[pllbnk]

I can’t understand morally or financially how can parents charge anything of their children. Not judging it, just honestly can’t understand it. Isn’t it the parents’ responsibility to build the foundation for their children and keep building it until it’s there? I am viewing it from a moral angle where it’s the parents’ selfish choice to have a child so they must take full responsibility until a child is or feels that they can be independent.

[angott]

I think this is driven by both culture and the grade of economic development of the country you live in. In my home country of Italy, it would be considered kinda crazy to charge your kids rent. There are very practical reasons behind it: high youth unemployment, low salaries when you're just starting your career. Rental apartments are also really expensive in big cities and you just can't afford one without getting a roommate (or a partner with a job). So people end up staying at home longer to save money for a down payment, and the parents are totally fine with it.

I live in the US now, and here, where it is (used to be?) easy to land a well-paying job fresh out of school, it is considered quite common to charge your children rent if they decide to stay at home. My feeling is that staying at home in the USA carries quite some stigma for both the kid and their parents. American culture puts a lot of value in self-reliance and financial independence, and the general idea is that you failed as a parent if your kids aren't able to afford their own place.

(I also have a feeling all of the above is changing dramatically, given the current cost of living crisis in America.)

[hgoel]

Agreed. I think it's wild that such a position seems relatively common in the US (though at a surface level I understand that it's just a cultural difference).

The only situation in which I would consider charging my kids 'rent' is, if as adults, they were being irresponsible with their life, e.g. being a NEET and not helping out around the house. Even then I would hold the money in a separate account to gift back to them later.

I think it's parents' role to always be a source of almost unconditional comfort and security for their kids. Though I also think that this is unsustainable unless kids also do their best to maintain and respect that relationship.

[PaulHoule]

He's paying a fraction of market rate rent and has saved a lot of money.

He's eating food out of the communal pool and it's a running gag at local restaurants that he eats two entrees. I think it's fair that he contributes something, like he is working, except for this summer when he said "take this job and shove it" because he was working for a crew where the foreman was twice his age but didn't have any sense for construction. Instead, he's doing a lot of work around the farm to fix things up, some of which is stuff we need and some of which is stuff he wants.

He expects to inherit the farm, will probably move to our other house if and when he is ready to co-habitate as opposed to getting on the housing ladder in the conventional way.

[pllbnk]

Thanks for the perspective. I have intuitively thought adults live at their parents' mostly out of need and much less often out of choice. The dynamics change in the latter case as two independent adults can make an agreement on how they see their relationship.

[inigyou]

I paid discounted rent to my parents once I had a job and still lived with them. Really not a whole lot. I think of it not as a payment for existing but as a contribution to the household and if I couldn't pay for some reason, they wouldn't have evicted me.

[pizzafeelsright]

In my house the >8 years old the kids start paying rent. They get paid for normal house work (minimum wage). Rent is ~$300/month. I pay the kid minimum wage for chores because that is work and work should be rewarded. They pay me rent. That rent and other expenses are ~80% of their pay. Some must go to savings and "taxes". They have to keep books as well. The rest is theirs.

I know other fathers that charge their adult children rent, keep the money, and then gift it to them at the wedding or to help them buy a house.

[pllbnk]

I understand that such a game of life might be beneficial for a child. But I would like to understand the reasoning to do that with an adult.

> I know other fathers that charge their adult children rent, keep the money, and then gift it to them at the wedding or to help them buy a house.

This looks like a game which should have ended by the time a child is an adult.

I am raising a very young child so I am very concerned about the future and constantly thinking what's the right way to raise him.

[pizzafeelsright]

I know my neighbors very well due to my personality. There are 20-40 year old adults who live with their parents for various reasons. The foolish "children" are those who order door dash at 3am with no income or education. They are unable to 'launch' from their parent's orbit. i feel terrible for these people. As mentioned, I know them well and they do not have an excuse other than laziness and permission. The rule 'those who do not work do not eat' is something all people can agree with but few enforce.

The right way to raise your child is so that they can thrive without you while wanting their children (your grandchildren) to spend time with you. This is a tall order because it requires decades of sacrifice, pain, and difficult yet positive decisions.

[inigyou]

> The rule 'those who do not work do not eat' is something all people can agree

Um, no?

Thanks for suggesting a possible left/right political litmus test though.

We shouldn't have to waste too many resources on "useless people" but I think starving them to death is a bit excessive. We don't have a shortage of food. They're more likely to need mental health services or spiritual guidance to help them not be useless - which they can pay back in taxes if the transformation succeeds.

[fragmede]

Some people do think money grows on trees and don't want to work. Maybe there's a way to spiritually guide them otherwise, but I'm not exactly excited to pay my taxes to support them. There are both rich and poor people that think that way, mind you, the rich ones just chose richer parents to be born to. Some people will never change their mind about it. Is society expected to support them forever and never see any return?

[inigyou]

We do it with Elon Musk, why can't we do it with Bobby McBumface?

[pizzafeelsright]

The choosing was intentional. Both Marx and Christians both use the quote. Hungry people will work as history has shown.

[inigyou]

This is selection bias. Hungry people either work or don't work. If we use a system that kills the people who don't work, the remaining ones are seen to be working.

[lief79]

I suspect it depends on the kid. If they are naturally frugal and saving for things (and the household doesn't need the money), then why bother.

If they aren't frugal, and are otherwise suffering from lifestyle creep, then not charging them might be an injustice and setting them up for false expectations/never leaving home.

FYI, I was in the first group because my first job had pay cuts within 2 weeks, and then I discovered I basically spent minimal time at home anyway, so why pay more for it. Let me buy when I wanted to move out.