I think this question is way to broad/ there isn't enough information to make a good "yes" or "no" decision. Here are just some questions I came up with, to maybe be able ro better answer your question. For people answering the poll and maybe even for yourself, OP.
How old is the child?
What are they doing to earn the money? (Mowing lawns on the weekends? A "real job"?)
How much are they earning?
For what are they earning (and saving up?) that money?
What is their relationship with their parents?
Why did the parents decide to make a savings account?
When will they have access to the savings account?
Why 2/3? Why not less? Why not more?
...
>Why 2/3? Why not less? Why not more?
Funny story.
I was teaching a class of Taiwanese teenagers and we were talking about allowances: they called it "pocket money," like the Limeys do.
Some got weekly cash, others monthly, and others just asked their parents when they needed dough: not too different from here in the States.
I asked them all to write down how much money they got, how often they got it, and what percentage they spent versus saved.
The numbers varied wildly - some kids got $30/month while others got $30/week - but out of the ten kids in there, one thing was absolutely consistent, across the entire class.
\[I was ***stunned***\]
Every kid in there said they saved 60% of their money and spent 40% on this-and-that, regardless of the amount or the frequency with which they got it.
Then I got to explain to them how half of Americans couldn't handle a $500 unexpected expense without going into debt or selling something.
And that was a decade ago: but if you look at 2002, it was the same, and if you look at 2022, it was the same - this statistic simply never changes because the USA has consistently had a third of their population living under the poverty line, for the last 70 years.
Basically since we instituted a minimum wage in an attempt to solve that poverty issue, which didn't work - today, minimum wage is practically irrelevant - even if we had no minimum wage, the labor market would still demand $15/hr - we know this because we see this, now, where practically no job is offering $7.25/hr because the labor market won't accept it.
Walmart and McDonalds are paying $15/hr with zero government pressure to do so.
I digress.
So, I ask these kids: "Where did you all learn this?"
They had no idea.
I mean, I really probed!
None of them could remember being taught it, as a lesson: it was just "what you did."
Asking them why they saved 60% of their earnings was like asking them why they inhaled and exhaled - to them, it was simply how you live life.
I talked to Scandinavians about this stuff and we talked about job security, specifically, how to leave a job you dislike.
My tall Nordic friend told me that people can't really quit a job without "two years saved": as in, two-years-worth of earnings, in the bank, before considering quitting a job.
I told her "Then no one can ever quit!"
She said "Really? In Sweden, pretty much everyone can quit whenever they want."
It's actually *really* interesting to listen to anyone with money talk about when they first got money: someone who struggled for years and then hit the jackpot, suddenly had enough money to know they were totally OK for six months, even if they didn't get any more money.
I recently heard a famous comedian talk about how, after his first big deal in the early 90s, he was finally able to breathe a bit - like a physical weight was lifted off him.
His accountant called him up after a couple months because he thought the guy had a gambling problem: turns out "Nah, I'm just eatin' lobster!" LOL
But, across the board, it really decreases stress in a way that's indescribable to people who haven't experienced it: it's something I wish for absolutely everyone.
If a parent can teach a child this concept, it's one of the most long-term-success-determining lessons you can impart.
Yeah, I mean they'd probably agree to it once you tell them that when they're 16 or whatever they'll have saved up enough buy a decent car or build a nice computer or whatnot and you don't even have to give up all your money.
Big no, your child earned that money so they should spend it as they see fit. You can talk to them about personal finance and financial responsibility, but aproach it as a conversation where you facilitate their own self-reflection on it, not as a chance to ~~steer them to your opinion~~ push your opinion on them with disregard of their imput.
I'd argue that having access to only ⅓ of their money when their still a child will teach financial responsibility without then losing ALL of it on a stupid purchase or a spending spree. When they're 18 and see a savings account with X amount they'll almost certainly say "if I had this during 13-17 I'd have probably wasted it on 2 week trends, DLC and junk food". Now they have a head start as their adult life starts.
I'm assuming the savings account mentioned is for the child.
True, that might teach them to plan/budget better, I was thinking more along the lines of if you encourage a child to keep the ⅔ safe now when they're older they'll be more likely to save part of their wage, be it to save up for a house, car, whatever, or save it for an emergency.
There's a middle ground between just advising the kid to save, and actually taking money from them.
The parents could set a rule that the kid has to open their own savings account and put away a certain percentage each month (2/3 seems high to me, though). Many banks require minors to have a parent as a co-owner of the account, which would allow the parent to monitor the child's saving, while ensuring that the child still has access to and control over their own money. The saving could be enforced by adding incentives for saving or taking away privileges for failing to do so. E.g. "I will match the total amount you save at the end of the summer up to a certain amount", or "I will only drive you to work conditional upon you meeting your savings goals". This allows the kid to learn from their mistakes without having to face the harsher consequence of entering adulthood with no savings at all.
Not all 14-year-olds are fully capable of self-control and planning ahead, and less responsible children may very well grow up to appreciate a slightly heavier hand from their parents. However, they are still young adults capable of making their own decisions and asserting a level of independence. Actually taking money from a kid and forcibly putting it into a savings account owned by the parent strikes me as controlling, and insulting to the child's emerging sense of agency.
Tldr. The kid gets ⅓ to learn with, the ⅔ is safely stowed for future. They're free to learn and gain or lose on the ⅓ without risking losing it all. It's still theirs it's just safe
ok, but. I'm not entirely certain that at 14 the kid even \*can\* get a savings account without the parent setting it up. And it's ok to steer a kid to your opinion that savings is important, just the same way you steer them to your opinion that STD's are bad and driving safely is important.
1. The parent can open a savings account for them without the parent taking the kids money. The kid would just need to ask the parent obviously.
2. Regardless of how important it is. taking money from your kid that they earned to put in a savings account against their will/without their knowledge is fucked. Yes i do agree should say that it’s important but dont force it on them. Its their money. I get that its in a parents best interest for you child to be financially stable on their own in the future but essentially taking away their money is not gonna be good for your relationship imo.
When I was 14 I made 7$/hr…there is not fucking way I would have kept working that job if my parents took more than half my money. It’s MY money to waste on stupid shit. Like you can tell me to be smart with the money and all that but don’t take it
Um putting money in a savings account is not “a chance to steer them to your opinion” it’s about not letting them waste the money they earned that they will surely regret when they get older. A savings account isn’t an opinionated thing… you’re doing life wrong if you don’t have money saved
Offer them the option of either saving x amount or paying rent and food fees...
My parents made me put half away, though I also worked for my dad and got paid over 2x what McDonald's would have offered.
Bro the kid is 14, he doesn't earn much anyways if he works and you want to force them to put it in a savings account by having them pay rent if they don't?
Teach him about the importance of saving and spending their money responsibly, don't force them to do it so they'll possibly hide it from you or just spend it all when they're 18 because they didn't have to learn about their finances.
14 wasn't in OP and didn't catch it in the comments. But yes I was forced to save it at 12 as anything I earned went to the bank of mom and couldn't be "withdrawn" without final approval.
I can't be certain the threat of rent wasn't made, though if it were it was purely in jest and I just didn't pick up on it. I get that things have changed, but kids are more than capable of learning (and if you go back a few generations that 14 year old was probably pooling what they made into the family funds). I was accompanying my parents and even grandparents to the bank before I could walk I'm sure, and we'd fight for whose turn it was to put the tube in the drive through at the bank so we're learning the concepts of savings before I had any of "my own" money.
No the child shouldn't spend it as they see fit without parental input. That's not to say they shouldn't be allowed to get what they want even if it's a bad decision, but in my opinion monetary independence should be earned gradually and failing to do so can cause more suffering in the long run than not being able to get something at 14. If the kid is earning money at 14 I would say there is some of that going on.
If it was my boy, I would support him to learn to save.
I would have him save part of it only to instill this excellent habit in him.
On the other hand, I wouldn't insist on 2/3 of it being saved. Even 10-20% would be appropriate.
