I know opinions on this vary a lot depending on the country and culture, so I’m curious what others think. Personally, I have a 22-year-old son. I bought him a house and a car, I pay for his university tuition (his grades are high enough for a state-subsidized spot, but we feel that should go to someone more in need), and I basically support him fully. We want him to focus on his studies and enjoy this stage of his life. He will finish his dentistry degree in 2028, and then we plan to finance the opening of his private practice. We’ll stop providing financial support once he’s earning enough to live comfortably on his own. I see many parents online (especially in North America) talking about kids moving out at 18, paying rent to live at home, and covering their own bills, and it honestly shocks me. That feels unfathomable to me. I believe that as parents, we have a duty to give our children a good life since we brought them into this world.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    What did your parents do for you, OP?

    I certainly couldn’t afford to support my kids that much financially, you must be very well off! But I did always do more for mine in some ways, than my mom did for us (and less in some other ways). My mom did get us cars and covered the insurance, she saved some money for us for school but in K-12 just sent us to bad schools because she thought it was better to not let them get even worse by putting us in private (there were no good state options back then), so I didn’t get much in the way of academic education until college. She kicked me out at 17 since I wasn’t in high school and not ready for college so I was homeless for awhile. Tough love in some ways, I guess.

    I worked to get my kids in better schools K-12, to find a good fit for each kid, and warned them that I wasn’t going to be able to do much toward university. So the academically inclined among them got into schools that either did sliding scale, only charged what we could pay, or state schools (the state now covers tuition for high achievers who jump through a few hoops) and lived at home or took loans for their other costs.

    I do let them (and their girlfriend or boyfriend actually) live at home until they get on their feet financially, so far that seems to work fine, it’s an enormous discount for them not paying rent, so they can save enough to get started.

    I cannot get them cars or pay the insurance in this current economy, and couldn’t for the first two because the insurance alone would increase monthly cost by $600 and that certainly is not in the budget. My penultimate child pays her own insurance and I let her use my car to go to school, because my office is so close I don’t need the car, made her bus before but then she said she’d drop off the high schooler on her way so that worked out.

    Basically - my main constraints are financial but I don’t think I’d be inclined to provide as much as you have. If I could get them cars I probably would have, though.

    • ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a little unfair to compare how much parents should support kids a generation ago versus now, wealth inequality is completely different now. Things like paying for your own car yourself at 22 is enough to perpetuate a debt trap for most of your adult life. Unless you get really lucky with a lot of money to start your life young, it’s much harder to get ahead now than even 20 years ago.

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.worldBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        all this does is increase wealth inequality.

        because poor kids get fucked, rich kids get to start life with trust funds.

        it would be more equal if rich people actually made their kids go into debt.