audioguy58
I agree with you too.
“Financial Chastity Belts”
With this topic, as with many topics, there are two parallel discussions that need to take place:
1) What would be “theoretically ideal”
2) How much of that can be achieved in the here-and-now, with the system of laws we currently have, with the form of government we currently have
audioguy58 with the system of laws we currently have, with the form of government we currently have
For this part of the question we will get many answers because of the many different form of government and laws.
To be clear, we are only talking about situations where the son or daughter lives with their parents. I don’t think any sensible person would argue that the parents have any right to control the finances of an adult child who has already moved out.
The operative principle should be, “If you live under my roof, I get to control your money.”
The wealthier your family, the more likely it is that you will have parental/“familial”/institutional” controls on your money. If you stand to Inger a large fortune, then it is virtually a given that you will not have unimpeded, immediate access to all of your money.
I don't know anyone with a trust fund personally, so for us regular people I would say getting a job and earning your own money (rather than relying on your parents for pocket money) is an essential part of growing up, as it teaches you the value of money, as well as how to be independent and responsible. I would rather live modestly than be a baby all my life.
This subject actually came up, sort of, in an old Dear Abby advice column many decades ago, when the subject under discussion was, “Should parents charge their adult children rent if they still live at home?”
The answer I liked best was:
“Yes, charge them rent, put the money in a savings account, and give it to the young person when they eventually move out.”
I have a brokerage account with one of the major online investing platforms. I have configured the account so that on the 15thday of the month, a certain fixed amount of money is transferred from my checking account into the brokerage (savings) account.
One could easily imagine a scenario where the parents hold the password to the brokerage account even though the account is in the son or daughter’s name. The young person would be unable to back out of the agreement or change the amount of the automatic monthly transfer on their own.
When you open an account, they offer you a bewildering array of choices when it comes to account type Uniform Gift To Minors Act, custodial account for an adult, etc.) , but you wouldn’t even need anything so exotic.
audioguy58 “Having one’s finances controlled by parents would be roughly equivalent to being buried up to your neck in sand at the beach. It reduces the son or daughter to the status of a potted plant. It would deprive you of any sense of agency, especially if the parents are already restricting your sex life via a chastity belt. I’m not sure if I would like that idea very much.”
i find the thought process very interesting and would like to ask the forum a question about it. if you had the choice, i.e. your parents put a chastity belt on you or control your finances, which would you choose?
I cast my vote for … both!
Seriously, I think I would have to choose finances.
Regarding the chastity belt, I really cannot get to 24/7. Wearing a belt to bed is a bright line I have not been able to cross.
Perhaps if I were not required to wear the belt 24/7, my decision would be different.
saras My dad does both lol
of course that can happen. i'm more interested in the theoretical question of what you would choose if you could?
Laura Former
you mean "the first" so 24/7 belt but keep control of finances right?
interesting, i don't know exactly, both would make me feel incapacitated. i refrain from answering my own question 
Some might reasonably question or disagree with the premise that the best way to teach money-management skills to your son or daughter is to make sure they don’t have any actual money to manage. Oh wait, I’m the one who started this thread. D-oh!
audioguy58 What would be “theoretically ideal”
Theoretically Ideal would mean:
1) The parent has both the legal right and the technological means to impound 100% of the child’s income stream. “Legal right”, in this context, means only that a signed contract exists between the two parties. I’m not suggesting that any new laws need to be passed.
2) Some small portion of the child’s income stream would be sent to the family’s General Fund, to pay for things like the mortgage payment, utilities, and groceries. Assuming that the family’s finances are not under stress or duress, this might be 5-8% of the child’s income. If the family is in some kind of bad financial straits, this amount could go much higher.
3) The bulk of the child’s income would be placed in a savings/brokerage account, to be given to them when they eventually move out.
4) Child would receive a fixed allowance via a restricted debit card, with very fine-grained limitations of what the card can an can’t be used for.
Angelina as a big supporter of cash
Cash is definitely the enemy here. If Junior is employed as a waiter, bartender, pizza delivery driver etc. , that would mean they are bringing home a large part of their income in cash every night, and that would tend to make an agreement of the type I have outlined above unenforceable.
Renita Cryptocurrency is an answer.
I was trying to imagine that we were living in a slightly better world. What if there were nothing but digital currency, “smart” debit/credit cards, and Apple Pay?
audioguy58 the best way to teach money-management skills to your son or daughter is to make sure they don’t have any actual money to manage.
I disagree. The best way to teach them is to teach them and not by patronising.
You can't carry the dog to the hunt.
If they can't learn it they will not survive.
I suspect many people fail with money-management because they didn't received a proper teaching.
- Edited
the best way to teach money-management skills to your son or daughter is to make sure they don’t have any actual money to manage.
Let's try some examples of this logic.
"the best ay to teach to read to your son or daughter is to make sure they don't have any actual text to read"
"the best ay to teach to cook to your son or daughter is to make sure they don't have any actual cooking to do"
"the best ay to teach to use a phone to your son or daughter is to make sure they don't have any actual phone to use"
You see the point?
Not be patronizing. That is how to teach something. Do not take the learning process away from someone, do not do it because you fear that someone will make a mistake.
audioguy58 Cash is definitely the enemy here. If Junior is employed as a waiter, bartender, pizza delivery driver etc. , that would mean they are bringing home a large part of their income in cash every night, and that would tend to make an agreement of the type I have outlined above unenforceable.
within the family, this agreement can also be enforced if it is agreed, it is not about children and parents having secrets from each other, but third parties can also look into bank accounts and this should generally be prevented.
a question about your ideas, are we only talking about minors here or also (or even mainly) adult children who live with their parents? i personally don't think much of the idea but i'll give an example of how i learned to deal with it properly. since my early teens i've been cooking at home and i'm also responsible for buying food. my father always gives me a budget with which i can then buy what's necessary and what i'd like to cook. this way i learn to buy as efficiently as possible within this fixed budget.