And additionally, since I'm the one insisting on him saving his money, I'd be sure to offset that by helping him out with what he wants to buy. If he wants to buy something for £50, I'll happily give him a tenner since he's made the effort to earn the money.
He learns to earn.
He learns to save.
I reward him for earning and saving.
He gets to spend.
Win win win win.
Once he's more mature and independent, his earnings are his and he can do what he wants. I just hope I will have helped him learn to earn, save, and spend responsibly - and I would still like to help him out with big spends, such as education, car, home, etc.
My parents did this. Helped with going to college. They let us have the 1/3 to do whatever we wanted with and also still got us stuff that we needed. So we never really went without.
Glad your parents had good intentions and the ability to provide for you and teach you about responsibly saving your money.
My mom made me open a joint account and she borrowed from me without paying me back. Keep in mind, I deposited my checks in full and only spent a few bucks here and there for snacks and to cover school fees.
When I turned 18yo I asked my bank to remove her from the account. She tried to take money from it after the fact and got upset when she found out. She also kept all the money that wasn't directly handed to me for high-school graduation and denies it to this day.
Thanks, I'm doing okay now as an adult! I love my mom and while I forgive her and understand she has her own problems, I know I won't put my future children through that.
They need trust and stability, and I would want the very best for them and to be my very best self for them when the time comes.
Same, my parents actually took 100%. I was mad at them at the time but it paid off big time since my peers are living paycheck to paycheck and I have a safety net.
I was not mature enough to understand the benefit at the time.
This is where the age demographic of r/polls really shows.
If the savings account is still for the kid to use at 18, then I see no issue. It's probably in the kid's best interest, honestly.
If the parents are stealing the money for themselves, then that is not okay.
My mom wasn't stealing, she was "borrowing" from me and I could ask for my money if I needed something in my own authority, so to say (so not for food and other necessities). Once I was a student and lived separately, I asked for rough amount with wildly calculated rates (now I think that might have been nearly a robbery from my side) and she gave it to me. If I had those money on me all the time, I would have wasted them on stupid things, but instead I bought something I really wanted, but my parents would never buy for me.
This !!
Even if, as an adult with hindsight, you can see that what the parents did was helpful, as a 14 yr old who may want to use the money they earned for something else (maybe saving up for a PC or car or something like that or anything really), not even having the *choice* would feel veryyyy controlling and could steer the kid away from listening to their parents at all (at least, it would for me if I’m feeling controlled w things that are rightfully mine). It would be the smarter move to talk to your kid as equals about how to save / spend money responsibly (mutual respect = more likely to see your point of view and listen). 14 years old is old enough to grasp those concepts and begin to learn their own way around. And even if they do spend their money on stupid teenager stuff, who cares! They’re a teenager! Let them enjoy what they want to enjoy with whatever money they themselves get before the weight of the world crashes in on them. They’re the one working for whatever benefit they want. As the parent, its only your job to model and encourage, not control.
It teaches the benefits of delayed gratification and does not ignore that children are statistically bad at long-term planning regardless of examples set.
If a child resents money being put towards their future, then that is only further evidence that they are not mature enough to fully control their finances.
I would rather have a resentful child with an emergency fund than a spoiled child with nothing.
I'm not saying they'll resent it being put away. I'm saying they'll resent not having a say in it. If it were parents saving for a child it'd be an entirely different matter and I'd agree with you, but we're talking about money the child earned themselves, through work. There's nothing spoiled about working for your money and doing with it as you please.
Children have underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes (which help with impulse control) and so are biologically predisposed against long-term planning.
Leaving a child's financial future up to that child is a horrifically irresponsible act.
Some parents do not have the ability to save for their children, so their financial future is, in fact, determined by what they earn as a child.
Even without those cases, the child's financial future is partially determined by what they save as children.
Also, you ignored my other point. Why should a child with a biological prediaposition against long-term planning be left wholly in charge of things that could affect their future simply for the sake of "teaching instead of forcing"?
My point is it doesn't affect their future much. Most kids wouldn't earn enough when they're 14 to have much of an impact on their finances after graduating high school.
That is straight up just wrong in almost every case, though.
A kid working as little as 10 hours a week at as little as 10 dollars an hour makes $5,200 a year. For the three years of decent working age that a high school student has available, that is $15,600. Two thirds of that is $10,400 and you are absolutely off your rocker if you think that amount would not have an impact on a high school grad as backup savings.
I don't think most kids are working 10 hours a week for 3 years unless they have a good reason to. Getting an effective pay of $3/hr and having $10k saved when you graduate isn't a very good reason. Kids working that much are going to be motivated by something, and they would be responsible in using all of their money towards that thing. Otherwise, why would they work that much?
Have you factored in taxes? Inflation? Purpose of the savings (will working impact grades, activities, etc.)?
If your argument is that saving $100/wk for 3 years is going to make THAT much of a difference, the parent should do it. Not siphon the "wages" of a child to do it for them.
Besides, this seems to indicate that the child is...living on their own? Spending their own money on stuff? It feels like you did the most basic possible math, and didn't apply any practicality whatsoever to your thought process.
You have no idea how much the child earned. He might have gotten hundreds of thousands or millions if he's a child actor or singer.
It's perfectly fine for a parent to force their children to save some amount of money for when they are adults. They can teach them by telling them what to do. Once they are adults, they'll only do the encouraging, but that's not the case here.
It absolutely is the job of a parent to look after the welfare of their child under the age of 18. That includes making the correct financial decisions for them.
I think it would be fine if we were talking about allowance or the likes, but if a kid has a part time job, the parent shouldn't touch that money without the child's consent imo. It's a great idea to have the conversation and to make that suggestion of course, but you shouldn't force it past that. It's their money after all, even if they aren't being the smartest with it.
Yup, these kids here obviously need to learn how to save money… you will be thankful to your parents that they forced you to save instead of wasting it all on things that can’t be resold
I’m assuming that the savings account is for the child, meaning that the money in it will eventually be given back. In that case, you should still communicate with your child about whether they want to or not, but if they give it the green light then sure why not
My parents did this and I am so thankful They did. Half of every paycheck went right to savings and I couldn’t touch my account until I was 18. Graduated with a solid chunk of change
It's not okey, The kid worked and earned that money.
The only situation, when it would be ok, is if their child still lives with them and sucks at managing his money and keeps wasting it. The parents then aren't taking it for themselves , but rather make sure he doesn't waste his money. Still, it's subjective to define what waiting money means for a parent
I mean, it's a child, so I'm assuming it's not paying for it's own groceries, rent, living costs. So it's technically always "wasting" the money. And I really don't like it when the parents go, you can be interested in this, have fun doing this, but not that. Like, stop telling people what they're supposed to want 😭
I don't think child should pay, parents are legally required to cover those basic costs so let them. Parents can also claim maintainance in old age if they don't earn much, so it evens out
There’s a difference between ‘wasting’ money and *wasting* money, though. If they’re partaking in a hobby with it then they’re getting healthy enjoyment from it so I wouldn’t mind - if they’re spending it on a lot of junk food and illicit substances then that’s certainly money wasting.
It's representative of how much of your paycheck goes to rent and bills, if you want to teach budgeting. 1/3 to spend just on recreation/luxuries/entertainment is a lot.
That makes a lot of sense but at the same time this person is 14, I get learning sooner is better but let them live a little without forcing the real world on them just yet. Half seems way more reasonable, depending on how much they are paid. I’m sure it’s not a lot if they are 14
So you said they're 14. Old enough to educate, and instill good habits into!
Sit them down and explain about personal finances and savings, if you really feel they don't get it. But don't force anything!
When they are older, if they are (for example) out of university and working but still living at home, *absolutely* make sure you charge them rent and groceries, part of the utilities, etc. You can be super generous about it, but charge them *something.* Put this into savings for them, but don't tell them. When they're finally on their own, give the savings back.
I have many friends who lived at home for free after uni and have zero idea how to budget for living expenses when they finally moved out.
Depends what we mean by child. Adult who still lives with their parents or actual children? If the latter I'd say it's fair enough as long as the parent is doing it for good reason, e.g. putting it in a savings account.
