Theoretical question: obligation to parents?

[homeymomma]

So this is a general question about level of financial obligation to provide for parents in their old age.

But I'll start with my more specific situation:

Parents divorced early. Mom was for all intents and purposes my only parent throughout my life, and was certainly my sole financial support. Her parents helped her out a TON and we lived with them about three times in my childhood, and lived in a condo that they paid for for yet more time. Through this my mom was able to save enough money to buy a town home in an incredibly good and expensive school district for me to go to high school. she also paid my way through private elementary and middle school. She paid the majority of my tuition to attend a private college. I got out with about 20K in loans from a school with 40K+ tuition. That's the good part.

My mom has now quit her corporate job in a huff at a terrible time. She then sold her townhouse at the bottom of the market crash (still made a profit). She keeps talking about going to work at a blue collar job somewhere but instead spends her money on large and expensive pets, eating out nearly every day, only eating whole foods, and traveling around in multiple purchased "to upgrade" RVs. She now lives with a boyfriend she met online in order to extend her time not needing to work. When I ask her about it, she says she can't keep it up because she has to go back to work soon for financial reasons. But it seems that she is actually relying on my grandmother dying (reasonable, she is 95) and getting some real estate assets from her as well as likely more cash.

I'm assuming she will use up this windfall and break up with boyfriend down the line then show up on my doorstep expecting us to take her in when she is too old to work (we really can't, we have two kids on one income and we make ends meet just enough for our very frugal life right now, we have no house or ability to support another person).

So my question is: with parents having done a lot of good parenting, and making a lot of terrible financial decisions, is there a black and white rule that we have to take in our parents (no matter what/if they were good parents/ if they paid for college?). Does the rule change if you try to point them in a better financial direction and they blow you off?

What are everyone's thoughts?

[MissStache]

My thoughts are that this is a really awful situation and I'm sorry you are facing it.  I would 100% support my parents financially if it came to that, but that is extremely easy to say given that I am 95% sure it will never happen.  They are careful spenders and were good savers.   And they have been excellent, loving parents who have been wonderful financial role models.

I think you need to really sit down and think about what you are willing to do for your mother if (when?) it comes down to it, and I think you need to make her aware of what you are and aren't able to do for her.  Maybe if you lay it out clearly that you will be unable to assist her financially beyond keeping her off the street, it will make her see the light and get her life in order.  You can offer to help her with planning and budgeting, but let her know that you won't be able to give her money.

There is never a black and white in a situation like this.  Good luck!

[Thegoblinchief]

I don't think there's ever a black and white rule, but with her making those kinds of decisions, I certainly wouldn't subsidize it.

[Frankies Girl]

You do what you can do without hurting your immediate family or your own retirement.

I would make sure to tell your parent that you love them, but they are making some very scary choices and that you don't know how much help you'd be able to offer them in the future, so it would be in their best interest to get things under control and if they need help with that part, no problem. And if they do come asking for assistance, one of the first things would be to sit down and do a total financial plan, and tell them that your help is conditional on them sticking to that. And no money directly to the person - pay the electric bill or the rent if you're comfortable with that, but make sure you state your money/time limits very clearly and what you are expecting from them for doing so.

Basically same thing as if you have a grown up child that had fallen on hard times and needed a temporary boost. You wouldn't want to enable a wasteful lifestyle, but if it was an emergency, then you do what you can.

[Catbert]

Yeah, what others have said.   If necessary I would provide some support to a destitute parent rather than have them on the street.  But that would be a supplement to social security to provide a minimal life style, not the life they want to lead.  No smartphones, no RVs, no vacations, no fancy clothes, etc.  No way would I have a family member live with me on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.   

[norabird]

Can you discuss her current situation now and plans for the future with her, saying you have some concerns about her financial security? It's certainly not an easy topic but better raise it now than face it later and worry about it until that point. You could alternatively get a meeting with a financial advisor for her, perhaps paying that cost and telling her it's a favor to you for your peace of mind if she meets with them?

[worms]

I would turn this around and ask the question:  if you had messed up and gone back to your loving parent and asked to be taken in would you not expect them to say yes?  It's the old prodigal son bit...it's what families do.

I hope she sees sense before it is all too late, I hope you can find words to talk her round.  But if it turns out the way you fear, I think you already know in your heart that you will do whatever you need to do to help out.

[cpa cat]

Children shouldn't be a retirement plan.

I don't have kids, and I have often heard people say, "But who will take care of you when you're olllldddd?" My response is always, "My millions of dollars."

