Pocket money

I thought I'd try and generate a debate or two as this group seems to have
gone fairly quiet barring the spam.
I'm going to raise a couple of senarios, that I've been in as a child or a
parent or a friend.
This one is about pocket money.

Three children, two born at the start of the academic year, one born towards
the end.

Pocket money could either be raised (and started ot be given) on birthdays,
starting at age 5yo. However, assuming that all children go onto university
and then get a job and are then self supporting, this means that the one
born at the end of the year gets almost a year less of having pocket money
as they will be just 18 when they leave home, and the others nearly 19.

Alternatively: You could raise pocket money (and start giving it) when they
start school. This means that they will have the same number of years having
pocket money, but the one at the end of the year starts getting pocket money
at only just 4yo rather than nearly 5yo.

I can see that either could raise resentment. Or neither. Which do you think
is fairer, or have you an alternative (not giving pocket money at all
doesn't count!!!)
Debbie

We had a similar scenerio, and it really wasn't an issue. By the time I was
in college, I didn't care if my brother had gotten one more year of an
allowance than I did. And, by secondary school, my allowance was higher
because, while my brother needed some extra for his sports team travel and
the like, I had several music performance groups and two private teachers to
subsidize. In both cases, we had a monthly income which probably gave us
about the same discretionary spending, but my total looked bigger simply
because I had more outside expenses.

"Welches" wrote:

I thought I'd try and generate a debate or two as this group seems to have
gone fairly quiet barring the spam.
I'm going to raise a couple of senarios, that I've been in as a child or a
parent or a friend.
This one is about pocket money.

What is your definition of pocket money?

I ask because we got 'allowances' which in my case were carefully
calculated so that we had money for our church offering, our Girl
Scout or other organizational dues, and then we had some left over to
save (saving was required), plus a tiny amount to spend. In my day I
got about $1.00 and my spending money was about 20 cents which I could
buy a candy bar after school or something like that. (Candy bars were
5 cents) My parents supplied money for school lunches, music lessons,
school supplies and the like.

I would define only the 20 cents part of my allowance as 'pocket
money' - that is only the discretionary spending part of it.

Three children, two born at the start of the academic year, one born towards
the end.

I was born at the start of the year (November) and my sister was born
at the end of the year (June), but she skipped a grade. My first two
children were born in August and September and the third one in May
and the fourth one in January.

Pocket money could either be raised (and started ot be given) on birthdays,
starting at age 5yo. However, assuming that all children go onto university
and then get a job and are then self supporting, this means that the one
born at the end of the year gets almost a year less of having pocket money
as they will be just 18 when they leave home, and the others nearly 19.

We didn't have increments set on age - it was based on the expenses of
the child

Alternatively: You could raise pocket money (and start giving it) when they
start school. This means that they will have the same number of years having
pocket money, but the one at the end of the year starts getting pocket money
at only just 4yo rather than nearly 5yo.

I can see that either could raise resentment. Or neither. Which do you think
is fairer, or have you an alternative (not giving pocket money at all
doesn't count!!!)
Debbie

I started out giving allowances in the same way that my mother did,
but by the time I got to the third and fourth child it pretty much
went away - partly because at the point that DS was in school, I was
working and my husband was injured and out of work and we were pretty
short of money. DD#1 was in college and married by that time. DD#2
(who was in HS) wanted to earn money and she signed a contract with me
to do cleaning of the house for a set fee each month. DD#3 and DS got
jobs.

Welches wrote:
I thought I'd try and generate a debate or two as this group seems to have
gone fairly quiet barring the spam.
I'm going to raise a couple of senarios, that I've been in as a child or a
parent or a friend.
This one is about pocket money.

Three children, two born at the start of the academic year, one born towards
the end.

Pocket money could either be raised (and started ot be given) on birthdays,
starting at age 5yo. However, assuming that all children go onto university
and then get a job and are then self supporting, this means that the one
born at the end of the year gets almost a year less of having pocket money
as they will be just 18 when they leave home, and the others nearly 19.

Alternatively: You could raise pocket money (and start giving it) when they
start school. This means that they will have the same number of years having
pocket money, but the one at the end of the year starts getting pocket money
at only just 4yo rather than nearly 5yo.

I can see that either could raise resentment. Or neither. Which do you think
is fairer, or have you an alternative (not giving pocket money at all
doesn't count!!!)

