WWYD? Friend wants to use some of 9 yo son's earnings for family expenses

[LND1218]

It depends...

 

If their financial situation is we can't afford a manicure and Starbucks or we are thinking about cutting the cable and letting the cell phone go, no I don't think the child needs to contribute much if anything.

 

But if it's we aren't sure we can buy groceries or keep the heat on, absolutely he should contribute. It's ridiculous for a child to have an ipad if the family can't eat.

 

I would assume that if he's saving for an ipad then there is plenty to eat and they are able to pay the bills.

[LibraryLover]

Tara, children can contribute greatly in non-monetary ways. If this 9 year old is making a heap of money, perhaps it's best if a parent took on the job. The child can help with dishes and sweeping. Perhaps the the parent and child can do it together and split the money. Perhaps the child could use this money to buy pencils and books or new tennis shoes?

 

How much money is this child earning?

[Tap]

To me it would depend on the financial situation of the family.

 

If the family wants the money to pay for cell phones, luxury car payments, Starbucks, alcohol and eating out.....then no, the kid should be able to keep it.

 

If the family needs it to seriously pay for food, or legitimate housing expenses....then a nine year olds pay could seriously help the family.

 

 

I would like to say that if the child is out walking the dog, then maybe another family member can help with his chores....but this only works if he has family to help out.

 

Family takes care of family and I don't see a difference in asking a teen to chip in $$ or a nine year old.

[Haiku]

If this 9 year old is making a heap of money, perhaps it's best if a parent took on the job.

 

Why? Because if the parent is going to benefit at all, the parent should do it, and if the kid does it, he should get every bit of benefit (money) from it?

 

What if the child WANTS to walk the dog? Should the parent do it just to avoid taking money from the child?

 

Why should the parent do something the child was invited to, and is capable of, doing? To me, that's infantilizing children.

 

How much money is this child earning?

 

$100-$120 a month.

 

And I would absolutely expect that the child help out around the house, in addition to, not in lieu of, contributing some of his earnings.

 

Treating kids like their work should benefit them and only them is, to me, contrary to the way life works.

 

I have to say, I find it somewhat ironic that so many people here would have no problem taking part of an individual's income to benefit the whole. Rather contrary to what I usually see here.

 

I think those who are opposed to the idea of collective good tend to be of the "take care of yourself" mindset, and I think for most people that includes family. That's why I wondered whether where people fall politically is any predictor of what their answer to this question would be.

 

My dd 17 has a "job" that pays her a modest $40 a month. Now that she has this job, I no longer give her money for food from Chipotle, a new nose ring, or whatever else she desires to have that's not essential. If she wanted more money, she could work more. She chooses not to, so I choose not to fund her playtime. Luckily, we don't need her income, but if we did, I would have no qualms about having her work more and contribute to the family. I don't see it as different for a 9 year old. If a child can contribute, and it's needed, and the child has the opportunity, the child should contribute. I wouldn't make a 9 year old get a job, but if s/he were offered one and wanted it and we needed the money, I would say s/he could take the job and contribute to the family.

 

Tara

[Daisy]

The reality may be that this child NEEDS to contribute that money to his family. Whether I think that is ideal or not may be irrelevant.

 

If it was our family given our current financial situation (which is NOT in dire straits) I'd have my child use that money to buy extras. That is already the expectation in our family. A prime example was our shopping trip this past Saturday. I was willing to pay $25 for new shoes for my daughter. She found $40 boots she wanted badly. I paid $25 towards them and she paid the rest out of her birthday money.

 

I voted other. The boy should be WILLING to contribute it all to help his family, but I'm not sure it should be expected.

[KristinaBreece]

Heh. I have to say, I find it somewhat ironic that so many people here would have no problem taking part of an individual's income to benefit the whole. Rather contrary to what I usually see here.

 

:lol:

 

In all honesty, I would have a hard time taking the money from my kid, but I would if we REALLY needed it. And I would explain it to the child, and make that an ongoing conversation. I would make sure to express how good it was for him to be helping out his family when they needed the help.

 

If we didn't NEED the money, I would still cut the amount of money I was providing for the child. I would expect him to buy toiletries outside of the normal "general use" supplies (My DS always wants Axe Rock Star body wash...) and extras with the money.

 

As I think about this some more, I would also likely make him put a percentage of it in savings. Best monetary advice I ever got (and didn't take seriously at the time) was to always pay yourself first. When you get paid, put SOMETHING away before you do anything else.

[Audrey]

But she wouldn't be "taking" anything from her son. If this was done in a loving way, couldn't it be perceived as "we're all working together here"? Couldn't she discuss this with him?