It makes me cringe when I hear that. Why would I want my kids to take care of me? I would hope that they are living their own happy, successful lives as adults, with their own families and their own goals, hopes and dreams. I'm not sure why any parent would want to take away from that.

But it's not black and white. Emotions can't be. You love your mom. Heck, you probably even like her. So one way or another, you'll probably be sucked into helping. You can decide now what that help will be and plan for it. It can be as little or as much as you want it to be.

[deborah]

You need to be helping now.

Not financially, just making non-judgmental suggestions that can help get her financial house in order. I don't believe in subsidizing someone - my parents have subsidized one brother for many years, and he cannot stand on his own feet. If you can gain her financial trust, she may start coming to you for advice about financial situations before she makes the decision, and you will be able to steer her into a better outcome. This might stop you having the problems you perceive.

[rationaloptimism]

I'm worried about my bad-with-money in-laws. 

On principle, if my in-laws don't think their retirement is important enough for THEM to save for, then they also can't think it's important for ME to save for it either.

The policy that I want to establish with my wife is this:  Help should be limited to preventing destitution.  Our policy will be:  no-one goes homeless or hungry.  But we only provide this food and shelter if family members are otherwise incapable of having it.  What I don't want to do is just provide someone with room and board so they can spend their social security check on extras.  A family member in trouble needs to do EVERYTHING possible to help themselves before they start getting ANY handouts.  Cut the cable TV, cut up the credit cards, sell off possessions, avail themselves of all elder-care, gov't assistance, etc.  And then if they want to move in with us, they are signing over their social security check every month.  I'll deduct my costs for an extra bedroom and extra mouths to feed and then give them back any remainder.  And if they don't like that deal, they can go beg elsewhere.  But what I want to avoid is enabling them with a "you can always stay with us" message which lets them assume their housing costs are now covered by me, so one less thing for them to worry about.  That's not how it's going to go down.

[2527]

In your situation, I would provide for her needs, but not her wants.  Which is plenty…it is what you are doing for yourself.

[BlueHouse]

Sorry for the situation, homey mamma. 

Have you considered having a doctor check her out?  It sounds as if she held it together for many years, but that maybe some of her decisions are becoming a little more erratic lately?  Have you been shocked by any of these changes she's made or is it normal behavior for her?   

[socaso]

If this were me, I would first have a conversation with the partner about the level of help we felt we might be able to offer if we absolutely have to. Then it's time for the awful conversation. I always find it helpful to lead in with the good such as, you've been a wonderful parent, I love you more than anything and I would never leave you in the street but you should be aware that this is the maximum level of help I would be able to give you if your finances totally collapse. I would site example from things my parent had said/done to explain why I'm concerned about this (i.e. you've told me you need to go back to work for financial reasons and other examples) I would say that I know it's a hard conversation to have but it's better to have a hard conversation and come up with a plan than to be hit with an unexpected hardship that you cannot help her deal with. It sounds like she has assets and expectations of assets. If you have this talk now maybe she can get back in the groove and neither of you will ever have to worry about her being destitute.

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

I think the most important obligations to one's parents is NOT financial. It's to make sure, once they are not able to take care of themselves, that they are being cared for. Millions of dollars are great, but they can't visit you in the the nursing home and make sure you aren't getting bedsores. (Not that only your personal children can do that for you--my siblings and I have a childless aunt, for instance, that we would look after that if necessary.)

[galliver]

I was raised with a family attitude of "everyone pitches in, we all look out for each other." My parents have made it clear I can always move back, though they won't pay for my subsistence elsewhere (since college); I think some of my childhood friends have the same deal with their parents (it might be a cultural thing). It would be basically awful of me to not extend them the same courtesy. My parents (and sisters) will always be welcome in my home. Even if it's on the living room floor.

Of course, the first part of the statement applies, too. If I moved back, and wasn't recovering from physical or emotional trauma, I would be looking for work or working, helping around the house and with bills, if possible, etc. If there were children, I would expect my family member(s) to take over childcare if they couldn't find work, either so one more person could work or to save on the daycare bill. I don't know what I would do if they refused to contribute; I just can't fathom that possibility (although I realize for some this is a reality; some friends have told stories of siblings that mooch).

Anyway, my final point is that I disagree with above posters. I think loving family support comes before government support. I think if someone still calls their parents on holidays, they should help them out in a pinch. I believe government support (housing assistance, food stamps, etc) are for those who don't have family they can lean on....

