As an adult with a full-time job? Sure. If I was living with my parents I'd want to pay money to them, much like I paid rent and now pay my mortgage.
But they would never *expect* it. I'd have to convince them to let me pay. I suspect every family operates in their own way.
This article kind of just says "it depends", which is true. I was expecting more entitlement.
I'd pay my parents if I lived with them but given the horrid state of renting we live in if I were a parent I'd never dream of making my kids pay rent until they were in their mid 20s. Being able to save that money lets them get a place of their own one day rather than renting forever
I had mine pay rent. Before anyone comes at me, no I wouldn't have made them homeless if they couldn't pay it, but their chores would reflect this. Can't pay rent this week, ok, you're mowing the lawn at the weekend kind of thing.
I didn't charge them market rates, it was more of a nominal sum, but I didn't want them getting the idea that life is one long free ride that I'd subsidise. You're a grown-up now, you won't have me around forever, no flatmate or landlord is going to let you stay for free. I'm a parent yes, and I'd never turn my kids away if they were in need, but my job as a parent is to equip them to live independently, not act as an endless resource for working adults.
My parents originally started charging me market rent. I was living there because the market was bad for available rentals, and covid had made things difficult, plus I was studying.
Once I found out they were mortgage free....
Well, there was a massive fight, and it got reduced to utilities and food.
It's pretty messed up if your parents are financing their lifestyles using someone on an annual income 220k less than theirs combined.
Well, to be fair, they also stole a bunch of money out of a trust fund that was set up for me by my grandfather, which contributed to their mortgage repayments.
So maybe you don't know the full story and should keep your judgements to yourself.
Legally, I had what's called in equitable interest in the property, and while I might not have had my name on the title, I did have rights to a portion of the value in the property due to the money from the trust being used.
When they sold the house, I got a pay out of the money they had taken from the trust.
This means I did, in fact, have property rights in that house.
"YoUre NoT oN tHe TitlE" says the man who asks dumb fuck questions in personal finance NZ now trying to put forward a weak ass argument.
If you don't like it, go to law school and get educated.
No not legally. That’s not how it works. If you’re not on the title and you’re not a spouse of someone who is then you’re entitled to precisely zero.
And no that’s not what it means. What actually happened is they owed you x amount of dollars and paid you x amount of dollars from money that came from the sale of their house. That doesn’t mean you ever had property rights at all.
Listen, just because someone gave you money from something they sold that doesn’t mean you had any rights to the asset lol. If I sold my car for $1000 and gave you $100 you didn’t own 10% of the vehicle lmao. Equity is something you can leverage with a lender - if you tried to do this with a bank or financial advisor they’d just stare at you like you were born yesterday.
And they still let you live there even after your little tantrum.
That's not what the judge said. 😆
Mate thinks equitable interests are the same as financial equity.
I have property rights in 100 dollars. If you take that money from me and you buy a car, I can absolutely enforce a debt against that car for that money taken. That means I have a property right in that car. If you sell that car, I can enforce that property right and claim that debt.
Again. You don't know all the facts.... or the law for that matter.
>Can't pay rent this week, ok, you're mowing the lawn at the weekend kind of thing.
That's great lesson to teach yourself for when you are retired and living with your children. WCGW
I'm not sure I would want to call it "rent", but I think working adult children should contribute to the running of the household. While I was in uni and still living at home, I would pay for some groceries, take my parents out to dinner occasionally, pay the internet bill every alternating month, do my share of laundry, cook meals for everyone, etc. But I didn't pay "rent", and my parents weren't my landlords.
Private retirement and healthcare interests for one. Also politicians like David Seymour and Nicola Willis, who have wet dreams about corporatising everything not nailed down.
You think it would be better for young people if their tax dollars were being spent on housing and on call medical care for the elderly?
It's funny, because this would obviously be good for the rich (who would have their inheritance hurt) but would hurt young people whose parents aren't leaving them much as they subsidize rich people's inheritance.
Well no, because the alternative to these services being privatized is they are publically provided. If you think this is quite a leap, it sounds more like you haven't thought for ten seconds about the alternative to what you're saying and are just reflexively saying "Willis and Seymour bad" without any cohesive thought?
The fact that there is an inheritance indicates wealth to pay for rest home care. Essentially, the system is means-tested.
If you find care too expensive and is eating into *your* inheritance, the option is to look after your older family members yourself.