 

 

She could. I'm not discounting the possibility that it might work for someone else, but I still can't fathom the mindset that would even think to ask their 9yo to contribute his earnings to the household. It is completely alien to me.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Audrey

[LibraryLover]

So $25/wk.

 

Does the child participate in any activities? Boy Scouts, soccer etc? If so, I might ask the child to contribute to those expenses. If the child is not involved with activities, I would ask if he would now that he has a bit of spending money. On very bad weeks, I might ask the child if he might buy something--milk or bread or (whatever) for the family. He may really feel proud to help. I wouldn't, however, just take it.

 

I personally would not be comfortable with a 9 year taking $25 week and spending it willy-nilly on candy etc., so at any rate, I would also have him save some of that.

 

If that $25/week is needed to keep the family fed, I would want them to consider looking at fuel and food assistance. The child could loose his job at some point, or the weather might be too bad at times to do a full walk for the full amount. I wouldn't assume it would be a very steady income stream. The family should try to have a back up plan in place in case the child is no longer able to bring in that money.

Edited October 11, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Abigail4476]

No. Children shouldn't be burdened with their parents' finances. It's one thing to share household responsibilities in an age-appropriate way; it's quite another to take a 9 year old's earnings because the home is having money problems. That's an adult problem.

 

Children should be provided for by their parents or caregivers and should not be responsible for buying their shelter, transportation, food, medical care or other necessities. However, I do think it's fine to allow him to spend his earnings on NON-essential items, such as candy or toys. (Which is a savings in and of itself, since parents often provide these luxuries even when money is tight.)

 

There are plenty of ways to teach responsibility and unselfishness without taking the miniscule earnings of a 9 year old. If he somehow found out about the problem and offered his earnings as a gift without being prompted, that might be acceptable. It still shouldn't be expected or demanded repetitively, IMO.

[Audrey]

Actually nevermind... not worth the argument.

[silliness7]

Yup. I immediately thought of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, in which Francie and Neeley, when they get jobs, give some of their money to their mother.

 

Tara

 

 

That is the book I thought of too. It's interesting how far removed we've become from that idea. I think it's because we are so affluent. Lights and clean drinking water, heat for the house and gas for the car are things many of us in this country don't even give a second thought about. However if you do struggle over those things it seems kind of silly for a kid to use his money on some toy when the water is going to be shut off. I have no idea how dire the situation is. Without knowing more specifics it's hard to give a blanket yes or no. Like a pp said, kid walking the dog so mom can go to the salon is not cool. But walking the dog to pay for his clothes or school supplies would not be a bad idea.

[Denisemomof4]

I voted absolutely not. That the family is financially hurting and questioning whether they should get a portion is heart breaking, so maybe I shouldn't vote at all because I truly can't understand.

 

I'm sure this is very hard on the parents.

[EthiopianFood]

Not for walking dogs. I think she might say something like, now that you're growing up and have a job, we expect you to pay for your own (fill in the blank) and take some small expense off their own plate, if that makes sense. If the job was enough money later on, it could even be a biggish expense like clothes or shoes - which friends of mine had to pay their own way with as teens. But generally I think it should be his.

 

If she is concerned about expenses, she should cut back on what she pays for for him, and allow him to pay for those things himself. Nicer clothing or shoes, treats, toys, gifts from him for family/friends for holidays/birthdays, field trips, etc. would fit this bill. I absolutely think children should contribute to the family, but if the mom is able to make ends meet now, I find it in poor taste to take her child's hard-earned money from a job that he doesn't even have to take, just to make things easier for herself. Make him do more chores if she needs extra help. Unfortunately, I can't articulate why I think contributing time and effort is more acceptable than contributing money, but now I'll be thinking about it all evening, trying to figure it out. :tongue_smilie:

[eternalknot]

No. Children shouldn't be burdened with their parents' finances. It's one thing to share household responsibilities in an age-appropriate way; it's quite another to take a 9 year old's earnings because the home is having money problems. That's an adult problem.

 

I think this is where the various family dynamics come into play. In our home, it's a family problem - not an adult problem. It can still be addressed in an age-appropriate way IMO/IME.

 

In my family, we've always sent money to relatives for various things. So I grew up with the idea that there is a family pool of money, and sometimes you give while sometimes you get.

 

When my son wanted a bike to ride to soccer practice, he set out to earn enough. My daughter worked along side him doing chores for neighbors and gave him all of her earnings. She thought nothing of it. Neither did he when he put that money towards his bike. He also uses that bike to make library runs for her, to pull her around the park on her roller skates, and to take himself to soccer practices so I am available to run errands during that time (errands that benefit them both). None of us feels he was taking advantage of her, and she doesn't feel used.