[Nords]

So my question is: with parents having done a lot of good parenting, and making a lot of terrible financial decisions, is there a black and white rule that we have to take in our parents (no matter what/if they were good parents/ if they paid for college?). Does the rule change if you try to point them in a better financial direction and they blow you off?
What are everyone's thoughts?

No.  There are no "rules".  You just have to be happy with your own decisions, or at least able to live with them.

It's worth finding a trusted friend or a counselor to role-play your way through a discussion with your mother-- making sure you can express your concern for her using non-judgmental words and letting her know that you're not able to support her.

She may surprise you with her ability to subsist from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  But that's not your responsibility nor your problem.

[Abe]

As other noted, we suggest separating financial obligations from kinship obligations. For example, our parents are a bit less frugal than my wife and I, but the rule in our family is that we help each other out with hardships, not with "spending money". We know that if we went nuts and bought a fleet of yachts our parents wouldn't bail us out of that mess. However, if our house burnt down, they would. Similarly, if our home state goes Detroit on us and my parents' pensison are toast, we'd support them. However, the annual vacations to visit family in the old country come out of their savings.

[Heart of Tin]

Depending on where your parents live there may be a filial responsibility or filial support law on the books that requires you to provide the basics - food, shelter, essential medical care - for your indigent parents if you have the means. In China children are required by law to visit their parents in addition to providing financial support. I'm not an elder lawyer, so I won't give any further interpretation or advice, but you should be aware of these laws and whether they exist in your parents' jurisdication(s). I've seen news articles where nursing homes have been able to hold children liable for five figure sums of debt that their parents have accumulated.

[The Happy Philosopher]

Depending on where your parents live there may be a filial responsibility or filial support law on the books that requires you to provide the basics - food, shelter, essential medical care - for your indigent parents if you have the means. In China children are required by law to visit their parents in addition to providing financial support. I'm not an elder lawyer, so I won't give any further interpretation or advice, but you should be aware of these laws and whether they exist in your parents' jurisdication(s). I've seen news articles where nursing homes have been able to hold children liable for five figure sums of debt that their parents have accumulated.

Don't let your parents retire in Pennsylvania or South Dakota!

[Daleth]

Depending on where your parents live there may be a filial responsibility or filial support law on the books that requires you to provide the basics - food, shelter, essential medical care - for your indigent parents if you have the means. In China children are required by law to visit their parents in addition to providing financial support. I'm not an elder lawyer, so I won't give any further interpretation or advice, but you should be aware of these laws and whether they exist in your parents' jurisdication(s). I've seen news articles where nursing homes have been able to hold children liable for five figure sums of debt that their parents have accumulated.

My understanding is that at least in the US, parental support laws are very limited; all they can do, in the states where they exist, is require the kids to pay for a parent’s unpaid long-term care (i.e. nursing home) expenses, and in some states they’re even narrower (e.g. you can only be held liable for a parent’s mental health care expenses). I’m not aware of any laws that would require people to pay for any other expenses of their parents. These laws exist in about half the states but only two states normally enforce them, according to Bankrate.com:
 
Map of where these laws exist – http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/map-states-parental-support-laws.aspx
 
Article -  http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/parental-support-nursing-home-bills-1.aspx
 

[Fonzico]

I've had to think quite a bit about this too, as my husband and I are in a somewhat similar situation with his parents. They did pay for his University education, which we are immensely grateful for. However, they are unbelievable financially irresponsible, and have no retirement savings whatsoever. They have a fairly high income, but they spend it faster than it comes in, so it doesn't really matter. And the amount of financial support they have given us pales in comparison to what they've given to my husband's siblings, who are just as irresponsible as they are. In short, we are the most financially stable people in the family, and those who "ought" to have the most obligation to take care of them when they can no longer work and realize they have no assets, will not be able to.

Helping them plan for this eventuality is utterly hopeless - they will not accept advice nor entertain even the slightest drop in standards of living.

It really worried me for a while, but I have come to the same conclusion obviously many others here have - we will shelter and feed them if necessary, but I would not feel comfortable giving them money. And while they are not terrible people, they have really not been supportive in any sense other than financial, while my husband has been working like crazy to keep their business afloat.. so I guess I don't feel like we have that "good parenting" obligation, and in my admittedly biased opinion, I feel like we have already paid back the financial aid many times over.

If it were my parents, I would feel differently. They are amazing people, financially responsible, and would not need to rely on us for that sort of thing unless some disaster outside of their control caused it. If I handed them a cheque, I know they would use it wisely. But I don't see the point in giving cold hard cash to someone who will blow through it just like they did their own.