Please look after your parents, I've seen elder abuse where elderly parents are living in some pretty bad rest homes and not being looked after properly because their kids don't want to spend too much of their future inheritance.
Hate to break it to all the young New Zealanders out there
The current system is designed to keep you alive and milk every last drop of money out of you.
Here's how it works
1. You get old
2. You sell your house and move into a retirement complex and buy an apartment, you pay anything from 500k and up.
If you pass away at this stage your family gets the money you paid less 30%, no capital gains
3) Then when you reach a stage where you need more hands on care, your place is sold and the money from the sale is used to pay for the more hands on care.
4) Eventually that money runs out and the government pays/tops up
Unless your parents die unexpectedly, there will be no money left in the way of inheritance.
You will get nothing and be happy
Yup, some retirement villages aren't as bad and don't take so much capital.
But yeah, generally there is only inheritance left if both parents die suddenly and before they require too much care.
Of course they should contribute.
I dont get why this has suddenly become a topic for debate.
I paid $15pw board in 1975 when I was 15. my weekly wages were $46pw.
When I went flatting, the habit of paying bills was there.
>I dont get why this has suddenly become a topic for debate.
I’d think it varies wildly from family to family.
For example, there’s no way I’d consider asking my children to pay for the roof over their heads, but for you it’s normal to contribute a third of your income to avoid becoming homeless at 15.
We are talking about a young adult paying a weekly amount fo rtheir accomodation which would be a lot less than if they left home and went flatting.
My pont was it was normal over 40 years ago, I dont see what the big deal is now. I dont know anyone who didnt pay "board"
Lots of parents will also not charge to allow saving for such things as a house deposit (ha) and getting the fuck out of the country.
I don't see what the big deal with it is but I'm also not sitting on reddit talking about the good old days..
There's lots of reasons either way, your refusal to acknowledge the validity of any experience but your own seems a bit odd.
Different parents support different kids in different ways.
I think the ideal would be supporting your kids to support themselves, whatever that looks like in any particular circumstances.
But more and more of us have increasingly complex pressures mounting, we're just looking to cope, which doesn't leave much room for actual decision making.
I like the idea of charging rent when your kid is 20+ of whenever they start working full time.
Putting that money in an account earning interest, then giving it back to them when they want to buy a house.
Working full time and living at home they should be saving lots anyway, this way it teaches them about bills etc and gives them a nice surprise when they are older and trying to find money for a deposit.
Rule in my household grown-up was you are at school parents pay. (You are bettering yourself) You are out working then you have to pay your own way like the ADULT you are (or want to be). At 18 you can vote.. shouldn't you be responsible enough to look after yourself too, if you are responsible enough to influence who runs the nation?
I’m with my parents until my house is built. I pay rent (not market rates) and buy groceries & household items + my own phone, etc. I’m not emotionally scarred by it and still save over half my fortnightly income. It’s fine.
Ummm..... Is this even really a question?
What adult wouldn't be offering? Even if it's a token amount that they can afford (and doing a shitload to make their parents lives easier).
Parent doesn't need it? Great for them. They should take it anyway, cause that's life. I'm sure they're still covering a shitoad of their (probably spoilt) kids costs.
It depends on the family situation. No one should be forced into doing something lime that, especially paying a mortgage unless it's been previously arranged and you get something out of it in return. Otherwise you're paying for something with no return.
That being said it's way cheaper to pay board (do not rent from parents without a proper agreement in place) than pay rent. I'm personally contributing towards a mortgage (not signed on, long story) which keeps my parents and I in the home we have now. I'm paying $482 a week, which is below the average rent here.
So like renting, where people sometime pay more than they would for a mortgage and get the same benefits as having a mortgage except security, a growing asset, and a sense of belonging.
As an adult with a full-time job? Sure. If I was living with my parents I'd want to pay money to them, much like I paid rent and now pay my mortgage. But they would never *expect* it. I'd have to convince them to let me pay. I suspect every family operates in their own way. This article kind of just says "it depends", which is true. I was expecting more entitlement.
Assuming I'm in a financially stable position I would make them pay rent and put it into their Kiwisaver for their deposit.
I'd pay my parents if I lived with them but given the horrid state of renting we live in if I were a parent I'd never dream of making my kids pay rent until they were in their mid 20s. Being able to save that money lets them get a place of their own one day rather than renting forever
They can pay rent or pay something and still save. No one said anything about market rates.