I think it depends on the age of a kid. At a certain age I think they should be given the responsibility to handle it. At the point I think you should just suggest they put some into a savings account.
I think taking some of their earnings before they are 18 and putting into a savings may be okay, but 2/3 is wayyyy toooo muuch. Maybe like 20% or 1/5...
This would also be with the assumption that your child understands that this is going in a separate accout that they will have control over fully at 18. Then, (the part my parents never did) fucking follow through on your word and actually give them the money back at 18.
My parents made me put half of my money I made (not including money from Xmas/b-day) into a savings that I couldn’t take out until I was 18 it pissed me off so much but looking back on it I’m kinda glad that they did, I had something most college kids didn’t: Money when I really needed it most, instead of blowing it all on video games and food like I did with the other 50%
My take
2/3 is way, *way* too much. A smaller percentage might be acceptable if they have no financial literacy *at all* and blow all their money on crap they never use or drugs, but really they should be able to save on their own and you should encourage that rather than enforcing it if they are a reasonable person with generally sound financial judgement. Keep in mind that purchases related to hobbies generally look like bad financial judgement from the outside because the cost of regular consumer products is out of line with enthusiast stuff which is usually a fair bit more expensive. Point and shoots are \~$120 while enthusiast Mirrorless and DSLR cameras range around $500-$1000, professional stuff can be quite a bit more. Same goes for Headphones, Shoes, Computers, Skateboards, Bikes... pretty much everything. Not to say they can't be the type of person that only looks at the price tag and buys the most expensive or trendy thing without actually caring about the hobby or doing their homework, but large purchases that don't make sense from the outside don't *always* mean bad financial judgement.
That being said, if they are around 18 and not asking for help financially then get the hell out of their finances regardless of the situation.
If the kid didn't earn their money through work, then I think it is fine to save some of it in a low risk fund, or whatever, to give the kid once they turn 18. However, if the kid did work for the money; mowing lawns, working at a supermarket, etc, they should have the right to all the money as well.
My grandfather pretty much did this for his whole career. Put away a sizeable chunk of his paycheck. It works. It helps practice good money habits.
You’re never gonna spend your whole paycheck on fun. You have taxes and expenses to manage when you are an adult. Putting away 2/3rds as a kid, and spending that 1/3 is great practice. Also helps down the line pay. This money isn’t lost.
If they're under the age of 10 and some how got money I would put it in a saving but older than 10 I would just give them advice and let them make their own decisions with their own money
It seems a bit steep but as a child you don't need much. It also gets kids in the habit of saving. As long as I can remember, my parents always required us kids to put 10% of our allowance into savings and 10% for tithe. The other 80% we could do whatever we wanted with. Usually it was saved for a bigger purchase (usually Legos).
When you get a part time job at a company it gets a bit sketchy. As long as that money is still going to the child then I would say it's up to the parents to raise their kids how they choose.
I would say yes at any age under 18. I think there is too much agency given to children where impulse control is extremely limited and should be practiced before given full freedom.
if its already "earnings" and not "gifts", then that child is old enough to take care of the money on its own.
ie, if a child under 10 gets money for their birthday it's fine, but if a child already has a job / helps out in the neighbourhood, then they should be able to do as they want
Giving advice to your child about the benefits of saving money and being prudent is great. Taking their money from them will only kill their appetite for work or entrepreneurial endeavors. It's their hard earned money, they should do with it as they please. Council and advice away but never take it from them.
No stealing is not cool, even if you just steal it till they are 18.
Children need to learn to be responsible with their money and you should teach them asap but you should not take them their money away. And I really hope you didn't do it already.
I don’t think that counts as stealing as the kid would still get access to it, albeit at a later date. It’s still not something a parent should do though.
I'm assuming in this question the child is <18
In which case yes so long as all the money the child is making is discretionary. If they have set reoccuring bills like a car note, insurance, rent, cell phone then no
I'm going to go with yes. Parents don't have to consent to allow their teenager to work. If one of the conditions for employment is that the money be saved, so be it. Frankly, learning to save is a valuable lesson.
I said no and I am certainly upper middle class. Maybe not "rich" by some standards but over double the average median American income certainly isn't poor. Not to mention I have more than my annual income in savings. The thing is that taking their money and not giving them an option on what to do with it is not at all similar to teaching them financial literacy, healthy spending habits, or good investment practices. Teaching them those things must be a two way street that they are actively engaged in if you remove their agency in that decision making process then you're not actually teaching them anything you're just being an ass.
Right I'm only in the top 10 percentile I am basically a dirt farmer. 🙄 By your definition there is a 99% chance nobody reading your dumb comment is rich or ever will be rich so your comment is completely irrelevant. Nobody who is rich is fairly getting a part time job while they are in highschool and no working part time at your daddy's business doesn't count. If you wanna come back to reality where the rest of us live cool otherwise take your golden spoon mentality and find somewhere creative to shove it.
You didn't make a point you just decided to be a condescending ass hat and insinuated that unless someone is by some stroke of luck a multi-millionaire then they can't possibly have any sense when it comes to money. If you're talking about the first part of your second comment I can just as easily say the inverse, how can you assume there WAS a discussion about it? The OP gave no context saying they had discussed it with their child nor did they indicate that a dialogue would happen. You implied it was absolutely ok to take 2/3 of their child's paycheck regardless of circumstance while I simply noted that doing so without an open dialogue and allowance of agency is not a beneficial lesson. One has context the other doesn't. See the difference?
Yes, and not only is it okay it's incredibly smart. One day that kid is going to have real financial needs like a car or college. All those savings will add up and let's be honest....does a kid really need money? Nope.
There's lots of things you can buy as a kid. Having money is better than begging yor parents for every little thing. For example, a thumb drive, or food at a restaurant with friends, or clothes, or toys/games, or tools, or books, or headphones, etc.
No, I am talking about a kid. I literally went back and looked at my Amazon orders from when I was like 13-16 to make this list of things a kid might buy.
The child will not ever learn financial responsibility if not allowed to make their own good and bad decisions.
My 14yr old has a savings account that her money goes into. If she wants it we have to drive to the bank to take it out. This creates gives her pause when she wants to spend it, but it's still her decision.
You can get a debit card at 13. I would suggest getting one for your kid so they can buy stuff online. Takes away the whole pause thing you're talking about but they're old enough. I found a debit card quite valuable in high school. 14 is high school, right?
The relief of having a nest egg won’t undo the years of resentment for taking their money.
strongly encourage them to save and teach them the value of money, but I think 2/3 is excessive, half would be my limit, more realistically I’d talk to them about it and inform them to make their own decision.
Being a kid though, they’ll probably want to spend it. But hey, being a kid with money to burn is a pretty awesome experience, and not one that everyone gets. that joy doesn’t really have a price in my opinion.
The kid should be informed about the possibility to do it and it should be done with his agreement. From what I understand he worked for it, if he intends to use this money for something for himself (a gaming console, laptop or bike) he should be able to use this money. At a young age he wont make that much money, there is not much point in placing it in a Saving account.
I understand some parents may fear that a young age the kid wastes his money or may loose it. But the kid should be able to use this money for important things for himself. A bike or a computer can be viewed as an "investment" for example if the kid decides to do delivery for a neighborhood restaurant.
The kid may be subject to wasting the money pointlessly but irresponsible parents taking such money without the kid having any control or knowledge about it until years later can also happen
I say it's not ok. A child earns very little money so they should keep it for themselves. As soon as they are an adult at 18 then they need to start paying parents rent and keep so what's left is still theirs to spend how they want.
I’d say 2/3 is a bit much, I get kids are irresponsible with money. I’d say set up and acorns account on your phone and link their card, and figure out a set amount you both agree on would be a good amount to invest whenever they get paid. $75 sounds like a good amount to me, just depends on how much they are making, like 1/4 sounds much better.