 

I have no problems asking my kids to contribute, even though we're not destitute. Some people suggest kids save (for college, for general savings) or they have the kids tithe. Those are all fine ways of investing; in our family we instead direct/expect the kids to re-invest in our family. When the time comes for college, need for savings, and tithing ... we'll collectively provide for it.

[eternalknot]

I absolutely think children should contribute to the family, but if the mom is able to make ends meet now, I find it in poor taste to take her child's hard-earned money from a job that he doesn't even have to take, just to make things easier for herself. Make him do more chores if she needs extra help. Unfortunately, I can't articulate why I think contributing time and effort is more acceptable than contributing money, but now I'll be thinking about it all evening, trying to figure it out. :tongue_smilie:

 

LOL!

 

Consider it from the POV of a child, particularly a male child.

 

All things being even, I suspect the child would prefer the experience of working for someone else for bona fide pay (even if it means forking part of it over to the family) to doing extra chores around the house. He may not even be able to articulate that at his age, but IME males seem to feel better about "paid work" than they do unpaid chores - regardless of whatever the actual pay and work are. Maybe it's a validation thing?

[crazyforlatin]

Some kids become resentful if you tell them that they need to contribute to the family's expenses. Kids think that parents provide the basic necessities out of love, and if you start treating them like a money-making machine, there's going to be tension and resentment.

 

So don't have your friend say it as such. There is a way to approach it without seeming to use the kid.

 

I happen to come from a culture where the kids are expected to give their earnings to their parents and that's exactly what my brother did when he worked at a museum as a young teenager. He wasn't asked to; he was just so proud to show my mother his paycheck and to give it to her. To this day, whatever is his is hers to spend, but she has never taken advantage of this. It seems un-American, but in certain cultures, kids are raised to understand that it's a great honor to take care of the family.

[Abigail4476]

I understand the basic concept of the "family pool" and I think there are appropriate times to implement this philosophy on a smaller scale. However, I strongly believe that it is the parents' primary job to provide the needs of the children, and children learn responsibility and work ethic from their parents' example; not through providing their own needs.

 

I realize that there are parts of the world and parts of history where this practice was/is accepted or deemed necessary, but IMO it is not ideal for the security of a child and his total sense of well being.

 

Frankly, I find it repugnant (strong word, I know--but honest) that a mother would be having financial difficulty and the solution she comes up with is to take her child's money. That goes against every maternal instinct for me. The OP said that the friend is "not in great financial shape." Sometimes this is due to circumstances beyond one's control, and if it's about getting food on the table, I suppose it could be a last resort as a previous poster mentioned. Sometimes this is due to being a bad money manager and it's my feeling that using your child's money is only a temporary and partial fix at best, and is akin to punishing the child for your own poor choices. What does that teach a child? You make bad choices, so you go ask someone else for their money that they worked hard to earn???? :001_huh:

[EthiopianFood]

LOL!

 

Consider it from the POV of a child, particularly a male child.

 

All things being even, I suspect the child would prefer the experience of working for someone else for bona fide pay (even if it means forking part of it over to the family) to doing extra chores around the house. He may not even be able to articulate that at his age, but IME males seem to feel better about "paid work" than they do unpaid chores - regardless of whatever the actual pay and work are. Maybe it's a validation thing?

 

I figured it out! :tongue_smilie: We were poor growing up. When I was able to make my own money, it allowed me to get things that I never would have been able to otherwise. Life is crappy when you're poor. Having my own spending money gave me a bright spot. Also, my parent didn't always respect my money. She borrowed from me a few times with the understanding that she would pay me back. She never did. It was a big violation of trust. This is obviously different than being upfront with a child, so that part doesn't apply here. I do feel like, if I was THAT poor, and there was suddenly a way for my child to actually be able to have a few extras for once, I would consider that a huge relief to me. And to mirror what some others have said, what happens when the boy no longer has the job? If things are borderline unlivable, a long-term plan needs to be sought. If they aren't, let the kid pay for his own stuff and be done with it.

 

Oh, and I don't care if my kid doesn't want to do chores. TOO BAD. :lol:

[eternalknot]

I figured it out! :tongue_smilie: We were poor growing up. When I was able to make my own money, it allowed me to get things that I never would have been able to otherwise. Life is crappy when you're poor. Having my own spending money gave me a bright spot. Also, my parent didn't always respect my money. She borrowed from me a few times with the understanding that she would pay me back. She never did. It was a big violation of trust. This is obviously different than being upfront with a child, so that part doesn't apply here. I do feel like, if I was THAT poor, and there was suddenly a way for my child to actually be able to have a few extras for once, I would consider that a huge relief to me. And to mirror what some others have said, what happens when the boy no longer has the job? If things are borderline unlivable, a long-term plan needs to be sought. If they aren't, let the kid pay for his own stuff and be done with it.