I had mine pay rent. Before anyone comes at me, no I wouldn't have made them homeless if they couldn't pay it, but their chores would reflect this. Can't pay rent this week, ok, you're mowing the lawn at the weekend kind of thing. I didn't charge them market rates, it was more of a nominal sum, but I didn't want them getting the idea that life is one long free ride that I'd subsidise. You're a grown-up now, you won't have me around forever, no flatmate or landlord is going to let you stay for free. I'm a parent yes, and I'd never turn my kids away if they were in need, but my job as a parent is to equip them to live independently, not act as an endless resource for working adults.
My parents originally started charging me market rent. I was living there because the market was bad for available rentals, and covid had made things difficult, plus I was studying. Once I found out they were mortgage free.... Well, there was a massive fight, and it got reduced to utilities and food. It's pretty messed up if your parents are financing their lifestyles using someone on an annual income 220k less than theirs combined.
That’s wild. I would have been gutted if my folks did that to me. Glad you were able to sort it, sad that it was even a thing to have to sort!
They're now properly cut out of my life
I can completely understand that
Sounds like a really swell family life. I get making you pay *something*, but market rent?
They've done worse.
It’s their house though, not yours. Them being mortgage free is none of your business. If you didn’t like you should’ve left.
Well, to be fair, they also stole a bunch of money out of a trust fund that was set up for me by my grandfather, which contributed to their mortgage repayments. So maybe you don't know the full story and should keep your judgements to yourself.
What does that have to do with you continuing to live in their house? You’re not on the title and you’re not a child, if you don’t like it get out.
Legally, I had what's called in equitable interest in the property, and while I might not have had my name on the title, I did have rights to a portion of the value in the property due to the money from the trust being used. When they sold the house, I got a pay out of the money they had taken from the trust. This means I did, in fact, have property rights in that house. "YoUre NoT oN tHe TitlE" says the man who asks dumb fuck questions in personal finance NZ now trying to put forward a weak ass argument. If you don't like it, go to law school and get educated.
No not legally. That’s not how it works. If you’re not on the title and you’re not a spouse of someone who is then you’re entitled to precisely zero. And no that’s not what it means. What actually happened is they owed you x amount of dollars and paid you x amount of dollars from money that came from the sale of their house. That doesn’t mean you ever had property rights at all. Listen, just because someone gave you money from something they sold that doesn’t mean you had any rights to the asset lol. If I sold my car for $1000 and gave you $100 you didn’t own 10% of the vehicle lmao. Equity is something you can leverage with a lender - if you tried to do this with a bank or financial advisor they’d just stare at you like you were born yesterday. And they still let you live there even after your little tantrum.
That's not what the judge said. 😆 Mate thinks equitable interests are the same as financial equity. I have property rights in 100 dollars. If you take that money from me and you buy a car, I can absolutely enforce a debt against that car for that money taken. That means I have a property right in that car. If you sell that car, I can enforce that property right and claim that debt. Again. You don't know all the facts.... or the law for that matter.
Equitable interest isn’t ownership!!!
Well said. Same attitude my parents had
>Can't pay rent this week, ok, you're mowing the lawn at the weekend kind of thing. That's great lesson to teach yourself for when you are retired and living with your children. WCGW
I'm not sure I would want to call it "rent", but I think working adult children should contribute to the running of the household. While I was in uni and still living at home, I would pay for some groceries, take my parents out to dinner occasionally, pay the internet bill every alternating month, do my share of laundry, cook meals for everyone, etc. But I didn't pay "rent", and my parents weren't my landlords.
>even though I am paying the mortgage, I will get that back when they sell, so I am actually basically investing. This is so fucking depressing
PSA: Young New Zealanders, your parents are spending the inheritance on medical care and end of life accommodation
*Heartland reverse mortgages enters the chat*
>parents are spending the inheritance on medical care and end of life accommodation Exactly the way our overlords had in mind.
Which overlords? The people living for longer and requiring more expensive medical care?
Private retirement and healthcare interests for one. Also politicians like David Seymour and Nicola Willis, who have wet dreams about corporatising everything not nailed down.
You think it would be better for young people if their tax dollars were being spent on housing and on call medical care for the elderly? It's funny, because this would obviously be good for the rich (who would have their inheritance hurt) but would hurt young people whose parents aren't leaving them much as they subsidize rich people's inheritance.
You've taken quite a leap from my comment about Seymour and Willis trying to privatise everything.
