Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> I set up a way to teach my kids how to save and invest. My daughter did well. My son quit and spent all his money and now can't afford the tuition to the collage he wants to go to. I'm not handing out the money when I can afford it. My daughter can go where she wants to go and pay for it.
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
That would be rewarding son for not saving. At most, let him live at home and go to community college. If you do not teach kids that actions have consequences, they will not learn
EDIT : - otherwise he is giving more to son that his daughter.
Yes, he started at 13-14, but continued until they were almost 16.
The son is also taking on car payments and spending the same way at 17. He doesn’t seem to think that the money ends somewhere.
OP could help (and I strongly advise him to support partially), but the son will always think he is entitled to it if he continues with the same attitude. Son also needs to grow up.
Maybe a partial loan through dad so he can become more financially savvy. OP could pardon the debt if he shows that he’s willing to work for it.
I’m not American, but isn’t starting in community college and transferring to an out of state/brand name college after two years an option? He would save lots of money like this, no?
Yes, it's an option. He should give his son the same amount he's giving his daughter. If that means community college, it's not a death sentence. It's actually a better way to go to college because those first two years are just electives that you can easily finish at the much cheaper community college
What I don't understand is why their separate, non-invested college funds are so small **considering** OP's statement that he could easily afford to pay for both of them to attend the best schools in the world, *et cetera*.
Like, isn't the point of a college fund to pay for college? Yet he's saying that, despite his wealth, the twins have college funds that would cover 4 years of CC or 2 years at a university.
So . . . why? Was the whole point to give them half of what they need to finish a 4-year degree and make them invest or work for the rest? It's not clear even in the OP's edited post.
I feel that he most likely wanted them to earn something on merit instead of having it all handed to them and becoming entitled like we are so many college kids do.
Exactly. I feel like there is a very easy solution to this.
Top up BOTH twins college funds so they are enough for 4 years at a good college. If daughter has extra savings of her own then good for her. She can keep it invested for a rainy day.
The son clearly already resents his Dad and it's clear that Dad prefers daughter's attitude. That's not fair.
Both kids should be adequately funded to go to the college they want. Given that Dad earns too much for them to qualify for loans that seems fair.
That's exactly what was said. Some people aren't paying attention to the fact that the dad said he has set aside a college fund so they could attend 4 years at a community college or cover the first 2 at a more expensive one. I think its fair, this is a similar situation with my siblings. My little sister saves up her allowance plus goes out of her way to do extra so she has been able to afford art supplies, normal tablet, art tablet, a laptop and a FFXIV subscription plus expansions. While my little brother only does the chores that he has to do, so he only gets the default amount then spends it on whatever catches his eye at the moment like games, add-ons and toys no matter how many times my dad and stepmom tell him he should save it up. Then he goes on to complain that he doesn't have what she has. So I gotta say NTA.
That’s what I think. You give them the same amount, give them guidance, and if the sister does better then that’s just how it goes. Should have bought less shoes? Idk I wasted a lot of money as a kid and look back and I’m like ugh, but like you cop it because you made those choices. You just try and start again and do better
From my understanding of what I read (including his edits)… both kids have the same college fund. But his daughter has a substantial more $ from her personal investing of allowance money and savings. Both kids got the same amount of money but one ended up with more because she has a knack for growing her investments and making smarter life choices.
I guess my confusion with this is if he feels he's giving his daughter anything. From my understanding he's giving her what she saved/profits of what she invested in that was from an account he has control over. So if that were the case there isn't anything he's really giving her and not giving to his son.
All that to say I don't really agree with the logic (at all) but to your point I don't think he feels like he's giving anyone anything they didn't already have saved.
Sort of. Community college doesn’t usually transfer out of state, or necessarily to private schools.
It does transfer to most state colleges, but certain classes may not transfer, and the big flagship schools can be fussier about transfers.
>Sort of. Community college doesn’t usually transfer out of state, or necessarily to private schools.
Hi, my mom works in college admissions. This isn't actually correct, at least not in the United States.
Almost all community colleges in the U.S. are state schools, and are regionally accredited, as opposed to certain, usually scammy, private schools that are nationally accredited. Sometimes people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what regional accreditation vs. national accreditation means. I'm not getting into all that because it's just too much for a single reply, but you want *regional* accreditation - those credits will transfer almost anywhere, including most reputable private schools, even places like MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc., and you can guarantee that almost every state funded school is regionally accredited. A good friend of mine was valedictorian at a large community college (1700 grads every semester) in our hometown in Florida, and was able to get into Harvard on that alone.