I think that the answer is in your theory behind
the allowance. Is the allowance tied to responsibilities
in the family? Then it should start and get increased at
the same time that the responsibilities are increased.
If the child is responsible for handling certain expenses
with the allowance, like lunch money, then you probably tie
it to the school year.

Once you answer the question of why you're giving
the allowance in the first place, it will probably make the
answer pretty clear. If you're doing it just so that the kid
has some no-strings-attached money, then it probably doesn't
matter whether you tie it to age or grades.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Welches" wrote in message
...
I can see that either could raise resentment. Or neither. Which do you
think is fairer, or have you an alternative (not giving pocket money at
all doesn't count!!!)

I really doubt the kids will argue over something that happened before
they're even old enough to remember. Mine don't, anyway, and they can aruge
about any damn thing, especially here lately.
What about having them do chores for pocket money, instead of just giving it
to them? What do you mean by pocket money- giving them money for nothing? I
give mine money *sometimes* if they are going with friends, but otherwise
they get birthday/Christmas money and money from chores.
Marie

I can see that either could raise resentment. Or neither. Which do you think
is fairer, or have you an alternative (not giving pocket money at all
doesn't count!!!)

Life isn't fair, so why try and make it fair, the adding things up over
the school career thing is going to come out uneven for so many things,
why even try to add it up? Eg, my sister is almost 2 years younger than
me, I don't think we even went on holiday before she was born, so we
both took the same holidays with our parents, including going skiing for
the first time aged 13 and 11. After I went to university, she went on
several more holidays with them, including skiing holidays - am I
complaining, no, did she go on more skiing holidays, yes! I suspect we
started getting pocket money at the same time, naturally she got it for
appoximately two years longer - that's life, stop counting and teach
kids some real life lessons.

Cheers
Anne

Welches wrote:
I thought I'd try and generate a debate or two as this group seems to
have gone fairly quiet barring the spam.
I'm going to raise a couple of senarios, that I've been in as a child
or a parent or a friend.
This one is about pocket money.

Three children, two born at the start of the academic year, one born
towards the end.

Pocket money could either be raised (and started ot be given) on
birthdays, starting at age 5yo. However, assuming that all children
go onto university and then get a job and are then self supporting,
this means that the one born at the end of the year gets almost a
year less of having pocket money as they will be just 18 when they
leave home, and the others nearly 19.
Alternatively: You could raise pocket money (and start giving it)
when they start school. This means that they will have the same
number of years having pocket money, but the one at the end of the
year starts getting pocket money at only just 4yo rather than nearly
5yo.
I can see that either could raise resentment. Or neither. Which do
you think is fairer, or have you an alternative (not giving pocket
money at all doesn't count!!!)
Debbie

I wouldn't worry about fairness, in fact, I think it's a mistake to try to
balance parental largess so exactly on specific expenses. It could lead to
unreasonable expectations and a rod for your own back.

As far as pocket money is concerned I had big plans for my children to have
good-sized allowances by the time they were in their teens and that they
would be budgeting their clothes, etc. and social lives out of that. The
reality has been that my 8 year old still doesn't need much more than his
tooth fairy money and gift sums from his grandparents. His money gathers
dust while he tries to think of something to spend it on. I never gave the
the older ones much more than $5 - $7 per week to use on their incidental
expenses. Pocket money stopped when they got part time jobs at age 15 and
they didn't want it anymore, they were proud of the quasi-independence their
own earnings gave them.

It turns out that they are quite careful and sensible with their own money
and pretty good with mine, as well. For example, both saved up for their
laptops and better mobile phones than the hand-me-downs they got from their
father and me. We negotiate on extra expenses that aren't education related
(parents own those costs in our family) and they aren't extravagant so
that's usually fairly painless as well.

I think each family has to work out what will work best for their financial
situation and the personalities and needs of the children. There's no need
to have all the children under the same plan at the same age, say, just
because one or other of them might think it was fairest that way. You as the
parents get to decide what fair really means, not the children.

"Welches" wrote in message
...
I thought I'd try and generate a debate or two as this group seems to have
gone fairly quiet barring the spam.
I'm going to raise a couple of senarios, that I've been in as a child or a
parent or a friend.
This one is about pocket money.

Three children, two born at the start of the academic year, one born
towards the end.

snip
doesn't count!!!)