[phred]

Children shouldn't be a retirement plan.

Children have been the retirement plan for most of Mankind's existence.  It is only since the 1950s that we started thinking each adult belongs in their own separate house with their own separate life.
Dmitri Orlov, in his "Five Stages of Collapse"  wrote persuasively that extended families all living near each other gave everyone the best chances of survival.  Optimum, I think, is to have the separate Grandma's Cottage in the back yard, or the mini-duplex like in the old TV series the Waltons.
With the government's printing presses at Full Steam Ahead, any millions saved up will soon be totally worthless once hyper-inflation arrives.
The question asked is not new.  In King Lear the conclusion was "How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is
To have a thankless child."

[Cassie]

As others suggested I would try to talk to her now about her finances. It that does not work when the time comes I would help her avail herself of government services such as low income housing, food stamps, etc.  YOur family is your responsibility not your parents and I feel bad that she may put you in that situation. She will need to learn how to frugally when she has no other options.

[phred]

I feel bad that she may put you in that situation. She will need to learn how to frugally when she has no other options.

It is not that Mom "put you in that position", it is that Mom got old.  Because you are still rational, you may think that Mom still is.

 Low-income housing for the inconvenient ?

[tipster350]

I am currently dealing with the worst case scenario with my mother. My parents made some bad financial decisions. No doubt about it. But they were loving parents and always generous with me, paid for my college education, etc. and were there as a safety net for many years if I ever needed to move in temporarily or anything of that nature.

Throughout the years and leading up to this point, no amount of talking did any good. That is usually the case when pointing out to loved ones that they could save more by being more disciplined and/or working harder. People have to come to that conclusion on their own. Now my mother is left a very old age with no options and no way to solve her own problems.

So here I am having connected my mother with all available government help but I have to tell you the safety net isn't what many think it is. I augment the assistance she gets to the point that I am able but it isn't pretty. I have mixed feelings but I have made my decisions not out of a sense of obligation but out of love.

Everyone will come to the best answers for themselves. Everyone is in different situations and have different relationships to consider. I can't say it will ever be easy to find the right balance when you are in the middle of a crisis situation.

[Cassie]

Phred: there is low income senior housing and much of it is very nice depending on where you live. Yes parents may have put themselves in this situation by not being frugal.  Some are frugal and still arrive there due to no fault of their own.  I was a social worker for a time so I am aware that services vary by state.  I think parents need to do everything they can to avoid being a burden to their kids. My parents did this & I also intend to.   

[kite]

Don't borrow trouble.   Worries about another person's future are borrowed trouble.   

[electriceagle]

Is it possible to get her to solidify the basics so that she is not up a creek when things go kablooey?

In many states, a bankrupt elderly person's home cannot be sold to satisfy non-mortgage debts. Does she own her own house? Can you keep her from burdening it with a home equity loan?

If she owns her own house with no loans against it, and has social security, she can probably live reasonably in most parts of the country. In many cases, social security income cannot be seized to cover debts or judgements; she can go creditboards and just stop paying.

An incredible number of seniors simply age away from their obligations. Its better than forcing you to take from your kids or from your retirement (and ending up on their doorstep in a number of years).

[bobmarley9993]

If it came down to it I would help out but just the absolute minimum and only if she was too old to work.   It sounds harsh but you have your own family to take care of and that is your main responsibility.  Certainly, if she is still at an age where she could work but just doesn't want to then I would not be assisting.  If she was 75 and with poor health I might top up social benefits by a small margin but even then I would make it clear that whatever assistance is provided will not be ongoing and permanent.  I wouldn't have her live with you as that can cause strain on your marriage.

[BFGirl]

I work in guardianship and sometimes we see these behaviors with the beginning of dementia.  Just something of which to be cognizant.

[Nords]

Children shouldn't be a retirement plan.

Children have been the retirement plan for most of Mankind's existence.  It is only since the 1950s that we started thinking each adult belongs in their own separate house with their own separate life.

One group of economists concluded that multi-generational households started to break up in the 1950s because Grandma & Grandpa had enough Social Security earnings to no longer have to move in with the kids.

In other words, when people had a financial choice they chose not to live in multi-generational housing.

[CarDude]

Children shouldn't be a retirement plan.

Children have been the retirement plan for most of Mankind's existence.  It is only since the 1950s that we started thinking each adult belongs in their own separate house with their own separate life.
Dmitri Orlov, in his "Five Stages of Collapse"  wrote persuasively that extended families all living near each other gave everyone the best chances of survival.  Optimum, I think, is to have the separate Grandma's Cottage in the back yard, or the mini-duplex like in the old TV series the Waltons.

