Would you.

If you were well off but not a millionaire would you buy a house for you children?

Its something I would love to do for my children if I had the money, however my first husband the father of my children and my second husband think this is nuts and that it is the equivalent of carrying them through life and that having to do it for yourself is good for you? I am not so sure about that.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't have children

Kylo Ren

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't have children

Would you like some?

SEPT 23 1989

What does your third husband think?

Kylo Ren

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

What does your third husband think?

He's off playing golf with the fourth husband.

Legs.Eleven

Just out of curiosity, why would you?


I'm not against the idea (if I had kids and money) but I don't really see why you would.

Stheno

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why would you?


I'm not against the idea (if I had kids and money) but I don't really see why you would.

Same here, can't see why you would.
Maybe give them some help with a deposit, but not buy the house for them.

Savoir.Faire

I inherited the family pile after my Father died. I never broached the subject with him while he was alive, but I very much doubt he would have stumped up the money to buy me a home.

Because being a mother ( or maybe it just me ) I want to do every thing I can for my children to help them and to make life easier for them is that such a bad thing.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Keno wrote: »

Would you like some?

No I hate them

Knex*

My future, hypothetical, children can fight over my house when I die, the little bastards.

vitani

I'd prefer my children to work hard and get their own house. I plan to own my own place in the next couple of years, and after so long working for it, I'll appreciate every second I spend there. While it would be nice to just have a house handed to me, I don't think I'd be happier in the long run with it.

I'd have no problem saving my future kids from a lifetime of being a mortgage slave, if I had the means. I'd love to know they were doing what they wanted to do, what would make them happy, instead of what they have to to pay the bills.

Depends on the kids though, if they grew up with a sense of entitlement to it then I'd probably let them get a dose of reality instead.

stefan idiot jones

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't have children

Do you fancy going halves on a b@stard ?

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

No I hate them

Do you know them all?

eyescreamcone

Children might be better off if you put it into their education.

School fees, grinds, college fees + accomodation, postgrad etc.

That way they still develop a proper work ethic and the skills to eventually afford their own house.


Skills Pay Bills!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

And frankly people gushing about their kids like them taking a shhit or blinking, by themselves, is the most awe inspiring thing they've ever witnessed, is what puts me off having them

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Candie wrote: »

Do you know them all?

Enough of them to make me want to get my tubes tied, thanks

Beruthiel

mariaalice wrote: »

Because being a mother ( or maybe it just me ) I want to do every thing I can for my children to help them and to make life easier for them is that such a bad thing.

Handing everything to a child on a plate does nothing for their character. Nor does it teach them to have the confidence to take care of themselves.
I would consider it very bad parenting.
A child should be taught that appreciation of their own efforts gives satisfaction.

SEPT 23 1989

I would like to be in a position to match what they have saved for the deposit

The Backwards Man

I would. For tax reasons, not because I like the bastards.

anncoates

If money was no object, I might do. Depends on the kids. If I sensed that they expected it or felt entitled to it, possibly not.

It's possible to strike a balance.

My own kids don't get everything they want (and most of what they get is based on goals like getting rewards in school or doing stuff in the house) but equally I would never see them short of anything on principle and I equally don't like this pull your socks up bollocks that decrees that you can't treat your kids (when you can afford to do so) just to impress other people.

Maximus Alexander

I think I would do this for my hypothetical future kids if I had the means to do so. I wouldn't support them financially as adults, or pay their bills.

However, the whole notion of slaving away for a good chunk of your life in debt just to put a roof over your head is not a pleasant one and of course I would like to free my children of that if I could. Give them the life I would have wanted, allow them to pursue their passions rather than slugging away in relative misery like the rest of us, pissing their lives away in some soul-sucking office block just to have the means to... continue doing that.

lahalane

I'd rather treat my parents to something.

GalwayGuy2

You're kind of limiting their choices if you do that.

If you buy them a house in Ireland, and they are just starting to work, then there's a good chance they'll be stuck in it. Or not able to pay the upkeep.

They could charge rent and go work abroad, but, again, that does tie them back to ireland.

anncoates

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't have children

People banging on about their kids is so boring.

People banging on about not having - or the multi-fold reasons for never having - kids, however, is a source of endless intellectual stimulation and should be encouraged by everybody.

anncoates

anncoates wrote: »

People banging on about their kids is so boring.

