Post to SinFongChanRE.Wixsite.com on 1/5/2018 2:09 AM
Commenting on “Australians in the mid-20s still live at home with parents”
https://www.domain.com.au/news/more-than-onefifth-of-australians-in-their-mid-20s-still-live-at-home-with-parents-survey-20180426-h0zaxi/
I am in favour of charging kids to stay in their parents’ homes. After all if they live away from “home”, they have to pay rent and other living expenses.
Most may be considered as free loaders - not only do they get free accommodation, but also get free food, laundry and ironing done, no utility bills to worry about and not do any household chore.
Parents doing all these for the kids are not doing them a favour, because the kids miss the opportunity to be independent, and they may not know how to handle their finance and balance their budget.
For those simple reasons, parents should consider charging rent and portion of utility bills at close to if not equal to the market value. They can throw in other services for free if so desire. If the kids can not afford, they will have to find ways to earn the money to fulfill the financial obligation.
The utility paid by the kids can be used by the parents to subsidise the running cost. As for the rent payment, it can be handled differently.
One can assume that most parents do not need the rent received to pay off the mortgage, so they can put away in a separate bank account on behalf of the kid who stay with them. In effect, this is “forcing” the kid to save the money for rainy days, or the day to pay for the deposit of a property purchase.
I know of a mother who opened an account in joint name with her daughter. Withdrawal of money required both signatures. When the amount was enough to pay for the deposit for a piece of land, the money was released. Subsequent rent still went into the account for monthly repayment of the loan for the land.
Finally, the land was sold and the money was used as the deposit towards a house. The daughter purchased her first home in her mid-twenty.
Thank you for reading.
Commenting on “Australians in the mid-20s still live at home with parents”
https://www.domain.com.au/news/more-than-onefifth-of-australians-in-their-mid-20s-still-live-at-home-with-parents-survey-20180426-h0zaxi/
I am in favour of charging kids to stay in their parents’ homes. After all if they live away from “home”, they have to pay rent and other living expenses.
Most may be considered as free loaders - not only do they get free accommodation, but also get free food, laundry and ironing done, no utility bills to worry about and not do any household chore.
Parents doing all these for the kids are not doing them a favour, because the kids miss the opportunity to be independent, and they may not know how to handle their finance and balance their budget.
For those simple reasons, parents should consider charging rent and portion of utility bills at close to if not equal to the market value. They can throw in other services for free if so desire. If the kids can not afford, they will have to find ways to earn the money to fulfill the financial obligation.
The utility paid by the kids can be used by the parents to subsidise the running cost. As for the rent payment, it can be handled differently.
One can assume that most parents do not need the rent received to pay off the mortgage, so they can put away in a separate bank account on behalf of the kid who stay with them. In effect, this is “forcing” the kid to save the money for rainy days, or the day to pay for the deposit of a property purchase.
I know of a mother who opened an account in joint name with her daughter. Withdrawal of money required both signatures. When the amount was enough to pay for the deposit for a piece of land, the money was released. Subsequent rent still went into the account for monthly repayment of the loan for the land.
Finally, the land was sold and the money was used as the deposit towards a house. The daughter purchased her first home in her mid-twenty.
Thank you for reading.