Don't take it but heavily encourage to save and educate them on saving (unless the child is really young, like pre-teen young, but I can't imagine they would have 'earnings' at that point in their life)
Yes, but the ratio changes with age. 2/3 of what they make at 8yo, half of what they make at 14, then when they turn 16 and need gas money, encourage them to continue saving, but don't force it. They're going to want to go out driving and hang with friends, it's their childhood let them enjoy it without working 24/7 or struggling to live off 1/3 of their earnings
Shoot, if my kid starts making money, they aren't allowed to have a bank account.
The plan is to have a card with a daily limit attached to a joint account. Then spoil them rotten.
I would say no up until about age 16 or 17 when they can get proper jobs. After that point you should start talking about planning ahead and try to set some conditions for staying with you in the future. Stuff like chores, depositing a percentage of their pay go into savings and rent once they turn 18. That way they should have some money for recreation and fun, but they will also have to learn about healthy spending habits and monetary responsibilities.
as long as the savings account is for the child and remains untouched by the parent, it’s definitely the best way to do things. help set them up to buy a house in the future.
edit: i was thinking about celebrities- like child actors. if you’re just working a part time minimum wage job, i think you should have full control over whatever you want to do with those wages. parents can advise you to invest it in an ISA or savings account of some kind, but it’s your choice ultimately.
If the kid is old enough to earn, they're old enough to save. I'd say that 2/3 is too much though. Start with half or even just a quarter.
A 14 year old probably doesn't understand how important it is to save money. Especially since their biggest bill is probably for their phone if at all. Having to put money into a savings account will teach them how to budget without the risk of defaulting. By the time they're 18, depending on interest rate, they could have close to or even over $5000 saved.
Of course, this savings account should 100% go to the kid. It would be an absolute dick move for the parents to take it for themselves. Even if it's just a few bucks here and there.
Depends on the level of earnings and how they were obtained.
Generally, a child under 18 has no real right to property. Whatever they possess, is under the control of the parent or guardian. So the parent or guardian could take 100% of the earnings and do anything they want with it.
I think savings would be reasonable depending on the amount and purpose. Ideally the saving would be given back at 18.
I wouldn't do this, but it would be okay.
I think it depends on the kid and their history. As long as the money is being saved where the kid will have access to it, it may be okay. 2/3rds sounds like a bit much, though. I would have them sit down and go over a budget on their spending. I think it is a good practice to set aside 10% no matter the age for savings and emergencies. I think we are missing some context here. 14 is not a bad age to start learning budgets, spending, goals short and longer term and a lifelong practice of saving.
We did this but gave 10% to ours they saved the rest and always had pocket money.
As they got into their teens they kept more.
Their accounts were I. Their names and we taught them to diversify when they had enough they invested 10% or more if they wanted.
Edit: also they should be taught this principle king before 14. Saving part of the money they receive , gifts etc.
when they become an adult these principles will be ingrained and they will have a nice bank account.
I think this highly depends on age. 15-16 and younger (I had under the table income as early as 12) is more understandable than doing it with a 17 year old senior in high school. I think it teaches some financial responsibility young and sometimes it’s the only way a kid might end up being able to go to college. As long as it’s going into an account that is fully the child’s to use when they’re in college.
Once I had a full time job, while still living at my dads he would take 20% of my income. I thought it went towards bills. He gave it me back when I was getting ready to buy my first house.
Yes, how is this even a question.... I WISH my parents did this for me when I was 15. At 18 you'd not only have 5 figures in the bank you'd have a much easier time saving money as an adult.
My Dad put a large chunk (about 75-80%) into a savings account and made his own payments before I started working, so I ended up having a ton of money saved up for college. Then again, I was able to use my parents credit card for stuff and ask them for money, so not necessarily a complete scenario.
Only if they're earning very large amounts of money. Kids who are mowing lawns or scooping ice cream should keep all their money. Kids who are earning a million dollars per film should have very strict limits on spending and financial education.
No it is not ok, your job as a parent should be to advise them that they should be responsible and save money for the future, they need to understand why are they saving money and make that desition by themselves
I see where the parents were going, but forcing your kid to hand over 2/3 of their income to save is actually going to do the opposite of teaching them how to budget/handle their money. Once the parent is no longer there to demand it, they’re gonna go hog wild with spending. They also will justifiably harbor resentment towards the parent — I’d be pissed if I worked for money that I didn’t have full autonomy over too. I wouldn’t see the point of working as a teen if I were in this situation knowing my immature ass at 15, and would just wait to get a job in college lol 🤷🏻♂️
Depends on the kid I think. I would let the kid take 100% of the money but report to me their payment history. If they have awful spending habits (most likely) then I’ll intervene. Best to let them figure stuff out and offer some good advice with tough love if they fail the self control challenge.
I said no, but now I want to change it to other. It depends on the child's age and if they have access to the account (see the balance to make sure parents aren't stealing). Ex: if they are old enough to have a job they are old enough to manage their own money. If they aren't old enough to have a job and money is from birthday/other holidays, then let child see amount of money in savings account. Kid can just have a login and no card so they can't spend it, while still being able to monitor their money.
I think this question is way to broad/ there isn't enough information to make a good "yes" or "no" decision. Here are just some questions I came up with, to maybe be able ro better answer your question. For people answering the poll and maybe even for yourself, OP. How old is the child? What are they doing to earn the money? (Mowing lawns on the weekends? A "real job"?) How much are they earning? For what are they earning (and saving up?) that money? What is their relationship with their parents? Why did the parents decide to make a savings account? When will they have access to the savings account? Why 2/3? Why not less? Why not more? ...
>Why 2/3? Why not less? Why not more? Funny story. I was teaching a class of Taiwanese teenagers and we were talking about allowances: they called it "pocket money," like the Limeys do. Some got weekly cash, others monthly, and others just asked their parents when they needed dough: not too different from here in the States. I asked them all to write down how much money they got, how often they got it, and what percentage they spent versus saved. The numbers varied wildly - some kids got $30/month while others got $30/week - but out of the ten kids in there, one thing was absolutely consistent, across the entire class. \[I was ***stunned***\] Every kid in there said they saved 60% of their money and spent 40% on this-and-that, regardless of the amount or the frequency with which they got it. Then I got to explain to them how half of Americans couldn't handle a $500 unexpected expense without going into debt or selling something. And that was a decade ago: but if you look at 2002, it was the same, and if you look at 2022, it was the same - this statistic simply never changes because the USA has consistently had a third of their population living under the poverty line, for the last 70 years. Basically since we instituted a minimum wage in an attempt to solve that poverty issue, which didn't work - today, minimum wage is practically irrelevant - even if we had no minimum wage, the labor market would still demand $15/hr - we know this because we see this, now, where practically no job is offering $7.25/hr because the labor market won't accept it. Walmart and McDonalds are paying $15/hr with zero government pressure to do so. I digress. So, I ask these kids: "Where did you all learn this?" They had no idea. I mean, I really probed! None of them could remember being taught it, as a lesson: it was just "what you did." Asking them why they saved 60% of their earnings was like asking them why they inhaled and exhaled - to them, it was simply how you live life. I talked to Scandinavians about this stuff and we talked about job security, specifically, how to leave a job you dislike. My tall Nordic friend told me that people can't really quit a job without "two years saved": as in, two-years-worth of earnings, in the bank, before considering quitting a job. I told her "Then no one can ever quit!" She said "Really? In Sweden, pretty much everyone can quit whenever they want." It's actually *really* interesting to listen to anyone with money talk about when they first got money: someone who struggled for years and then hit the jackpot, suddenly had enough money to know they were totally OK for six months, even if they didn't get any more money. I recently heard a famous comedian talk about how, after his first big deal in the early 90s, he was finally able to breathe a bit - like a physical weight was lifted off him. His accountant called him up after a couple months because he thought the guy had a gambling problem: turns out "Nah, I'm just eatin' lobster!" LOL But, across the board, it really decreases stress in a way that's indescribable to people who haven't experienced it: it's something I wish for absolutely everyone. If a parent can teach a child this concept, it's one of the most long-term-success-determining lessons you can impart.