 

Oh, and I don't care if my kid doesn't want to do chores. TOO BAD. :lol:

 

I totally get the bright spot thing. There were nine of us kids and we weren't rollin' in the dough either!

 

I think it's horrible that your parents violated your trust. That's unforgivable even independent of the financial aspect. Another poster said it better than I can, and to sum: in some cultures (mine included) it's an honor to contribute to the family, and that generally isn't abused by the adults.

 

Sometimes when we find ourselves in dire straits, it's all we can do to focus on the moment. Even if our situation isn't rock bottom, it can sometimes feel like it is (especially if we've never hit lower than we currently view our situation as being). To that end, I can see how a family might not be forward-looking as to the "what ifs" should the boy's job disappear. It's sometimes all we can do to "get through today" or through x-situation, you know? When all hope feels lost, people don't think rationally and long-term planning seems like a luxury they don't have.

 

Obviously there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this dilemma, and family culture (as well as individual personalities) will vary as to the appropriateness of how to handle a situation like this. These kinds of threads are helpful to me because my kids are growing up in a community where our values/norms are the minority. As they get older I wonder how this will influence their memories and future actions. I learn so much here!

[SonshineLearner]

I learn so much here!

I always love reading your posts :) They seem so "Family oriented" and leave me happy that I have a small bit of what you seem to have. I gave some of my money to my parents when we were poor... with my dad working his butt off and going to Law School. Those times were beyond what I thought were tough... at the ages of 12-15, but... first of all... if I wanted beyond basic "living needs" I needed to help.... and second of all... my parents have given me way more than I ever pitched in to the pot.

 

I love living around my parents, with all the nicks and scrapes we give each other, and I love the fact that my parents would give me anything... as I would them. This was true when I was younger and babysitting for all my money... and is true now, too :)

[Haiku]

No. Children shouldn't be burdened with their parents' finances. *snip* That's an adult problem.

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree. When my dh's hours and pay were cut 75% last fall, it was a family problem. I had to go out and get a part-time job to attempt to make ends meet. My dd-then-16 had to babysit for the little kids on the evenings I worked. I didn't ask her if she would please mind doing it. I told her she had to. Everyone's allowances were eliminated. The "everyone gets to pick a treat at the grocery store" tradition ceased. Any homeschool group activities that required a fee were not attended. The kids felt the pinch. It was not an adult problem. It was a family problem, and we all worked together to address it.

 

FWIW, my little kids offered to get jobs to help out.

 

Tara

[kewb]

My instinct is to say absolutely not. However, I do not know this family. Perhaps the 9 year old is a responsible person who sees the family struggling and wants to help out. Now, if the mom just wants to take a portion without any explanation to the child, that is something else.

 

There have been times when money has been really tight and take out was not in the budget and my ds paid for pizza for the family out of his earnings. Dh and I did not want to take this money from him but we saw how important it was to him to be able to do this for us.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Normally, I would say no. But I voted maybe, because if they are really desperate, and his contributing some of his earned money would help, I think it should be explained to him. These are very hard times for lots of families, and even the youngest members are having to make sacrifices.

[Old Dominion Heather]

I voted maybe. I think that $25 - $30 a week is way too much money for a 9yo to have AND it isn't a reasonable wage. I have neighbor who paid our family $80 a month to feed her cats twice a day. My boys did all the feeding, but she gave the check to me, I cashed it and paid each kid $10. It was a ridiculous amount of money to do the job. I tried to convince her that we would just do it for free, but she wouldn't hear of it.

 

If the boys had control over the entirety of that money, we would have just been swimming in that many more LEGO's. I kept the majority and we used it for stuff like sports fees, going to the batting cages, etc...

 

So, I wouldn't give a kid that much money in the first place and I would "redistribute his wealth."

[Rhonda in TX]

$25-$30/week is a lot of money for a 9 year old. Maybe they could agree that he would get to get $15, but the rest should go towards some sort of family fun, which is probably scarce if money is tight. That way, he would still benefit from all the money and the mom would see some benefit as well. $15/week for a 9 year old is still plenty of money.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

WWYD? My friend asked for my opinion. Her friend has a bad back and cannot take her dogs on long walks. She asked if my friend's 9 yo would be interested in taking said dog for a 30-40 minute walk, 3-4 times a week. She would pay her son $25-30 a week.

 

My friend is not in great financial shape, and on some level, wants permission to use some of this money towards the family expenses. I feel it would be her son's earnings to do with as he wishes. She feels that it would be okay to ask him to contribute a portion of it towards the family expenses.