People banging on about not having - or the multi-fold reasons for never having - kids, however, is a source of endless endless intellectual stimulation and should be encouraged by everybody.

Especially so in a thread about what you would do for your children.

o1s1n

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

You're kind of limiting their choices if you do that.

If you buy them a house in Ireland, and they are just starting to work, then there's a good chance they'll be stuck in it. Or not able to pay the upkeep.

They could charge rent and go work abroad, but, again, that does tie them back to ireland.

I hate using this phrase, but - first world problems!

Jeez, give me a mortgage free house any day which I was 'tied to' back home. I'd gladly lease it out, make a nice tidy monthly sum each month to go towards funding my lavish lifestyle in Asia :pac:

keithclancy

No,

I would use the money to give them the tools to be able to build their own lives.

People that have stuff handed to them on a plate tend to have no appreciation for it and spend beyond their means regardless.

As an adult I expect nothing in Inheritance, I don't understand all of these family feuds when a family member dies, if you didn't have it in the first place you haven't lost anything.

And if you spent money/did something on the basis that you would be receiving inheritance you are a fool.

Slightly off topic, but I always though the notion of moving straight of home and buying a house to be slightly bonkers, when you don't even have any experience or idea of how much it costs to run a household.

IMO People should rent for a few years first and then look at maybe buying a place to live in it for the long term.

Also it's a fairly good idea to live with someone for a few years before your marry them, this living in sin craic is rubbish.

I know parents who are putting themselves under strain to pay for a master course for their son I don't agree with that, because he already has a degree and I know parents who are funding a third attempt at college for their son I don't agree with that either I am not a complete fool that thinks children should be carried through life, but if they didn't have to be worried about providing a house for themselves I think it would be great start in life.

Uriel.

mariaalice wrote: »

Because being a mother ( or maybe it just me ) I want to do every thing I can for my children to help them and to make life easier for them is that such a bad thing.

I don't have kids.

But to be honest, my view would be that it depends on how you raise your kids.

If your kids are raised with a strong work ethic, being independent and having a foundation for taking responsibility for themselves and their actions...then putting myself in the hypothetical situation:
If I had spare cash, I surely would try to look after them and take some of the pressures of life off them - I wouldn't even have to think about it.

But It wouldn't be a good idea if it was another step in providing a privileged obligation free lifestyle.

dearg lady

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I would. For tax reasons, not because I like the bastards.

What tax reasons?

mariaalice wrote: »

I know parents who are putting themselves under strain to pay for a master course for their son I don't agree with that, because he already has a degree and I know parents who are funding a third attempt at college for their son I don't agree with that either I am not a complete fool that thinks children should be carried through life, but if they didn't have to be worried about providing a house for themselves I think it would be great start in life.

If I had a few spare quid (and children) I would be more likely to spend it on their education than a place for them to live

Kolido

mariaalice wrote: »

If you were well off but not a millionaire would you buy a house for you children?

Its something I would love to do for my children if I had the money, however my first husband the father of my children and my second husband think this is nuts and that it is the equivalent of carrying them through life and that having to do it for yourself is good for you? I am not so sure about that.

Do you mean buy one house between your children or a house each. If it is the former I don't see how it would work if they decide to branch out, could get messy when it comes to entitlement.

o1s1n

The Lonely Pilgrim wrote: »

Yes, and I hope I would have brought them up well enough to appreciate it.

I think this is the main point to keep in mind. If you buy your kids a house and they are ungrateful, entitled little ****s then the problems go far deeper than the house purchase...

naughtysmurf

Yes, if I was very well off & had the money lying around & knew I would never need that say €200k in the future, otherwise no

And if I did I'd be making it very clear that all the running cost associated with it were theirs & not mine

The Backwards Man

dearg lady wrote: »

What tax reasons?

Ha, I'm not falling for that one Collector-General.

Suffice to say I'd rather piss away money biulding a house than piss it away directly into government coffers.

Knex*

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Ha, I'm not falling for that one Collector-General.

Suffice to say I'd rather piss away money biulding a house than piss it away directly into government coffers.

Feck the children, have you heard about hookers and coke?

Raminahobbin

mariaalice wrote: »

Because being a mother ( or maybe it just me ) I want to do every thing I can for my children to help them and to make life easier for them is that such a bad thing.