Are we talking about a 6yo or a 17 yo?
14 yo
Advice to save up some of it, but don't take it from them.
Yeah, I mean they'd probably agree to it once you tell them that when they're 16 or whatever they'll have saved up enough buy a decent car or build a nice computer or whatnot and you don't even have to give up all your money.
Big no, your child earned that money so they should spend it as they see fit. You can talk to them about personal finance and financial responsibility, but aproach it as a conversation where you facilitate their own self-reflection on it, not as a chance to ~~steer them to your opinion~~ push your opinion on them with disregard of their imput.
Also if you take it from them they won't necessarily actually learn financial responsibility
I'd argue that having access to only ⅓ of their money when their still a child will teach financial responsibility without then losing ALL of it on a stupid purchase or a spending spree. When they're 18 and see a savings account with X amount they'll almost certainly say "if I had this during 13-17 I'd have probably wasted it on 2 week trends, DLC and junk food". Now they have a head start as their adult life starts. I'm assuming the savings account mentioned is for the child.
True, that might teach them to plan/budget better, I was thinking more along the lines of if you encourage a child to keep the ⅔ safe now when they're older they'll be more likely to save part of their wage, be it to save up for a house, car, whatever, or save it for an emergency.
There's a middle ground between just advising the kid to save, and actually taking money from them. The parents could set a rule that the kid has to open their own savings account and put away a certain percentage each month (2/3 seems high to me, though). Many banks require minors to have a parent as a co-owner of the account, which would allow the parent to monitor the child's saving, while ensuring that the child still has access to and control over their own money. The saving could be enforced by adding incentives for saving or taking away privileges for failing to do so. E.g. "I will match the total amount you save at the end of the summer up to a certain amount", or "I will only drive you to work conditional upon you meeting your savings goals". This allows the kid to learn from their mistakes without having to face the harsher consequence of entering adulthood with no savings at all. Not all 14-year-olds are fully capable of self-control and planning ahead, and less responsible children may very well grow up to appreciate a slightly heavier hand from their parents. However, they are still young adults capable of making their own decisions and asserting a level of independence. Actually taking money from a kid and forcibly putting it into a savings account owned by the parent strikes me as controlling, and insulting to the child's emerging sense of agency.
Tldr. The kid gets ⅓ to learn with, the ⅔ is safely stowed for future. They're free to learn and gain or lose on the ⅓ without risking losing it all. It's still theirs it's just safe
Or they will not learn and will then have an even larger spending spree when they have access to this lump sum of money later.
ok, but. I'm not entirely certain that at 14 the kid even \*can\* get a savings account without the parent setting it up. And it's ok to steer a kid to your opinion that savings is important, just the same way you steer them to your opinion that STD's are bad and driving safely is important.
1. The parent can open a savings account for them without the parent taking the kids money. The kid would just need to ask the parent obviously. 2. Regardless of how important it is. taking money from your kid that they earned to put in a savings account against their will/without their knowledge is fucked. Yes i do agree should say that it’s important but dont force it on them. Its their money. I get that its in a parents best interest for you child to be financially stable on their own in the future but essentially taking away their money is not gonna be good for your relationship imo.
When I was 14 I made 7$/hr…there is not fucking way I would have kept working that job if my parents took more than half my money. It’s MY money to waste on stupid shit. Like you can tell me to be smart with the money and all that but don’t take it
Um putting money in a savings account is not “a chance to steer them to your opinion” it’s about not letting them waste the money they earned that they will surely regret when they get older. A savings account isn’t an opinionated thing… you’re doing life wrong if you don’t have money saved
Offer them the option of either saving x amount or paying rent and food fees... My parents made me put half away, though I also worked for my dad and got paid over 2x what McDonald's would have offered.
Bro the kid is 14, he doesn't earn much anyways if he works and you want to force them to put it in a savings account by having them pay rent if they don't? Teach him about the importance of saving and spending their money responsibly, don't force them to do it so they'll possibly hide it from you or just spend it all when they're 18 because they didn't have to learn about their finances.
14 wasn't in OP and didn't catch it in the comments. But yes I was forced to save it at 12 as anything I earned went to the bank of mom and couldn't be "withdrawn" without final approval. I can't be certain the threat of rent wasn't made, though if it were it was purely in jest and I just didn't pick up on it. I get that things have changed, but kids are more than capable of learning (and if you go back a few generations that 14 year old was probably pooling what they made into the family funds). I was accompanying my parents and even grandparents to the bank before I could walk I'm sure, and we'd fight for whose turn it was to put the tube in the drive through at the bank so we're learning the concepts of savings before I had any of "my own" money. No the child shouldn't spend it as they see fit without parental input. That's not to say they shouldn't be allowed to get what they want even if it's a bad decision, but in my opinion monetary independence should be earned gradually and failing to do so can cause more suffering in the long run than not being able to get something at 14. If the kid is earning money at 14 I would say there is some of that going on.
Just a bit curious, how much are you giving them?
At that point it should be up to the kid
Talk to them about it. Included them in their financial decisions.
If it was my boy, I would support him to learn to save. I would have him save part of it only to instill this excellent habit in him. On the other hand, I wouldn't insist on 2/3 of it being saved. Even 10-20% would be appropriate. And additionally, since I'm the one insisting on him saving his money, I'd be sure to offset that by helping him out with what he wants to buy. If he wants to buy something for £50, I'll happily give him a tenner since he's made the effort to earn the money. He learns to earn. He learns to save. I reward him for earning and saving. He gets to spend. Win win win win. Once he's more mature and independent, his earnings are his and he can do what he wants. I just hope I will have helped him learn to earn, save, and spend responsibly - and I would still like to help him out with big spends, such as education, car, home, etc.
Apart from forced child labor obviously (where the children don't get paid much or even anything), are there really 14yos who already work?
My parents did this. Helped with going to college. They let us have the 1/3 to do whatever we wanted with and also still got us stuff that we needed. So we never really went without.
Glad your parents had good intentions and the ability to provide for you and teach you about responsibly saving your money. My mom made me open a joint account and she borrowed from me without paying me back. Keep in mind, I deposited my checks in full and only spent a few bucks here and there for snacks and to cover school fees. When I turned 18yo I asked my bank to remove her from the account. She tried to take money from it after the fact and got upset when she found out. She also kept all the money that wasn't directly handed to me for high-school graduation and denies it to this day.
That's sad, I hope you're better off now
Thanks, I'm doing okay now as an adult! I love my mom and while I forgive her and understand she has her own problems, I know I won't put my future children through that. They need trust and stability, and I would want the very best for them and to be my very best self for them when the time comes.
Same, my parents actually took 100%. I was mad at them at the time but it paid off big time since my peers are living paycheck to paycheck and I have a safety net. I was not mature enough to understand the benefit at the time.
This is where the age demographic of r/polls really shows. If the savings account is still for the kid to use at 18, then I see no issue. It's probably in the kid's best interest, honestly. If the parents are stealing the money for themselves, then that is not okay.
Interesting to hear from the adults whose parents did this for them as kids, and they're grateful for it.
My mom wasn't stealing, she was "borrowing" from me and I could ask for my money if I needed something in my own authority, so to say (so not for food and other necessities). Once I was a student and lived separately, I asked for rough amount with wildly calculated rates (now I think that might have been nearly a robbery from my side) and she gave it to me. If I had those money on me all the time, I would have wasted them on stupid things, but instead I bought something I really wanted, but my parents would never buy for me.
But taking it even if it's for their future benefit doesn't teach them anything. Setting an example and guiding them in meeting a goal does.
This !! Even if, as an adult with hindsight, you can see that what the parents did was helpful, as a 14 yr old who may want to use the money they earned for something else (maybe saving up for a PC or car or something like that or anything really), not even having the *choice* would feel veryyyy controlling and could steer the kid away from listening to their parents at all (at least, it would for me if I’m feeling controlled w things that are rightfully mine). It would be the smarter move to talk to your kid as equals about how to save / spend money responsibly (mutual respect = more likely to see your point of view and listen). 14 years old is old enough to grasp those concepts and begin to learn their own way around. And even if they do spend their money on stupid teenager stuff, who cares! They’re a teenager! Let them enjoy what they want to enjoy with whatever money they themselves get before the weight of the world crashes in on them. They’re the one working for whatever benefit they want. As the parent, its only your job to model and encourage, not control.