Yup, and this is still the norm in a lot of other countries (even some of the rich ones!). Our corporate overlords sold us a load of poo when they convinced us that self-actualization lay in twenty sets of fridges, mowers, sofas, and television sets on each street. It's worth looking at how many immigrant communities make successful inroads by sharing expenses when first living in the US, and how quickly the lessons are forgotten once the future generations acculturate and believe that being an American means outfitting one's home like a sitcom set.

[Kaminoge]

I'm assuming she will use up this windfall and break up with boyfriend down the line then show up on my doorstep expecting us to take her in when she is too old to work (we really can't, we have two kids on one income and we make ends meet just enough for our very frugal life right now, we have no house or ability to support another person).

Obviously you know your mother and may have a reason for thinking this but based on what you've written this assumption seems like a big leap to me? Has she ever said anything that makes you think that she expects you to take her in?

I have sympathy for anyone who is dealing with this kind of situation but you seem to be borrowing trouble here. She's a grown adult who sounds like she spent a large part of her life as a single parent focused on raising her kid(s). Maybe life wasn't much fun. I can see why she might feel she deserves to live a little. She has a boyfriend (any reason you assume the relationship won't last?) from what you say she's not actually wracking up any debt.

[bobmarley9993]

Children shouldn't be a retirement plan.

Children have been the retirement plan for most of Mankind's existence.  It is only since the 1950s that we started thinking each adult belongs in their own separate house with their own separate life.
Dmitri Orlov, in his "Five Stages of Collapse"  wrote persuasively that extended families all living near each other gave everyone the best chances of survival.  Optimum, I think, is to have the separate Grandma's Cottage in the back yard, or the mini-duplex like in the old TV series the Waltons.

Yup, and this is still the norm in a lot of other countries (even some of the rich ones!). Our corporate overlords sold us a load of poo when they convinced us that self-actualization lay in twenty sets of fridges, mowers, sofas, and television sets on each street. It's worth looking at how many immigrant communities make successful inroads by sharing expenses when first living in the US, and how quickly the lessons are forgotten once the future generations acculturate and believe that being an American means outfitting one's home like a sitcom set.

That is all well and good from a high-level theoretical perspective.  I tend to agree that society in general should do this.  However it can be hard to convince your SO that this the way that things ought to be when it's not their parents.

[homeymomma]

I'm assuming she will use up this windfall and break up with boyfriend down the line then show up on my doorstep expecting us to take her in when she is too old to work (we really can't, we have two kids on one income and we make ends meet just enough for our very frugal life right now, we have no house or ability to support another person).

Obviously you know your mother and may have a reason for thinking this but based on what you've written this assumption seems like a big leap to me? Has she ever said anything that makes you think that she expects you to take her in?

I have sympathy for anyone who is dealing with this kind of situation but you seem to be borrowing trouble here. She's a grown adult who sounds like she spent a large part of her life as a single parent focused on raising her kid(s). Maybe life wasn't much fun. I can see why she might feel she deserves to live a little. She has a boyfriend (any reason you assume the relationship won't last?) from what you say she's not actually wracking up any debt.

She hasn't mentioned it recently, since moving in with boyfriend. However, her mother (and the generation before that as well) is currently 95 and has lost all memory, she lives in a nursing home in the Midwest to the tune of 7,000 per month, plus a caretaker. My moms reaction to this is not to save but instead to joke that if she gets like that I'm supposed to take a gun and shoot her. Some may laugh but since she has incredibly long-lived genes and is in excellent health now at 60, there's absolutely the chance she will live into her 90s. My grandmother has two rental properties, two pensions, and half of my gandfathers social security paying her bills. My mom will have nothing like that. It's scary!

[CarDude]

Children shouldn't be a retirement plan.

Children have been the retirement plan for most of Mankind's existence.  It is only since the 1950s that we started thinking each adult belongs in their own separate house with their own separate life.
Dmitri Orlov, in his "Five Stages of Collapse"  wrote persuasively that extended families all living near each other gave everyone the best chances of survival.  Optimum, I think, is to have the separate Grandma's Cottage in the back yard, or the mini-duplex like in the old TV series the Waltons.

Yup, and this is still the norm in a lot of other countries (even some of the rich ones!). Our corporate overlords sold us a load of poo when they convinced us that self-actualization lay in twenty sets of fridges, mowers, sofas, and television sets on each street. It's worth looking at how many immigrant communities make successful inroads by sharing expenses when first living in the US, and how quickly the lessons are forgotten once the future generations acculturate and believe that being an American means outfitting one's home like a sitcom set.