I was really just trying to start discussion rather than it being a current
issue :-)
I thought people might have feelings on which way was better, to go up on
birthdays or academic year. I raised it as one time dh (who was the oldest,)
commented one time that his brothers each were younger when they started
pocket money. I don't think he really minded, but I was trying to think of a
situation that didn't have an answer that was totally fair. Maybe I didn't
really manage that.

I will remark that dh was one time fined 2p of his 5p pocket money for some
misdemeanour, and he decided that he hadn't actually been naughty-just daddy
was short of money that week and wanted it for himself :-D

Pocket money, in this case, is spending money for the child, and is not the
same as allowance. It's a very small amount starting at 30p (around 60c, I
think) and going up 10p a year. (academic year) There's very little they
can get without saving, except sweets and they don't usually buy those. It
isn't tied to specific responsibilities, although we do expect them to do
more as they get older, but they do lose pocketmoney sometimes for
misbehaviour.

Perhaps a alternative thought is something that me and dh disagree mildly
on.
The only thing that they're meant to pay for is part of Christmas/birthday
presents. We don't expect them to pay for friends' party presents, but
generally for family. Dh thinks they should always pay exactly half. Now the
problem I have with this is that three of the birthdays they pay for are
October and one is November. Once they have paid for these plus Christmas
then they basically have very little change out of pocket money from
September through to January, even buying small things like pencils and
stickers. They do make some presents, but they do like to buy presents too.
So I tend to ask them what they want to buy, and direct them towards
something that's reasonably cheap, and they then pay between 25% to 50%
depending on various factors. Occasionally they come up with a good idea, or
something that's needed anyway in which case they may be paying less (eg #1
wanted to buy dh slippers, and he has a specific sort he likes, so she only
paid 10%, which was still 2 weeks pocket money)

What I would like to do is give them each a "Christmas allowance" of say £5
and then require they pay half always. Dh thinks it's a lesson in saving and
they should learn to save their pocket money if they want to give presents.
(after all #2 only gets £15 a year, so it's a long time to save up)

It's not as if they are big or frivoulous spenders of their pocket money. #1
gives a good proportion to charities (she gave all bar two weeks pocket
money of 6 months to Guide dogs charity two years ago, and she'll often want
to send pocket money to appeals) and #2 spends more on herslef, but she'll
typically save up enough to buy two of what she wants so she can give one to
a friend.

Debbie

"Welches" wrote:
"Welches" wrote in message
...
I thought I'd try and generate a debate or two as this group seems to have
gone fairly quiet barring the spam.
I'm going to raise a couple of senarios, that I've been in as a child or a
parent or a friend.
This one is about pocket money.

Three children, two born at the start of the academic year, one born
towards the end.

snip
doesn't count!!!)

I was really just trying to start discussion rather than it being a current
issue :-)
I thought people might have feelings on which way was better, to go up on
birthdays or academic year. I raised it as one time dh (who was the oldest,)
commented one time that his brothers each were younger when they started
pocket money. I don't think he really minded, but I was trying to think of a
situation that didn't have an answer that was totally fair. Maybe I didn't
really manage that.

It was just that we didn't know what you meant by pocket money.

I will remark that dh was one time fined 2p of his 5p pocket money for some
misdemeanour, and he decided that he hadn't actually been naughty-just daddy
was short of money that week and wanted it for himself :-D

I never was fined for anything. But occasionally we WERE short of
money and sometimes I would forget to pay the allowance - which in my
kids cases was really pocket money as I paid most of their dues IIRC.

Pocket money, in this case, is spending money for the child, and is not the
same as allowance. It's a very small amount starting at 30p (around 60c, I
think) and going up 10p a year. (academic year) There's very little they
can get without saving, except sweets and they don't usually buy those. It
isn't tied to specific responsibilities, although we do expect them to do
more as they get older, but they do lose pocketmoney sometimes for
misbehaviour.

Basically sweets was all I bought with my extra allowance. I like to
get Turkish taffy on the way home from school (I walked about 4 blocks
to school and crossed a small street front section of stores on the
way).

In my children's case, they did walk to school in some cases (when we
lived in California, Key West and the Philadelphia area) but after
that they rode the bus, and even when they walked, there was no place
for them to spend their money unless I drove them there. We drove
everywhere after we moved to RI in the early 70s and when we moved
here. Basically there was no place for them to spend any money except
for lunch at school.