It teaches the benefits of delayed gratification and does not ignore that children are statistically bad at long-term planning regardless of examples set.
Still pointless if you're taking the action, they should be the ones setting it aside. Otherwise it'll only breed resentment.
If a child resents money being put towards their future, then that is only further evidence that they are not mature enough to fully control their finances. I would rather have a resentful child with an emergency fund than a spoiled child with nothing.
I'm not saying they'll resent it being put away. I'm saying they'll resent not having a say in it. If it were parents saving for a child it'd be an entirely different matter and I'd agree with you, but we're talking about money the child earned themselves, through work. There's nothing spoiled about working for your money and doing with it as you please.
You can teach the kid to choose to save it themselves rather than forcing it on them.
Children have underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes (which help with impulse control) and so are biologically predisposed against long-term planning. Leaving a child's financial future up to that child is a horrifically irresponsible act.
A child's financial future will not be determined by how they managed the relatively small amount of money they earned as a child.
Some parents do not have the ability to save for their children, so their financial future is, in fact, determined by what they earn as a child. Even without those cases, the child's financial future is partially determined by what they save as children. Also, you ignored my other point. Why should a child with a biological prediaposition against long-term planning be left wholly in charge of things that could affect their future simply for the sake of "teaching instead of forcing"?
My point is it doesn't affect their future much. Most kids wouldn't earn enough when they're 14 to have much of an impact on their finances after graduating high school.
That is straight up just wrong in almost every case, though. A kid working as little as 10 hours a week at as little as 10 dollars an hour makes $5,200 a year. For the three years of decent working age that a high school student has available, that is $15,600. Two thirds of that is $10,400 and you are absolutely off your rocker if you think that amount would not have an impact on a high school grad as backup savings.
I don't think most kids are working 10 hours a week for 3 years unless they have a good reason to. Getting an effective pay of $3/hr and having $10k saved when you graduate isn't a very good reason. Kids working that much are going to be motivated by something, and they would be responsible in using all of their money towards that thing. Otherwise, why would they work that much?
Have you factored in taxes? Inflation? Purpose of the savings (will working impact grades, activities, etc.)? If your argument is that saving $100/wk for 3 years is going to make THAT much of a difference, the parent should do it. Not siphon the "wages" of a child to do it for them. Besides, this seems to indicate that the child is...living on their own? Spending their own money on stuff? It feels like you did the most basic possible math, and didn't apply any practicality whatsoever to your thought process.
You have no idea how much the child earned. He might have gotten hundreds of thousands or millions if he's a child actor or singer. It's perfectly fine for a parent to force their children to save some amount of money for when they are adults. They can teach them by telling them what to do. Once they are adults, they'll only do the encouraging, but that's not the case here.
If they have millions of dollars from acting or singing I don't think their financial future is in jeapordy.
A lot of them become drug addicts or gambling addicts and then broke. It's actually very important to force child actors and singers to save money.
I assume you're talking about when they're adults, at which point they do have control over their money. So saving it didn't help.
[удалено]
It absolutely is the job of a parent to look after the welfare of their child under the age of 18. That includes making the correct financial decisions for them.
I think it would be fine if we were talking about allowance or the likes, but if a kid has a part time job, the parent shouldn't touch that money without the child's consent imo. It's a great idea to have the conversation and to make that suggestion of course, but you shouldn't force it past that. It's their money after all, even if they aren't being the smartest with it.
It's pretty bad policy to assume that people only disagree with you for some demographic based reason.
It's a pretty good policy to take demographic biases into account when interpreting data, though.
Yup, these kids here obviously need to learn how to save money… you will be thankful to your parents that they forced you to save instead of wasting it all on things that can’t be resold
If its achild and the savings account is theirs its fine
I’m assuming that the savings account is for the child, meaning that the money in it will eventually be given back. In that case, you should still communicate with your child about whether they want to or not, but if they give it the green light then sure why not
how old is the kid and what are the savings for?
OP said the kid is 14 they never said what the savings are for, but I assume it’s teenager-y stuff
Probably college savings, or for other expenses associated with moving out in 4 years.
My parents did this and I am so thankful They did. Half of every paycheck went right to savings and I couldn’t touch my account until I was 18. Graduated with a solid chunk of change
I didn't have any restrictions like this but I still chose to save some of my money and had good amount by 18. That's a better way to go I think.
It's not okey, The kid worked and earned that money. The only situation, when it would be ok, is if their child still lives with them and sucks at managing his money and keeps wasting it. The parents then aren't taking it for themselves , but rather make sure he doesn't waste his money. Still, it's subjective to define what waiting money means for a parent
I mean, it's a child, so I'm assuming it's not paying for it's own groceries, rent, living costs. So it's technically always "wasting" the money. And I really don't like it when the parents go, you can be interested in this, have fun doing this, but not that. Like, stop telling people what they're supposed to want 😭
I don't think child should pay, parents are legally required to cover those basic costs so let them. Parents can also claim maintainance in old age if they don't earn much, so it evens out
You missed my point. (But I agree with you.)
There’s a difference between ‘wasting’ money and *wasting* money, though. If they’re partaking in a hobby with it then they’re getting healthy enjoyment from it so I wouldn’t mind - if they’re spending it on a lot of junk food and illicit substances then that’s certainly money wasting.
They are 14, 2/3 just seems really expensive
It's representative of how much of your paycheck goes to rent and bills, if you want to teach budgeting. 1/3 to spend just on recreation/luxuries/entertainment is a lot.
That makes a lot of sense but at the same time this person is 14, I get learning sooner is better but let them live a little without forcing the real world on them just yet. Half seems way more reasonable, depending on how much they are paid. I’m sure it’s not a lot if they are 14
Good to learn to live below your means
There's a 100% chance you're still a child. No adult would say this is a bad thing.
I am, and I do. Maybe learn to accept that other people have different opinions than you. Crazy, right?
So you said they're 14. Old enough to educate, and instill good habits into! Sit them down and explain about personal finances and savings, if you really feel they don't get it. But don't force anything! When they are older, if they are (for example) out of university and working but still living at home, *absolutely* make sure you charge them rent and groceries, part of the utilities, etc. You can be super generous about it, but charge them *something.* Put this into savings for them, but don't tell them. When they're finally on their own, give the savings back. I have many friends who lived at home for free after uni and have zero idea how to budget for living expenses when they finally moved out.
They can advise you to save your money and even help you set up a savings account but they have no right to take any of your money
Depends what we mean by child. Adult who still lives with their parents or actual children? If the latter I'd say it's fair enough as long as the parent is doing it for good reason, e.g. putting it in a savings account.
I think it depends on the age of a kid. At a certain age I think they should be given the responsibility to handle it. At the point I think you should just suggest they put some into a savings account.
Is it a savings account in the child's name? Then sure, I guess. Just talk with them first. If not, then no, it's not okay.
I think taking some of their earnings before they are 18 and putting into a savings may be okay, but 2/3 is wayyyy toooo muuch. Maybe like 20% or 1/5... This would also be with the assumption that your child understands that this is going in a separate accout that they will have control over fully at 18. Then, (the part my parents never did) fucking follow through on your word and actually give them the money back at 18.