 

What do you think?

 

I think that I try not to weigh in on the financial and family dynamics of friends of friends.

 

 

 

Having said that, so much depends on the exact family situation. If the family is having problems buying food, paying rent or paying utilities, then I think it's great that they pull together as a family and contribute the results of their work to the family benefit.

 

Or the mom could say that such money will be on tap to pay for the kid's activities (scouts, sports, field trips) that they would otherwise have to cut out for financial reasons.

[amy g.]

Let me get this straight. The child is saving up to buy an iPad, and gets a job to pay for it, but his mom feels entitled to a portion of his earnings.

 

This goes completely against my parenting style.

 

If the family's situation is dire enough, the child might offer to give some of the money to the family. That is different.

 

I expect my children to pull together as a family, and they do plenty to help out, but I won't dampen their enthusiasm for earning their own money by taxing them.

[TravelingChris]

I voted to put some money towards the family. THat was only based on the situation given. It isn;t the way we do things in our family but we are not in financial troubles. If the family is having trouble meeting the basics- food, utilities, rent, etc. then I say yes. THe child would probably want to do that then since even 9 year olds can understand the importance of electricity or food.

[Spock]

I asked my 9yo and 11yo about this. They both think it would be fine to give half the money to help the family pay bills, and keep half for spending money. They both understand about financial problems--we have been living more from savings than income for almost 3 years now, and there are many things we are no longer able to do because of it. (In fact, they both say they wish this opportunity was available to them.)

[Trish]

If the family is that close to the edge financially that this amount of money would make a difference to them, by all means, they should us the money for family needs. (imagine if they're having trouble paying the electric bill, and the son is buying toys/candy/comic books with money they could have used)

 

That said, I think he's too young for that much responsibility. The mom can do it, and he can help out.

[Meriwether]

In my opinion, I think it would actually be beneficial for her ds. Being selfless is something that doesn't just happen to adults, it's something that's taught and modeled over time.

 

I think it's a rather modern idea that children shouldn't be taught to contribute whenever and however they are able. It's the product of a prosperous and somewhat entitled society that doesn't necessarily still exist for a lot of people in today's economy.

 

 

I get what you are saying. I really do. I grew up on a farm.:001_smile: We all helped when there was work to be done. It made us closer as a family to know that Mom and Dad needed us. We didn't get allowances; there wasn't any money. We didn't get paid for work on the farm (but as the kids were able to afford it, Dad let us buy up to three cows, which grazed on his land). We used our calf money, babysitting money, wages, etc. to buy a lot of our own clothes, gas, vehicle (half), savings for college. We had the family motto that what was good for one of us was good for all of us. One of us earning money eased the financial burden on all of us. BUT there was a clear distinction between work done for the family and work done individually. Dad sometimes hired out the family to do a job (paint a house). That was work done for the family and the money went toward the family. Farm work, of course, went to the family pot. Dad did carpentry work on the side. My brother often worked with him. If Dad was paid an hourly rate for my brother's labor, my brother was paid. If Dad and my brother hired out to haul hay, my brother was paid. If I helped Mom clean our house, that was contributing to the family. If I helped her clean houses, she would usually give me the money earned that day.

 

As adults, we don't pool our money within the family, but we do pool resources. Dad put an addition on our first home. Dh has taken off work to help Dad during hay season. And I know that my family will have a roof over our heads and food to eat as long as my parents or siblings have a roof over their heads and food to eat. You can raise kids to be family oriented and contribute to the family without taking money they've earned. It is important to teach kids to actively contribute to the family. It is also important to teach kids to actively take care of themselves.

[amy g.]

Oh, I agree that borrowing it is completely different. My oldest never spends ANY money. There just isnt anything she wants.

 

I often ask to borrow cash from her so I don't have to goto the bank. I called her my personal ATM. Once I owed her $800, so I payed her back. The money is probably still in her sock drawer.

[angela in ohio]

In my opinion, I think it would actually be beneficial for her ds. Being selfless is something that doesn't just happen to adults, it's something that's taught and modeled over time.

 

I think it's a rather modern idea that children shouldn't be taught to contribute whenever and however they are able. It's the product of a prosperous and somewhat entitled society that doesn't necessarily still exist for a lot of people in today's economy.

 

I agree.

 

I know several families whose dc have part-time jobs and use the money for electronics, trips, hairstyles, trendy clothes, etc. But the family is struggling and taking money from other people to help pay the bills and eat. I just think we live in such an odd society that the neighbors bring over bags of groceries to feed the hungry child who is listening to his brand new iPod. :confused: (Not that this is the OP's family's situation, but I keep seeing similar situations IRL.)