Perhaps a alternative thought is something that me and dh disagree mildly
on.
The only thing that they're meant to pay for is part of Christmas/birthday
presents. We don't expect them to pay for friends' party presents, but
generally for family. Dh thinks they should always pay exactly half. Now the
problem I have with this is that three of the birthdays they pay for are
October and one is November. Once they have paid for these plus Christmas
then they basically have very little change out of pocket money from
September through to January, even buying small things like pencils and
stickers. They do make some presents, but they do like to buy presents too.
So I tend to ask them what they want to buy, and direct them towards
something that's reasonably cheap, and they then pay between 25% to 50%
depending on various factors. Occasionally they come up with a good idea, or
something that's needed anyway in which case they may be paying less (eg #1
wanted to buy dh slippers, and he has a specific sort he likes, so she only
paid 10%, which was still 2 weeks pocket money)

What I would like to do is give them each a "Christmas allowance" of say £5
and then require they pay half always. Dh thinks it's a lesson in saving and
they should learn to save their pocket money if they want to give presents.
(after all #2 only gets £15 a year, so it's a long time to save up)

I don't remember much about what we did, except that when dd#3 was a
baby she didn't have any shoes, and dd#1 thought she should have some.
We lived in Key West at the time and dd#3 didn't really need shoes for
weather reasons and she wasn't walking yet. But when Sears (which was
in walking distance) had a Children's Day where the kids were allowed
to come into the store alone and buy gifts for their families, dd#1
got (with my help) an outline of her sister's foot, and went to get
her shoes. The clerk was unhappy about letting her have shoes as a
gift, but dd#1 was determined, and was successful at buying them. But
I don't remember whether it was her own money or mine - I suspect it
was mine.


It's not as if they are big or frivoulous spenders of their pocket money. #1
gives a good proportion to charities (she gave all bar two weeks pocket
money of 6 months to Guide dogs charity two years ago, and she'll often want
to send pocket money to appeals) and #2 spends more on herslef, but she'll
typically save up enough to buy two of what she wants so she can give one to
a friend.

Debbie

DH took the kids to buy a present for me, and I took them to get a
present for him - I think we paid for it though.

"Tai" wrote:

As far as pocket money is concerned I had big plans for my children to have
good-sized allowances by the time they were in their teens and that they
would be budgeting their clothes, etc. and social lives out of that. The
reality has been that my 8 year old still doesn't need much more than his
tooth fairy money and gift sums from his grandparents. His money gathers
dust while he tries to think of something to spend it on. I never gave the
the older ones much more than $5 - $7 per week to use on their incidental
expenses. Pocket money stopped when they got part time jobs at age 15 and
they didn't want it anymore, they were proud of the quasi-independence their
own earnings gave them.

My mother had the same idea. I was to get a monthly clothes allowance
when I was 12. When it started, my mother was insistent that I needed
a winter coat, and some formals for ballroom dancing class, and she
made me buy the required clothing - I had to borrow some of my
allowance in advance. And I made some of my clothes and my mom made
some for me.

But what she found was - I didn't like to spend money and I HATED to
shop for clothes. So she would find something on sale that she
thought would be good for me and ask me if I wanted it, and I would
say "not if I have to pay for it", and she wouldn't be able to stand
not getting it and would buy it for me. And of course I never bought
any underwear. So at the end of about year and a half, I had bought a
winter coat and three formals, and had made myself a plaid wool jumper
(this is a US type jumper which is a shift type dress with no sleeves
and not a UK type jumper which I think is a sweater) and that was it.
I had no clothes to speak of and had saved $300 out of an allowance of
$25/month.

Then she tried the same thing with my sister with equally dismal
results, but in my sister's case, she wanted clothes but she could not
make a decision about what to buy and was always overdrawn on her
allowance. So after a year or so she had a closet of clothes that she
didn't like and no money.

I've been putting pictures of my family up on Facebook (restricted to
friends only, so no one else can see them). On one of the pictures of
me and my sister, she commented

That little strapless number was chartreuse tulle with fuschia velvet bows. Yes, hard to believe, but true. It was a sample, bought for about $10, and the tulle was sewn to the bodice with unfinished seams, so it was as scratchy as all get out. Soaping the seams helped a little, but not much. We found it in the closet 50 years later -- 2006. It was not one of the ones I decided to keep

My kids have been ragging on each other as to what they looked like
then. It has been quite amusing to read. DD#2 commented about dd#1
on a middle school class picture (DD#1 had braces and was wearing a
kind of cowboy shirt)

I don`t know which is worse the hair or the shirt. It`s amazing you made it through your teenage years unscathed!