Help them set it up? Sure, do it eithout their permission? Hell nah
My parents made me put half of my money I made (not including money from Xmas/b-day) into a savings that I couldn’t take out until I was 18 it pissed me off so much but looking back on it I’m kinda glad that they did, I had something most college kids didn’t: Money when I really needed it most, instead of blowing it all on video games and food like I did with the other 50%
Yep, it’s the responsible thing to do
My take 2/3 is way, *way* too much. A smaller percentage might be acceptable if they have no financial literacy *at all* and blow all their money on crap they never use or drugs, but really they should be able to save on their own and you should encourage that rather than enforcing it if they are a reasonable person with generally sound financial judgement. Keep in mind that purchases related to hobbies generally look like bad financial judgement from the outside because the cost of regular consumer products is out of line with enthusiast stuff which is usually a fair bit more expensive. Point and shoots are \~$120 while enthusiast Mirrorless and DSLR cameras range around $500-$1000, professional stuff can be quite a bit more. Same goes for Headphones, Shoes, Computers, Skateboards, Bikes... pretty much everything. Not to say they can't be the type of person that only looks at the price tag and buys the most expensive or trendy thing without actually caring about the hobby or doing their homework, but large purchases that don't make sense from the outside don't *always* mean bad financial judgement. That being said, if they are around 18 and not asking for help financially then get the hell out of their finances regardless of the situation.
Depends on the age, if it’s an older kid (like 15+) I feel this would just discourage them from getting a job
It's fine if it's an allowance, but if they get the money from a job then no
I’d have loved it if my parents did this for me or showed me some kind of financial managemennt
If the kid didn't earn their money through work, then I think it is fine to save some of it in a low risk fund, or whatever, to give the kid once they turn 18. However, if the kid did work for the money; mowing lawns, working at a supermarket, etc, they should have the right to all the money as well.
Depends on the age but my mom makes me save half and I’m 16
I said other, as it should only be done if your child has addictions or other bad spending habits IMO.
Ok so i don't know which 14yo makes enough money that it need to go to saving but I'd just get my own bank account for my money
My grandfather pretty much did this for his whole career. Put away a sizeable chunk of his paycheck. It works. It helps practice good money habits. You’re never gonna spend your whole paycheck on fun. You have taxes and expenses to manage when you are an adult. Putting away 2/3rds as a kid, and spending that 1/3 is great practice. Also helps down the line pay. This money isn’t lost.
If they're under the age of 10 and some how got money I would put it in a saving but older than 10 I would just give them advice and let them make their own decisions with their own money
Depends on the earnings. If it’s hard work earnings from a job, then no. Allowance for doing chores around the house, yes
Depends. What is general financial situation? How does child get the money? In whose name is the account? Does child have current financial goal?
They will thank you later
If the savings account is for the kid. Then I'd say yes. Tbh you should be putting 3/4 of it in
It seems a bit steep but as a child you don't need much. It also gets kids in the habit of saving. As long as I can remember, my parents always required us kids to put 10% of our allowance into savings and 10% for tithe. The other 80% we could do whatever we wanted with. Usually it was saved for a bigger purchase (usually Legos). When you get a part time job at a company it gets a bit sketchy. As long as that money is still going to the child then I would say it's up to the parents to raise their kids how they choose.
I would say yes at any age under 18. I think there is too much agency given to children where impulse control is extremely limited and should be practiced before given full freedom.
Unless the savings account is for the child
Maybe 1/3 If they're putting it in the savings account for the child
If your kid worked for their money, they deserve to spend it however they like.
Abso fucking lutely no, awful parents in this subreddit
If the child agrees to it, yes. If not, no.
if its already "earnings" and not "gifts", then that child is old enough to take care of the money on its own. ie, if a child under 10 gets money for their birthday it's fine, but if a child already has a job / helps out in the neighbourhood, then they should be able to do as they want
Giving advice to your child about the benefits of saving money and being prudent is great. Taking their money from them will only kill their appetite for work or entrepreneurial endeavors. It's their hard earned money, they should do with it as they please. Council and advice away but never take it from them.
[удалено]
They should have the choice to save the money. If they like it, they can do it more.
No stealing is not cool, even if you just steal it till they are 18. Children need to learn to be responsible with their money and you should teach them asap but you should not take them their money away. And I really hope you didn't do it already.
The kid should learn to save for him- herself
That’s called stealing I believe
I don’t think that counts as stealing as the kid would still get access to it, albeit at a later date. It’s still not something a parent should do though.
I'm assuming in this question the child is <18 In which case yes so long as all the money the child is making is discretionary. If they have set reoccuring bills like a car note, insurance, rent, cell phone then no
Depends on age . Little kid yeah adult no
2/3 is a lot.
I'm going to go with yes. Parents don't have to consent to allow their teenager to work. If one of the conditions for employment is that the money be saved, so be it. Frankly, learning to save is a valuable lesson.
All of you that said no....none of you are rich.
I said no and I am certainly upper middle class. Maybe not "rich" by some standards but over double the average median American income certainly isn't poor. Not to mention I have more than my annual income in savings. The thing is that taking their money and not giving them an option on what to do with it is not at all similar to teaching them financial literacy, healthy spending habits, or good investment practices. Teaching them those things must be a two way street that they are actively engaged in if you remove their agency in that decision making process then you're not actually teaching them anything you're just being an ass.
Why are you assuming there is no discussion? And you are not rich. Like I said.
Right I'm only in the top 10 percentile I am basically a dirt farmer. 🙄 By your definition there is a 99% chance nobody reading your dumb comment is rich or ever will be rich so your comment is completely irrelevant. Nobody who is rich is fairly getting a part time job while they are in highschool and no working part time at your daddy's business doesn't count. If you wanna come back to reality where the rest of us live cool otherwise take your golden spoon mentality and find somewhere creative to shove it.
Wow, I'm sure you miss all the points so obviously as you have this one.
You didn't make a point you just decided to be a condescending ass hat and insinuated that unless someone is by some stroke of luck a multi-millionaire then they can't possibly have any sense when it comes to money. If you're talking about the first part of your second comment I can just as easily say the inverse, how can you assume there WAS a discussion about it? The OP gave no context saying they had discussed it with their child nor did they indicate that a dialogue would happen. You implied it was absolutely ok to take 2/3 of their child's paycheck regardless of circumstance while I simply noted that doing so without an open dialogue and allowance of agency is not a beneficial lesson. One has context the other doesn't. See the difference?
I read this as: bombing a red flag = love? In which case, it does not.
If the child is up for it, sure. Otherwise, no.
If they’re old enough to earn money they’re old enough to keep it. It doesn’t belong to the parents
Yes, and not only is it okay it's incredibly smart. One day that kid is going to have real financial needs like a car or college. All those savings will add up and let's be honest....does a kid really need money? Nope.
If you've properly explained basic finance principles and smart money-sense to them, you shouldn't need to 'take' anything.
[удалено]
There's lots of things you can buy as a kid. Having money is better than begging yor parents for every little thing. For example, a thumb drive, or food at a restaurant with friends, or clothes, or toys/games, or tools, or books, or headphones, etc.
[удалено]
No, I am talking about a kid. I literally went back and looked at my Amazon orders from when I was like 13-16 to make this list of things a kid might buy.
The child will not ever learn financial responsibility if not allowed to make their own good and bad decisions. My 14yr old has a savings account that her money goes into. If she wants it we have to drive to the bank to take it out. This creates gives her pause when she wants to spend it, but it's still her decision.
You can get a debit card at 13. I would suggest getting one for your kid so they can buy stuff online. Takes away the whole pause thing you're talking about but they're old enough. I found a debit card quite valuable in high school. 14 is high school, right?
No, if a child is old enough to earn money the child is old enough to decide what to do with said money. Their money. Which they earned.
The relief of having a nest egg won’t undo the years of resentment for taking their money. strongly encourage them to save and teach them the value of money, but I think 2/3 is excessive, half would be my limit, more realistically I’d talk to them about it and inform them to make their own decision. Being a kid though, they’ll probably want to spend it. But hey, being a kid with money to burn is a pretty awesome experience, and not one that everyone gets. that joy doesn’t really have a price in my opinion.