 

But we're odd, because we pool all of our money. My dc rarely earn money, because we prefer them to volunteer their time and study at this age, but when they do, it's just part of family money.

 

So many kids are in trouble because they are looking for meaning in their life. Being a contributing member of a family can give them that, whether it's through working outside and earning money to bring in or doing work within the home.

Edited October 11, 2011 by angela in ohio

[Meriwether]

I agree.

 

I know several families whose dc have part-time jobs and use the money for electronics, trips, hairstyles, trendy clothes, etc. But the family is struggling and taking money from other people to help pay the bills and eat. I just think we live in such an odd society that the neighbors bring over bags of groceries to feed the hungry child who is listening to his brand new iPod. :confused: (Not that this is the OP's family's situation, but I keep seeing similar situations IRL.)

 

But we're odd, because we pool all of our money. My dc rarely earn money, because we prefer them to volunteer their time and study at this age, but when they do, it's just part of family money.

 

In this situation, I would expect kids to contribute before getting help from any other source - neighbors, church, government. I wouldn't take the kid's money just to make life easier, though.

[WeeBeaks]

If the family is that close to the edge financially that this amount of money would make a difference to them, by all means, they should us the money for family needs. (imagine if they're having trouble paying the electric bill, and the son is buying toys/candy/comic books with money they could have used)

 

That said, I think he's too young for that much responsibility. The mom can do it, and he can help out.

 

:iagree:

 

That's a hard one. If they truly are desperate, yes, I think the son could help and should be informed every step of the way and told how much he is helping.

 

But I do think every other "luxury" of any type in the parents' budget should be eliminated first and that should be a truly last resort. JMHO.

[KristinaBreece]

I think this is where the various family dynamics come into play. In our home, it's a family problem - not an adult problem. It can still be addressed in an age-appropriate way IMO/IME.

 

In my family, we've always sent money to relatives for various things. So I grew up with the idea that there is a family pool of money, and sometimes you give while sometimes you get.

 

When my son wanted a bike to ride to soccer practice, he set out to earn enough. My daughter worked along side him doing chores for neighbors and gave him all of her earnings. She thought nothing of it. Neither did he when he put that money towards his bike. He also uses that bike to make library runs for her, to pull her around the park on her roller skates, and to take himself to soccer practices so I am available to run errands during that time (errands that benefit them both). None of us feels he was taking advantage of her, and she doesn't feel used.

 

I have no problems asking my kids to contribute, even though we're not destitute. Some people suggest kids save (for college, for general savings) or they have the kids tithe. Those are all fine ways of investing; in our family we instead direct/expect the kids to re-invest in our family. When the time comes for college, need for savings, and tithing ... we'll collectively provide for it.

 

That's the way my mother raised me. We believe in the common good of the family. Everyone contributes however they can. If that looks like (we're going to be doing some multi-generational habitation) me staying home with my kids & schooling them & doing the cooking/cleaning/laundry & everyone else bringing in income to cover the expense end of things, that's what it will be.

[Julie in CA]

I get what you are saying. I really do. I grew up on a farm.:001_smile: We all helped when there was work to be done. It made us closer as a family to know that Mom and Dad needed us. We didn't get allowances; there wasn't any money. We didn't get paid for work on the farm (but as the kids were able to afford it, Dad let us buy up to three cows, which grazed on his land). We used our calf money, babysitting money, wages, etc. to buy a lot of our own clothes, gas, vehicle (half), savings for college. We had the family motto that what was good for one of us was good for all of us. One of us earning money eased the financial burden on all of us. BUT there was a clear distinction between work done for the family and work done individually. Dad sometimes hired out the family to do a job (paint a house). That was work done for the family and the money went toward the family. Farm work, of course, went to the family pot. Dad did carpentry work on the side. My brother often worked with him. If Dad was paid an hourly rate for my brother's labor, my brother was paid. If Dad and my brother hired out to haul hay, my brother was paid. If I helped Mom clean our house, that was contributing to the family. If I helped her clean houses, she would usually give me the money earned that day.

 

As adults, we don't pool our money within the family, but we do pool resources. Dad put an addition on our first home. Dh has taken off work to help Dad during hay season. And I know that my family will have a roof over our heads and food to eat as long as my parents or siblings have a roof over their heads and food to eat. You can raise kids to be family oriented and contribute to the family without taking money they've earned. It is important to teach kids to actively contribute to the family. It is also important to teach kids to actively take care of themselves.

But that's my point. It's nice that your family had enough that there was a roof over your heads and food on the table, even if the family didn't keep and use the money you earned. Teaching kids to actively take care of themselves would include, imo, teaching them to participate in providing the basics of life when necessary.

