Sometimes it is nice to get a 'leg-up'. For example, my parents bought me my first car (an old banger). Then I was able to get a better job further afield (no public transport where I used to live). I could earn more money, learn to manage my own expenses, became more responsible for myself and my own choices (e.g. choosing whether to drink or to drive). I learned to save the money I had earned to get a better car, and saved for my house.
If my parents had not bought me the car, I couldn't have got the new job and so would probably still be saving up for a car, living at home, mostly dependant on my parents.
Finally, just because I didn't 'earn' my car doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it. I never expected to be given the gift, and I think I appreciated it more because I knew I couldn't have earned it at that point.
Exactly.
As I've said several times, my kids will still have to work.
They will not have have to worry about buying a home, which is a positive thing.
However, they will have to keep the home, decorate, repair etc when required, move perhaps etc.
Their income can then be invested into further property, businesses, stocks and shares or whatever they wish. It will give them security and enable them to live life to the full.
Working hard for 30-40 years to pay off a home is a pretty S*** existence. I hesitate to even say this but it's probably the only choice for some.
This gives them a home and the opportunities to do as they wish. It makes them MORE responsible and makes them grateful for what they have which is more than most three times their ages!
Any businessman as Steve claims to be would see the logic of this. He is therefore, no businessman, and no man.
That is my point.
Why should my kids do that if I can do it for them?
They can then turn their attention elsewhere - further property, business etc. They won't have to put off having a family for years because of money worries etc. (That was what happened to my wife and I).
It is therefore, a good thing to do.
Ah, so you're saying if a rich parent can eliminate that 30-40 years for their kid they should. Behind you all the way on that, but many parents can't.
Sometimes it is nice to get a 'leg-up'. For example, my parents bought me my first car (an old banger). Then I was able to get a better job further afield (no public transport where I used to live). I could earn more money, learn to manage my own expenses, became more responsible for myself and my own choices (e.g. choosing whether to drink or to drive). I learned to save the money I had earned to get a better car, and saved for my house.
If my parents had not bought me the car, I couldn't have got the new job and so would probably still be saving up for a car, living at home, mostly dependant on my parents.
Finally, just because I didn't 'earn' my car doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it. I never expected to be given the gift, and I think I appreciated it more because I knew I couldn't have earned it at that point.
Exactly.
As I've said several times, my kids will still have to work.
They will not have have to worry about buying a home, which is a positive thing.
However, they will have to keep the home, decorate, repair etc when required, move perhaps etc.
Their income can then be invested into further property, businesses, stocks and shares or whatever they wish. It will give them security and enable them to live life to the full.
Working hard for 30-40 years to pay off a home is a pretty S*** existence. I hesitate to even say this but it's probably the only choice for some.
This gives them a home and the opportunities to do as they wish. It makes them MORE responsible and makes them grateful for what they have which is more than most three times their ages!
Any businessman as Steve claims to be would see the logic of this. He is therefore, no businessman, and no man.
That is my point.
Why should my kids do that if I can do it for them?
They can then turn their attention elsewhere - further property, business etc. They won't have to put off having a family for years because of money worries etc. (That was what happened to my wife and I).
It is therefore, a good thing to do.
Ah, so you're saying if a rich parent can eliminate that 30-40 years for their kid they should. Behind you all the way on that, but many parents can't.
I realise that. However, I believe that one generation of a family must work for the future of the family. For example, a family on welfare benefits now will likely be a family in the same position in 50 to 100 years, or not much better.
"Heaven helps those that help themselves" - Samuel Smiles "Self Help" 1859.
In other words, one must make their own way in life an stop looking to the sky for a magic solution.
Sometimes it is nice to get a 'leg-up'. For example, my parents bought me my first car (an old banger). Then I was able to get a better job further afield (no public transport where I used to live). I could earn more money, learn to manage my own expenses, became more responsible for myself and my own choices (e.g. choosing whether to drink or to drive). I learned to save the money I had earned to get a better car, and saved for my house.
If my parents had not bought me the car, I couldn't have got the new job and so would probably still be saving up for a car, living at home, mostly dependant on my parents.
Finally, just because I didn't 'earn' my car doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it. I never expected to be given the gift, and I think I appreciated it more because I knew I couldn't have earned it at that point.
Exactly.
As I've said several times, my kids will still have to work.
They will not have have to worry about buying a home, which is a positive thing.
However, they will have to keep the home, decorate, repair etc when required, move perhaps etc.
Their income can then be invested into further property, businesses, stocks and shares or whatever they wish. It will give them security and enable them to live life to the full.
Working hard for 30-40 years to pay off a home is a pretty S*** existence. I hesitate to even say this but it's probably the only choice for some.
This gives them a home and the opportunities to do as they wish. It makes them MORE responsible and makes them grateful for what they have which is more than most three times their ages!
Any businessman as Steve claims to be would see the logic of this. He is therefore, no businessman, and no man.
That is my point.
Why should my kids do that if I can do it for them?
They can then turn their attention elsewhere - further property, business etc. They won't have to put off having a family for years because of money worries etc. (That was what happened to my wife and I).
It is therefore, a good thing to do.
Ah, so you're saying if a rich parent can eliminate that 30-40 years for their kid they should. Behind you all the way on that, but many parents can't.
I realise that. However, I believe that one generation of a family must work for the future of the family. For example, a family on welfare benefits now will likely be a family in the same position in 50 to 100 years, or not much better.
"Heaven helps those that help themselves" - Samuel Smiles "Self Help" 1859.
In other words, one must make their own way in life an stop looking to the sky for a magic solution.
Yes, true. *Imagine this Scenario* Joe Blogg's family can make their own way in life, with enough money but without thousands left over, and then Joe Bloggs Jr. can start on his own when he's ready without a big boost from dad, and he can be a tramp or he can make his own money. What's wrong with that scenario, as long as Joe Bloggs Jr. has the chance to make his own money?
Sometimes it is nice to get a 'leg-up'. For example, my parents bought me my first car (an old banger). Then I was able to get a better job further afield (no public transport where I used to live). I could earn more money, learn to manage my own expenses, became more responsible for myself and my own choices (e.g. choosing whether to drink or to drive). I learned to save the money I had earned to get a better car, and saved for my house.
If my parents had not bought me the car, I couldn't have got the new job and so would probably still be saving up for a car, living at home, mostly dependant on my parents.
Finally, just because I didn't 'earn' my car doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it. I never expected to be given the gift, and I think I appreciated it more because I knew I couldn't have earned it at that point.
Exactly.
As I've said several times, my kids will still have to work.
They will not have have to worry about buying a home, which is a positive thing.
However, they will have to keep the home, decorate, repair etc when required, move perhaps etc.
Their income can then be invested into further property, businesses, stocks and shares or whatever they wish. It will give them security and enable them to live life to the full.
Working hard for 30-40 years to pay off a home is a pretty S*** existence. I hesitate to even say this but it's probably the only choice for some.
This gives them a home and the opportunities to do as they wish. It makes them MORE responsible and makes them grateful for what they have which is more than most three times their ages!
Any businessman as Steve claims to be would see the logic of this. He is therefore, no businessman, and no man.
That is my point.
Why should my kids do that if I can do it for them?
They can then turn their attention elsewhere - further property, business etc. They won't have to put off having a family for years because of money worries etc. (That was what happened to my wife and I).
It is therefore, a good thing to do.
Ah, so you're saying if a rich parent can eliminate that 30-40 years for their kid they should. Behind you all the way on that, but many parents can't.
Many parents can't provide a stable home for their kids. Are you saying that those of us who can provide a stable home shouldn't?
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