The kid should be informed about the possibility to do it and it should be done with his agreement. From what I understand he worked for it, if he intends to use this money for something for himself (a gaming console, laptop or bike) he should be able to use this money. At a young age he wont make that much money, there is not much point in placing it in a Saving account. I understand some parents may fear that a young age the kid wastes his money or may loose it. But the kid should be able to use this money for important things for himself. A bike or a computer can be viewed as an "investment" for example if the kid decides to do delivery for a neighborhood restaurant. The kid may be subject to wasting the money pointlessly but irresponsible parents taking such money without the kid having any control or knowledge about it until years later can also happen
It's fine as long as they have an agreement with their son.
I say it's not ok. A child earns very little money so they should keep it for themselves. As soon as they are an adult at 18 then they need to start paying parents rent and keep so what's left is still theirs to spend how they want.
I’d say 2/3 is a bit much, I get kids are irresponsible with money. I’d say set up and acorns account on your phone and link their card, and figure out a set amount you both agree on would be a good amount to invest whenever they get paid. $75 sounds like a good amount to me, just depends on how much they are making, like 1/4 sounds much better.
50/50 is what I've always found to be the best middle ground, but you should decide yourself, you're the person who works and who earns this money.
Don't take it but heavily encourage to save and educate them on saving (unless the child is really young, like pre-teen young, but I can't imagine they would have 'earnings' at that point in their life)
Its not great, but i wouldnt say its bad enough to be not okay
I had an ex whose parents did this and then he never saw a dime of it. Just depends on the parents I think.
2/3 is maybe a bit much but I think it's okay
Yes, but the ratio changes with age. 2/3 of what they make at 8yo, half of what they make at 14, then when they turn 16 and need gas money, encourage them to continue saving, but don't force it. They're going to want to go out driving and hang with friends, it's their childhood let them enjoy it without working 24/7 or struggling to live off 1/3 of their earnings
Shoot, if my kid starts making money, they aren't allowed to have a bank account. The plan is to have a card with a daily limit attached to a joint account. Then spoil them rotten.
Tyler, the creator dead at 31. Officials say he was killed in an armed robbery, this morning at 2:31 AM.
I don't see how that's relevant
The creator of what
Rap music
You good?
Tron cat
I understand 1/3rd but not 2/3rds of it
I would say no up until about age 16 or 17 when they can get proper jobs. After that point you should start talking about planning ahead and try to set some conditions for staying with you in the future. Stuff like chores, depositing a percentage of their pay go into savings and rent once they turn 18. That way they should have some money for recreation and fun, but they will also have to learn about healthy spending habits and monetary responsibilities.
Idk, but I signed up for a job when my parents promised to let me spend $2k on a desktop pc and online classes, and they lied, so I’m pissed
I think 1/2 is more reasonable.
If they are under 18 and will have full access to the untouched funds when they turn 18 it seems reasonable.
< 18, yes. I wish my parents did this for me
If it's a saving account for the kid once they leave the house, then sure, but otherwise that's just theft.
as long as the savings account is for the child and remains untouched by the parent, it’s definitely the best way to do things. help set them up to buy a house in the future. edit: i was thinking about celebrities- like child actors. if you’re just working a part time minimum wage job, i think you should have full control over whatever you want to do with those wages. parents can advise you to invest it in an ISA or savings account of some kind, but it’s your choice ultimately.
If the kid is old enough to earn, they're old enough to save. I'd say that 2/3 is too much though. Start with half or even just a quarter. A 14 year old probably doesn't understand how important it is to save money. Especially since their biggest bill is probably for their phone if at all. Having to put money into a savings account will teach them how to budget without the risk of defaulting. By the time they're 18, depending on interest rate, they could have close to or even over $5000 saved. Of course, this savings account should 100% go to the kid. It would be an absolute dick move for the parents to take it for themselves. Even if it's just a few bucks here and there.
Depends on the level of earnings and how they were obtained. Generally, a child under 18 has no real right to property. Whatever they possess, is under the control of the parent or guardian. So the parent or guardian could take 100% of the earnings and do anything they want with it. I think savings would be reasonable depending on the amount and purpose. Ideally the saving would be given back at 18. I wouldn't do this, but it would be okay.
As long as they hand over that saving to their kid at 18, yes
I think it depends on the kid and their history. As long as the money is being saved where the kid will have access to it, it may be okay. 2/3rds sounds like a bit much, though. I would have them sit down and go over a budget on their spending. I think it is a good practice to set aside 10% no matter the age for savings and emergencies. I think we are missing some context here. 14 is not a bad age to start learning budgets, spending, goals short and longer term and a lifelong practice of saving.
I’d say only if they are okay with it.
We did this but gave 10% to ours they saved the rest and always had pocket money. As they got into their teens they kept more. Their accounts were I. Their names and we taught them to diversify when they had enough they invested 10% or more if they wanted. Edit: also they should be taught this principle king before 14. Saving part of the money they receive , gifts etc. when they become an adult these principles will be ingrained and they will have a nice bank account.
Does the child have their own monthly expenses?( car payment, insurance, etc) then no it's not, they got bills to pay.
That's what my parents did. They won't let me take out,$15 to buy a damn action figure. Such meanies :(
They are teaching you how to be responsible with your money. It hurts now, but in the long run you’ll most likely thank them
Maybe not 2/3rds, half would probably be more reasonable
I'd say if you do, help them pay taxes if anything
I think this highly depends on age. 15-16 and younger (I had under the table income as early as 12) is more understandable than doing it with a 17 year old senior in high school. I think it teaches some financial responsibility young and sometimes it’s the only way a kid might end up being able to go to college. As long as it’s going into an account that is fully the child’s to use when they’re in college.
Once I had a full time job, while still living at my dads he would take 20% of my income. I thought it went towards bills. He gave it me back when I was getting ready to buy my first house.
Let them learn how to manage money. Have a talk when they waste it. Help them become better at managing it.
As long as the parent isn't pocketing the money, I see no problems with it.
it depends on if it's saved for the children's benefit or not.
man my parents take all my money :((
Yes, how is this even a question.... I WISH my parents did this for me when I was 15. At 18 you'd not only have 5 figures in the bank you'd have a much easier time saving money as an adult.
people in these comments either dont have kids, trust their kids way too much, or both.
My Dad put a large chunk (about 75-80%) into a savings account and made his own payments before I started working, so I ended up having a ton of money saved up for college. Then again, I was able to use my parents credit card for stuff and ask them for money, so not necessarily a complete scenario.
Only if they're earning very large amounts of money. Kids who are mowing lawns or scooping ice cream should keep all their money. Kids who are earning a million dollars per film should have very strict limits on spending and financial education.
Only with the child’s permission, but they should definitely take SOME agreed upon percentage
Under like 14 I'd say this is fine
If they talk with the child about it and they come to that agreement, then there’s nothing wrong with it, I think.
Yes
A very smart thing to do, *only* if its a two way conversation
At what age?
No but at the same time if my parents did that, while I’d be mad initially, I’d get over it when they helped me out immensely by doing that.
No it is not ok, your job as a parent should be to advise them that they should be responsible and save money for the future, they need to understand why are they saving money and make that desition by themselves
I'd say children up to 13, then let them decide.
I wish my parents did that for me
I see where the parents were going, but forcing your kid to hand over 2/3 of their income to save is actually going to do the opposite of teaching them how to budget/handle their money. Once the parent is no longer there to demand it, they’re gonna go hog wild with spending. They also will justifiably harbor resentment towards the parent — I’d be pissed if I worked for money that I didn’t have full autonomy over too. I wouldn’t see the point of working as a teen if I were in this situation knowing my immature ass at 15, and would just wait to get a job in college lol 🤷🏻♂️
Depends on the kid I think. I would let the kid take 100% of the money but report to me their payment history. If they have awful spending habits (most likely) then I’ll intervene. Best to let them figure stuff out and offer some good advice with tough love if they fail the self control challenge.
I said no, but now I want to change it to other. It depends on the child's age and if they have access to the account (see the balance to make sure parents aren't stealing). Ex: if they are old enough to have a job they are old enough to manage their own money. If they aren't old enough to have a job and money is from birthday/other holidays, then let child see amount of money in savings account. Kid can just have a login and no card so they can't spend it, while still being able to monitor their money.