 

The idea of kids keeping their earnings and paying for their own "extras" like lessons, or cub scouts, or nicer clothes, or whatever, doesn't really matter if the electricity will be cut off tomorrow.

 

Americans are simply so used to being prosperous and affluent that we cannot seem to conceive of a society (or economy) where it's difficult to provide even the basics to sustain life. Like it or not, that mindset may have to be curtailed. It's rather specific to "The American Dream", and is a rather recent (and not always realistic) expectation in terms of history.

[angela in ohio]

I think this is where the various family dynamics come into play. In our home, it's a family problem - not an adult problem. It can still be addressed in an age-appropriate way IMO/IME.

 

In my family, we've always sent money to relatives for various things. So I grew up with the idea that there is a family pool of money, and sometimes you give while sometimes you get.

 

When my son wanted a bike to ride to soccer practice, he set out to earn enough. My daughter worked along side him doing chores for neighbors and gave him all of her earnings. She thought nothing of it. Neither did he when he put that money towards his bike. He also uses that bike to make library runs for her, to pull her around the park on her roller skates, and to take himself to soccer practices so I am available to run errands during that time (errands that benefit them both). None of us feels he was taking advantage of her, and she doesn't feel used.

 

I have no problems asking my kids to contribute, even though we're not destitute. Some people suggest kids save (for college, for general savings) or they have the kids tithe. Those are all fine ways of investing; in our family we instead direct/expect the kids to re-invest in our family. When the time comes for college, need for savings, and tithing ... we'll collectively provide for it.

 

I'm feeling less lonely. :D

[vonfirmath]

It depends...

 

If their financial situation is we can't afford a manicure and Starbucks or we are thinking about cutting the cable and letting the cell phone go, no I don't think the child needs to contribute much if anything.

 

Laugh. The 9-year old might be perfectly happy to contribute to keep the cable running! If you just talk to him and ask.

 

I have no problem with a family expecting children that are earning money to contribute to family bills. Even 9-year olds. But then I am thinking of the families I know about -- and in none of them would this be a money grab of "Just give me your money"

 

It would be a conversation where the it was explained how proud they were of the 9-year old for helping the family. And it would be done in times of need, not for another Starbucks drink for the mom. And it would be done proportionate with the family's need.

 

It does benefit the kid, after all, if he contributes $25/wk and his mom is able to stay home instead of having to be gone to work at night and then be crabby during the day from lack of sleep. etc. And this can be very positive if handled correctly.

[Murphy101]

I wouldn't have a problem with it.

If done right, it's a family and character building experience.

Like anything parenting, if done wrong it might not do that at all.

 

Rather than just taking the money, I would want him to see where the money goes. That's a lot of money to us. Goodness. For my 16 year old it would be enough to be able to pay his own band fee and spanish class fees each month. If she paid the higher end of $30 a month, he would still have $20 spending money left to spend as he chooses.

 

ETA: I'd sit him down and discuss some family expenses and see which ones he might want to help with. Its a good exercise in budgeting and life skills.

[Meriwether]

But that's my point. It's nice that your family had enough that there was a roof over your heads and food on the table, even if the family didn't keep and use the money you earned. Teaching kids to actively take care of themselves would include, imo, teaching them to participate in providing the basics of life when necessary.

 

The idea of kids keeping their earnings and paying for their own "extras" like lessons, or cub scouts, or nicer clothes, or whatever, doesn't really matter if the electricity will be cut off tomorrow.

 

Americans are simply so used to being prosperous and affluent that we cannot seem to conceive of a society (or economy) where it's difficult to provide even the basics to sustain life. Like it or not, that mindset may have to be curtailed. It's rather specific to "The American Dream", and is a rather recent (and not always realistic) expectation in terms of history.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. Are you speaking in general terms or this specific instance? I don't see how many problems the kid's $25/week is going to solve. I think Halcyon mention it going toward food and clothes. I'd rather buy a few items of clothing on sale (I can get brand new clothes for the kids for 2 or 3 dollars) than take my kids' earnings. I'd rather eat very cheaply than take my kids' earnings. My ds7 has been offering to buy food with his birthday money. I'm not sure where he got the idea as we are not living in want. I've been toying with the idea of letting him just so that he gets a taste of providing. But I would not take it from him.

[Murphy101]

I'm not disagreeing with you. Are you speaking in general terms or this specific instance? I don't see how many problems the kid's $25/week is going to solve. I think Halcyon mention it going toward food and clothes. I'd rather buy a few items of clothing on sale (I can get brand new clothes for the kids for 2 or 3 dollars) than take my kids' earnings. I'd rather eat very cheaply than take my kids' earnings. My ds7 has been offering to buy food with his birthday money. I'm not sure where he got the idea as we are not living in want. I've been toying with the idea of letting him just so that he gets a taste of providing. But I would not take it from him.