That is all well and good from a high-level theoretical perspective.  I tend to agree that society in general should do this.  However it can be hard to convince your SO that this the way that things ought to be when it's not their parents.

Oh, I agree completely. I think it's just like any other societal issue where we've been taught to strive against our own interests. Credit cards are another example...it took a few decades, but now the average person thinks carrying thousands in debt for furniture, computers, clothing, etc, is normal, because it's what surrounds us.

[Daleth]

She hasn't mentioned it recently, since moving in with boyfriend. However, her mother (and the generation before that as well) is currently 95 and has lost all memory, she lives in a nursing home in the Midwest to the tune of 7,000 per month, plus a caretaker. My moms reaction to this is not to save but instead to joke that if she gets like that I'm supposed to take a gun and shoot her. Some may laugh but since she has incredibly long-lived genes and is in excellent health now at 60, there's absolutely the chance she will live into her 90s. My grandmother has two rental properties, two pensions, and half of my gandfathers social security paying her bills. My mom will have nothing like that. It's scary!

Who do you expect will inherit your grandmother's rental properties? Also, how long was your mom married? If she was married for at least ten years, she has rights in her ex's social security, so if her ex's gives her more money a month she can opt to take that instead of just taking her own social security.

[homeymomma]

She hasn't mentioned it recently, since moving in with boyfriend. However, her mother (and the generation before that as well) is currently 95 and has lost all memory, she lives in a nursing home in the Midwest to the tune of 7,000 per month, plus a caretaker. My moms reaction to this is not to save but instead to joke that if she gets like that I'm supposed to take a gun and shoot her. Some may laugh but since she has incredibly long-lived genes and is in excellent health now at 60, there's absolutely the chance she will live into her 90s. My grandmother has two rental properties, two pensions, and half of my gandfathers social security paying her bills. My mom will have nothing like that. It's scary!

Who do you expect will inherit your grandmother's rental properties? Also, how long was your mom married? If she was married for at least ten years, she has rights in her ex's social security, so if her ex's gives her more money a month she can opt to take that instead of just taking her own social security.

That's a great point about the social security. My mom and dad divorced messily over financial issues, and ended up declaring bankruptcy (all my dad's fault) and I doubt he would get more SS than her, if it's based on earnings. How would I determine that? I know she wondered about it herself, but she's only 61 so could she even get it yet? (He is 70 and lives entirely on SS)

About the rentals, they've already been passed to my uncle. The income goes to my grandmother though. My mom and her sister each will get half of a house, which my mom will sell out her half of when my grandmother dies.

[phred]

Our corporate overlords sold us a load of poo when they convinced us that self-actualization lay in twenty sets of fridges, mowers, sofas, and television sets on each street.

I believe Maslow was working on the next pyramid when he retired.  Many wrongly believe self-actualization means to enhance the self.  It does not.  What it really means is that you're ready to leave the temple and go out into the world to help others.  More or less in his words, one purpose of self-actualization is:
"Problem-centering: Self-actualized individuals are concerned with solving problems outside of themselves, including helping others and finding solutions to problems in the external world. These people are often motivated by a sense of personal responsibility and ethics."

[Daleth]

That's a great point about the social security. My mom and dad divorced messily over financial issues, and ended up declaring bankruptcy (all my dad's fault) and I doubt he would get more SS than her, if it's based on earnings. How would I determine that? I know she wondered about it herself, but she's only 61 so could she even get it yet? (He is 70 and lives entirely on SS)

Encourage her to not touch social security until she absolutely has to. The longer you wait, the more you get, no matter whose SS you're getting (ex's or your own).

I'm guessing a call to the social security office would be the first step in figuring out how much she can get from hers and from the ex's. They may be able to say something along the lines of "She'd get $x/month if she used hers and started at Y age, or $1.5x if she used hers but didn't start until age Y plus 3 years," etc.

[mm1970]

Children shouldn't be a retirement plan.

Children have been the retirement plan for most of Mankind's existence.  It is only since the 1950s that we started thinking each adult belongs in their own separate house with their own separate life.
Dmitri Orlov, in his "Five Stages of Collapse"  wrote persuasively that extended families all living near each other gave everyone the best chances of survival.  Optimum, I think, is to have the separate Grandma's Cottage in the back yard, or the mini-duplex like in the old TV series the Waltons.