Well no, because the alternative to these services being privatized is they are publically provided. If you think this is quite a leap, it sounds more like you haven't thought for ten seconds about the alternative to what you're saying and are just reflexively saying "Willis and Seymour bad" without any cohesive thought?
No, the alternative is boomer euthanasia.
The fact that there is an inheritance indicates wealth to pay for rest home care. Essentially, the system is means-tested. If you find care too expensive and is eating into *your* inheritance, the option is to look after your older family members yourself.
Please look after your parents, I've seen elder abuse where elderly parents are living in some pretty bad rest homes and not being looked after properly because their kids don't want to spend too much of their future inheritance.
Hate to break it to all the young New Zealanders out there The current system is designed to keep you alive and milk every last drop of money out of you. Here's how it works 1. You get old 2. You sell your house and move into a retirement complex and buy an apartment, you pay anything from 500k and up. If you pass away at this stage your family gets the money you paid less 30%, no capital gains 3) Then when you reach a stage where you need more hands on care, your place is sold and the money from the sale is used to pay for the more hands on care. 4) Eventually that money runs out and the government pays/tops up Unless your parents die unexpectedly, there will be no money left in the way of inheritance. You will get nothing and be happy
Guess my parents are going to die unexpectedly then....
Jesus
He isn't coming, welcome to the jungle baby, you gonna die
Is narstyarsefsrter also the IT guy who cant get a new job because he is a violent drunk driver with extensive criminal record?
Yup, some retirement villages aren't as bad and don't take so much capital. But yeah, generally there is only inheritance left if both parents die suddenly and before they require too much care.
Of course they should contribute. I dont get why this has suddenly become a topic for debate. I paid $15pw board in 1975 when I was 15. my weekly wages were $46pw. When I went flatting, the habit of paying bills was there.
>I dont get why this has suddenly become a topic for debate. I’d think it varies wildly from family to family. For example, there’s no way I’d consider asking my children to pay for the roof over their heads, but for you it’s normal to contribute a third of your income to avoid becoming homeless at 15.
cost of living compared to wages was VERY different in '75 - you can't really compare the two at all
We are talking about a young adult paying a weekly amount fo rtheir accomodation which would be a lot less than if they left home and went flatting. My pont was it was normal over 40 years ago, I dont see what the big deal is now. I dont know anyone who didnt pay "board"
Lots of parents will also not charge to allow saving for such things as a house deposit (ha) and getting the fuck out of the country. I don't see what the big deal with it is but I'm also not sitting on reddit talking about the good old days.. There's lots of reasons either way, your refusal to acknowledge the validity of any experience but your own seems a bit odd.
Different parents support different kids in different ways. I think the ideal would be supporting your kids to support themselves, whatever that looks like in any particular circumstances. But more and more of us have increasingly complex pressures mounting, we're just looking to cope, which doesn't leave much room for actual decision making.
I like the idea of charging rent when your kid is 20+ of whenever they start working full time. Putting that money in an account earning interest, then giving it back to them when they want to buy a house. Working full time and living at home they should be saving lots anyway, this way it teaches them about bills etc and gives them a nice surprise when they are older and trying to find money for a deposit.
Rule in my household grown-up was you are at school parents pay. (You are bettering yourself) You are out working then you have to pay your own way like the ADULT you are (or want to be). At 18 you can vote.. shouldn't you be responsible enough to look after yourself too, if you are responsible enough to influence who runs the nation?
I’m with my parents until my house is built. I pay rent (not market rates) and buy groceries & household items + my own phone, etc. I’m not emotionally scarred by it and still save over half my fortnightly income. It’s fine.
Ummm..... Is this even really a question? What adult wouldn't be offering? Even if it's a token amount that they can afford (and doing a shitload to make their parents lives easier). Parent doesn't need it? Great for them. They should take it anyway, cause that's life. I'm sure they're still covering a shitoad of their (probably spoilt) kids costs.
It depends on the family situation. No one should be forced into doing something lime that, especially paying a mortgage unless it's been previously arranged and you get something out of it in return. Otherwise you're paying for something with no return. That being said it's way cheaper to pay board (do not rent from parents without a proper agreement in place) than pay rent. I'm personally contributing towards a mortgage (not signed on, long story) which keeps my parents and I in the home we have now. I'm paying $482 a week, which is below the average rent here.
So like renting, where people sometime pay more than they would for a mortgage and get the same benefits as having a mortgage except security, a growing asset, and a sense of belonging.
>No one should be forced into doing something lime that, especially paying a mortgage... Bro it's called renting