Yes. That is a bad thing. You're actually damaging them long term by not allowing them to learn their own lessons and figure out how to look after themselves. They need to learn to stand on their own two feet minus the safety net of a mammy.

I absolutely would not buy a house for any future kids I have, even if I did have the money. (obviously if I won the lotto or anything I'm not going to be stingy, but that's not what's being discussed here.)

anncoates

dearg lady wrote: »

If I had a few spare quid (and children) I would be more likely to spend it on their education than a place for them to live

I would think that if you had enough money to consider buying your kids a house outright, I doubt you'd be searching down the back of the couch for college fees.

The Backwards Man

Knex. wrote: »

Feck the children, have you heard about hookers and coke?

Are they tax deductible now?

o1s1n

Raminahobbin wrote: »

Yes. That is a bad thing. You're actually damaging them long term by not allowing them to learn their own lessons and figure out how to look after themselves. They need to learn to stand on their own two feet minus the safety net of a mammy.

I absolutely would not buy a house for any future kids I have, even if I did have the money. (obviously if I won the lotto or anything I'm not going to be stingy, but that's not what's being discussed here.)

So again, as I said, if you bring up your kids properly, let them stand on their own two feet, get a job, pay their way - but THEN happen to be in a position to buy them a house - their character is already developed. How are you now damaging them?

anncoates

Raminahobbin wrote: »

Yes. I think that is a bad thing. In my opinion, You're actually damaging your kids long term by not allowing them to learn their own lessons and figure out how to look after themselves. They need to learn to stand on their own two feet minus the safety net of a mammy.

Fixed.

Dravokivich

mariaalice wrote: »

Because being a mother ( or maybe it just me ) I want to do every thing I can for my children to help them and to make life easier for them is that such a bad thing.

Not a bad thing, based on the ideals of it. But kids can't gain a sense of responsibility if everything is handed out to them.

Maximus Alexander

Dravokivich wrote: »

Not a bad thing, based on the ideals of it. But kids can't gain a sense of responsibility if everything is handed out to them.

Even if we accept that to be true, they won't need a sense of responsibility if everything is handed out to them.

anncoates

Dravokivich wrote: »

Not a bad thing, based on the ideals of it. But kids can't gain a sense of responsibility if everything is handed out to them.

If your kids turn out to be ****, there's a little more involved than whether or not you forced them to take a Saturday job to buy their own Converse and Xbox.

Legs.Eleven

mariaalice wrote: »

Because being a mother ( or maybe it just me ) I want to do every thing I can for my children to help them and to make life easier for them is that such a bad thing.

Edit: Maybe I took up your post wrong and you weren't being defensive. Sorry!


It's common for Spanish parents to give their kids a house if they have the cash. Lucky bastards. Perhaps I don't like the idea because I'm a bit envious.

B0jangles

Historically, house prices worked out about about 3-4 times the average family income; even after the collapse of the bubble, they are still working out at around 6-7 times the average annual income - if you parents are around retirement age then they would have entering into a much much cheaper housing market than people are nowadays.

Also, parents presumably intend to leave their money to their children - if they can afford to do so, does it not make a lot more sense to effectively give them their inheritance when they really need it, when they are setting up a home, rather than hanging on to it until they are hopefully pretty much set up anyway?

It'd make life an awful lot easier for them in the tough days at the beginning.

keeponhurling

My Mum once said that if the kids are going to inherit the money anyways, why not give it to them while you're still around to see them enjoying it.

I'm still waiting though.....

On the other hand, my wife's Dad would gladly buy us a house tomorrow, he has the money too, but I'd feel a bit in his debt, I'd worry he'd have notions of moving into "our" house later on, so I'm not taking it.

Dravokivich

anncoates wrote: »

If your kids turn out to be ****, there's a little more involved than whether or not you forced them to take a Saturday job to buy their own Converse and Xbox.

That's not what I said.

anncoates

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's not what I said.

OK then.

I think children can be taught how to be responsible, decent adults without all this Make Them Work 20 Hours a Week For Their Christmas Presents or Kick Them Out Of The House At 17 stuff with which these threads seem to get infested.

Dravokivich

anncoates wrote: »

OK then.

I think children can be taught how to be responsible, decent adults without all this Make Them Work 20 Hours a Week For Their Christmas Presents or Kick Them Out Of The House At 17 stuff with which these threads seem to get infested.

No one has said that either. It isn't a matter of one way or the other.