Yup, and this is still the norm in a lot of other countries (even some of the rich ones!). Our corporate overlords sold us a load of poo when they convinced us that self-actualization lay in twenty sets of fridges, mowers, sofas, and television sets on each street. It's worth looking at how many immigrant communities make successful inroads by sharing expenses when first living in the US, and how quickly the lessons are forgotten once the future generations acculturate and believe that being an American means outfitting one's home like a sitcom set.

That is all well and good from a high-level theoretical perspective.  I tend to agree that society in general should do this.  However it can be hard to convince your SO that this the way that things ought to be when it's not their parents.

Oh, I agree completely. I think it's just like any other societal issue where we've been taught to strive against our own interests. Credit cards are another example...it took a few decades, but now the average person thinks carrying thousands in debt for furniture, computers, clothing, etc, is normal, because it's what surrounds us.

It fascinates me from an independence/ dependence standpoint also.  I was reading somewhere (a book?) that in areas where intergenerational living is common, it is expected that Grandma and Grandpa will help with the younger family members (it may have been The Blue Zones).  The younger working generation get "free" child care, the children develop close relationships with grandparents and great grandparents, and the older generation gets a "reason for living" and they are useful.  It's something they linked to longevity in the book.

My experience is that a LOT of grandparents today want nothing to do with that.  They are fine with seeing the babies but don't want to babysit.  "Your parents are coming - great!  Date night!"  Um no, that's not how it works.  It's an interesting topic - we don't live near family but some of our siblings do - they have much more interlocked lives than we do, which is both good and bad.

[eman resu]

Only you know, OP, if support is obligatory.  We can't let you off any hook.  We can't force your toes to any line. Based on the bits and pieces of life you and your mom have shared, the obligation exists or it doesn't. 

I have an opposite problem, in a way.  My folks have gotten better and better with their money over time. Never made much, though.  Labored like dogs and gave us kids a great step up into our own lives.  They were still working full time at 69 and 67, but dad had a stroke in December.  Pretty severe physical and mental damage.  He's a stubborn bastard and is already on his way to regaining some semblance of his life, but is done working for $$$. 

I've been half-assedly nudging him to retire or at least cut back for a few years, to go do some of the other things he wanted.  I never put in a real effort, and now he'll never have the opportunity.  I had an obligation there, I think, and failed to fulfill it. 

I guess my only advice would be to consider the "better" decisions you would make were you in your mom's skin... and then really really agonize over if they are objectively better or simply ones you'd prefer for one reason or another before deciding to intervene or back off.  If I had done that I might have intervened with more gumption in my case.   Good luck and best wishes!

 

[homeymomma]

Children shouldn't be a retirement plan.

Children have been the retirement plan for most of Mankind's existence.  It is only since the 1950s that we started thinking each adult belongs in their own separate house with their own separate life.
Dmitri Orlov, in his "Five Stages of Collapse"  wrote persuasively that extended families all living near each other gave everyone the best chances of survival.  Optimum, I think, is to have the separate Grandma's Cottage in the back yard, or the mini-duplex like in the old TV series the Waltons.

Yup, and this is still the norm in a lot of other countries (even some of the rich ones!). Our corporate overlords sold us a load of poo when they convinced us that self-actualization lay in twenty sets of fridges, mowers, sofas, and television sets on each street. It's worth looking at how many immigrant communities make successful inroads by sharing expenses when first living in the US, and how quickly the lessons are forgotten once the future generations acculturate and believe that being an American means outfitting one's home like a sitcom set.

That is all well and good from a high-level theoretical perspective.  I tend to agree that society in general should do this.  However it can be hard to convince your SO that this the way that things ought to be when it's not their parents.

Oh, I agree completely. I think it's just like any other societal issue where we've been taught to strive against our own interests. Credit cards are another example...it took a few decades, but now the average person thinks carrying thousands in debt for furniture, computers, clothing, etc, is normal, because it's what surrounds us.

It fascinates me from an independence/ dependence standpoint also.  I was reading somewhere (a book?) that in areas where intergenerational living is common, it is expected that Grandma and Grandpa will help with the younger family members (it may have been The Blue Zones).  The younger working generation get "free" child care, the children develop close relationships with grandparents and great grandparents, and the older generation gets a "reason for living" and they are useful.  It's something they linked to longevity in the book.

My experience is that a LOT of grandparents today want nothing to do with that.  They are fine with seeing the babies but don't want to babysit.  "Your parents are coming - great!  Date night!"  Um no, that's not how it works.  It's an interesting topic - we don't live near family but some of our siblings do - they have much more interlocked lives than we do, which is both good and bad.