 

:001_huh: $100-120 a month is a LOT to us and would help in several areas.

Also, your examples are rather... Ignorant. Most families on a tight income are already eating cheap and buying clothing on sale/used. A $100 can buy a lot of "new" winter clothes at goodwill. A $100 could buy us a month supply of diapers for our two in diapers. It could buy milk for a month. It could put gas in my van twice. The question is whether using the money to make those things happen at all or make it easier to happen is wrong. I say it isn't at all wrong. It is in fact, a good thing.

 

It's already been pointed out that using the kid's money so mom can have a new coach purse, manicure, and date night is not really the question being asked here.

[Meriwether]

:001_huh: $100-120 a month is a LOT to us and would help in several areas.

Also, your examples are rather... Ignorant. Most families on a tight income are already eating cheap and buying clothing on sale/used. A $100 can buy a lot of "new" winter clothes at goodwill. A $100 could buy us a month supply of diapers for our two in diapers. It could buy milk for a month. It could put gas in my van twice. The question is whether using the money to make those things happen at all or make it easier to happen is wrong. I say it isn't at all wrong. It is in fact, a good thing.

 

It's already been pointed out that using the kid's money so mom can have a new coach purse, manicure, and date night is not really the question being asked here.

 

Not ignorant.:001_smile: I grew up poor. My family lived in an unfinished basement for a while. My parents could have justified using any money we earned quite easily. The OP mentioned that, if taken, the money would be used for food and clothes. I'm not saying that $100 is insignificant in a budget, but presumably the family was wearing clothes and eating before the kid got the job. In my opinion, needing the money to keep body and soul together is different than needing the money to make things easier. I'm not criticizing anyone who views this differently than I do.

[Lacie]

I voted other. I do not believe that it would be okay to take some or all of the child's money. But I also think that is a lot of money to pay your child to walk a family pet. In our house that would be a normal household chore, with no need for extra payment.

[Halftime Hope]

I voted "other" becaue it is absolutely none of my business what that family chooses to do in this situation, even if it doesn't seem like something I would want to do in my family. I would hope that others would be kind enough to recognize my right to the same freedom.

[Onceuponatime]

WWYD? My friend asked for my opinion. Her friend has a bad back and cannot take her dogs on long walks. She asked if my friend's 9 yo would be interested in taking said dog for a 30-40 minute walk, 3-4 times a week. She would pay her son $25-30 a week.

 

My friend is not in great financial shape, and on some level, wants permission to use some of this money towards the family expenses. I feel it would be her son's earnings to do with as he wishes. She feels that it would be okay to ask him to contribute a portion of it towards the family expenses.

 

What do you think?

 

I voted no, but I do think it is reasonable to ask him to use the money for things mom would normally buy for him, like clothes or shoes, if he needs them.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Onceuponatime

[MBM]

WWYD? My friend asked for my opinion. Her friend has a bad back and cannot take her dogs on long walks. She asked if my friend's 9 yo would be interested in taking said dog for a 30-40 minute walk, 3-4 times a week. She would pay her son $25-30 a week.

 

My friend is not in great financial shape, and on some level, wants permission to use some of this money towards the family expenses. I feel it would be her son's earnings to do with as he wishes. She feels that it would be okay to ask him to contribute a portion of it towards the family expenses.

 

What do you think?

 

If possible, I would prefer my son kept the money he earned.

Having said that, dog walking in my suburb costs around $25 per 30" visit. Maybe your friend could set up a business for herself and her son as well. Great money in some parts and exercise to boot.

[KarenC]

It wasn't that long ago that it was common in this country. If the family is truly destitute and this money would make a difference, then yes I think each family member should contribute to the best of their ability.

 

Karen

[QuirkyKapers]

It wasn't that long ago that it was common in this country. If the family is truly destitute and this money would make a difference, then yes I think each family member should contribute to the best of their ability.

 

Karen

I was just thinking the same thing. It is not uncommon in other countries for the kids to work and contribute finacially.

[Haiku]

:001_huh: $100-120 a month is a LOT to us and would help in several areas.

 

:iagree: I make about $100 a week working part time. When dh was on reduced salary, if we had an "extra" $100 a month, that would have been huge. With the $400 I was making plus an extra $100 brought in by a child, I could have fed the whole family for a month.

 

People who think $100-$120 a month is peanuts or is too miniscule to be helpful ... well, enjoy your blessing of being without financial worries.

 

Tara