Boomers have done as a generation. I don't think the premise that previous generations were "emancipated" from their families because of some moral choice is right. Rich people gonna rich, and that means passing money to their children throughout their lives. It always has! There are just more of those families. These examples aren't of boomer parents eating canned soup so they can pay grandson's NYC private school tuition. These are boomer parents who can afford it.
Most of these examples are directly related to the tax code. If you are a rich boomer and you're trying to minimize your/your heirs tax burden, it makes sense to max out the cash gift every year (I think it's $14k?) and pay any tuition or medical expense you can, because it avoids the gift tax. I think the Times is really irresponsible for writing this story without pointing out the estate planning angle - not that it's not still a huge and arguably unfair boost for the millennials, but it is only logical that affluent boomers would do that.