This is another part of the puzzle for us. I've asked her to help with my toddler multiple times while I am currently dealing with a difficult second pregnancy. She has declined and told us to pay someone, even though she is literally doing nothing right now so it wouldn't be hard for her to come. She also does not help with my child at all when she visits, so I know from experience "putting her up" means giving her room and board with nothing in return.
As an only child it's hard to think of the realities either way. But the fact that we will potentially have to pay for long term care for her is terrifying. I mean, giving someone an extra room is one thing, paying for nursing home care is a much bigger issue.

[phred]

I understand money is tight.  How much would it cost to purchase long-term care insurance on her behalf?

[bobmarley9993]

homeymomma,

Regarding paying for your mothers long term care, I don't think you are going to have to pay for this.  I don't know what country you live in but I would look into means-testing for seniors and how it affects government subsidization of nursing homes.   Basically, the way I understand it, if your mother was to exhaust all of her financial assets and did not have sufficient resources to pay for a nursing home the government would step in if it was required.   You can google it, or perhaps someone on the board could step in with more details.   So it would just be a question of whether your mother was happy with her accommodations and she might want you to top her up for a nicer place but that is a much tougher argument for her to make than being on the street.   In short, I don't think this is going to fall on you, nor should it.

[bobmarley9993]

Only you know, OP, if support is obligatory.  We can't let you off any hook.  We can't force your toes to any line. Based on the bits and pieces of life you and your mom have shared, the obligation exists or it doesn't. 

I have an opposite problem, in a way.  My folks have gotten better and better with their money over time. Never made much, though.  Labored like dogs and gave us kids a great step up into our own lives.  They were still working full time at 69 and 67, but dad had a stroke in December.  Pretty severe physical and mental damage.  He's a stubborn bastard and is already on his way to regaining some semblance of his life, but is done working for $$$. 

I've been half-assedly nudging him to retire or at least cut back for a few years, to go do some of the other things he wanted.  I never put in a real effort, and now he'll never have the opportunity.  I had an obligation there, I think, and failed to fulfill it. 

I guess my only advice would be to consider the "better" decisions you would make were you in your mom's skin... and then really really agonize over if they are objectively better or simply ones you'd prefer for one reason or another before deciding to intervene or back off.  If I had done that I might have intervened with more gumption in my case.   Good luck and best wishes!

 

I guess we are looking at this from different perspectives, which is good.   However, this is how I see the situation:

- Her mother did not have to fund her parents retirement.
- Her mother may not fund her own retirement or at least not all of it.
- It falls on the OP to fund both her own retirement and her parents retirement.

To me, having seen similar situations, that is a great injustice and about the worst thing you could do to your kid.  Not to be melodramatic but I have seen how it can affect people and it does bother me.  If it as an established tradition that your family looks after the parents that might be one thing but it wasn't the case here.   It is far more important that you don't obstruct your children's future than enjoying your own retirement.   Obviously you should strive to do both but the priority is your children.

In your parents case I think you were right and there was probably room to take it easy and enjoy life a little more.  I guess we are just looking at 2 different extremes.

[phred]

Your Mom has made such a lifestyle change that I'm wondering if she has suffered a stroke or some other brain trauma?

Someone wrote about nursing homes.  Those are generally such terrible places that people die sooner because of the near-total loss of autonomy

Someone else wrote about parents obstructing their childrens' future.  That is generally anti-MMM speak for "can't pile up all the stuff I want when I want it".  Blah!

[bobmarley9993]

Someone else wrote about parents obstructing their childrens' future.  That is generally anti-MMM speak for "can't pile up all the stuff I want when I want it".  Blah!

I assume you are talking about what I wrote.  That is not really an argument you just threw out, just a bunch of words strung together.   Why is it an MMM principle that you spend both everything you make plus money your children make?

[phred]

because sometimes being fully human means you help others rather than stocking up for your next yard sale

[bobmarley9993]

Phred,

What are you talking about?  You didn't in anyway answer my question.  Why is it okay for you to spend more money than you bring in and then have your children spend for you as well?  The mom, in this case, basically is spending what she made plus money that her parent saved and now money that her daughter will make.  If you want to look at it from a consumer perspective, the mom is the ultimate consumer.   She is the one chasing lavish spending and asking the children to pay for it.  It is the children who are being forced to cut back and now put in a position of having no retirement of their own (if they had to pay for her nursing home care).