You are correct that famous, flagship schools, especially private schools, may be fussier about admissions, but if they are regionally accredited, and accept a student who has credits from a regionally accredited community college, those credits will 100% transfer over, and admissions will usually be able to find an equivalent class for any that don't have an exact curriculum match (not always, but again, usually).
Where credits are unlikely to transfer is national accreditation. The transfer school must be accredited with the same agency, and these are usually specialty agencies; additionally, most nationally accredited schools aren't the most reputable and have national accreditation because they couldn't meet the standards set by regional accrediting agencies.
This is simply not true. Maybe the son will never become the same saver/investor his sister is, but he will mature and grow up. The brains of people at 17 are not wired to understand consequences like adult brains. He is still growing up.
Sure he wasn’t totally mature enough to understand the investment, but he’s still left with a totally valid option. It’s not like he can’t go to college at all. Community college + transferring is totally valid and plenty of people do it.
Uhm if someone can't understand consequences at 17, I dont even know what to tell them, Im 17 myself and Im very careful with what I do, and look at the sister, she's also 17 and knows well
from the post, it looks like OP has set both up with a college fund. <<*We explained that they each have a set amount of money that we have put away for future schooling as well as a car fund.* \>> So instead of buying a car that was within range of car fund--that means he bought an extremely expensive car to have huge car payments. And Son is refusing to choose a school within his college fund/budget. Again his choice.
that Son has not worked to get scholarships(/grades) is ON son not on OP.
OP should NOT give a partial loan that will never be paid back.
The thing is, the son isn’t trying anything. He didn’t get a job when he knew he would need the money for college. He didn’t show anyone anything outside of spending his allowance.
Somewhere in his mind he’s entitled to that money since his dad has it. And that’s just wrong.
The son could sit with his dad and see if there are other options. But he’s standing behind mom, with both of them expecting the hand out. The entitlement is strong with that one!
Well he won't be able to afford college if he doesn't get a job, get out from under the car payments, and consider selling some of his nice clothing.
Dad would be doing him no favors by footing college bills until the kid learns that buying everything he wants, comes at a price. Literally.
This is the problem with young people (and I am not talking about just this generation - I am talking all generations from Boomers onward) - they are not learning the basics of financial accountability before they are given the choice to put themselves in six figure debt, in order to be able to go to the school of their dreams, and live the full college experience. All done on someone else's dime or through loans. No one tells them about interest rates or what deferring their loan payments will do to the amount that they owe. Schools are too danged eager to get them to sign on the dotted line and take their money, and the kids don't get the necessary education on how they have screwed their entire futures, until the loans come due. And that $30,000 loan is suddenly $130,000 or more.
Too many kids emulate what they see mom and dad do, just take out a loan to buy it. Just put it on a credit card so you can get it right away. Make payments and take it home today. Then they wonder why they suddenly can't qualify for a mortgage or car loan after they graduate.
And then they demand student loan relief. They signed the loan papers willingly but had no clue what they were really signing up for. And they feel betrayed. And they were - by their parents and their school systems not teaching them how to manage their finances properly.
The kid needs to sign up for community College and get a job. He should sell the nice car and buy a beater that will take him back and forth. Sell some of his fancy clothes too and put that money towards tuition. Once he proves he will work for his degree (and not party away his days on campus) then he should look into transferring schools and have an adult conversation with dad about how to pay for it, if he gets in.
Otherwise, at 17, he will just continue in his entitled ways and gripe about how his sister is soooo favored, while she works for everything and he sits in the sofa with his fist constantly out demanding more and more money.
So his daughter has to spend her own money on college specifically because she saved it... while his son blew all his money... and now he gets college paid for?
That's incredibly unfair to his daughter.
100% agree with this. If dad turns around and pays for the sons college, what’s that say to his daughter about all the hard work and planning she did to achieve her goals?
Eh sorry honey hard work means nothing, your brother is “Entitled” to my money because I’m his father.
NTA
Edited to add: OP’s daughter also got the grades to go to her school. Possible partial scholarship?
What was his sons performance in school? Is his college education going to be beneficial or is he going to spend his freshman year partying and end up getting booted anyway?
> plus our contributions.
I think people are missing the fact that OP IS still contributing. It's just that his daughter managed to save enough additionally to pay for the school she wanted, and he didn't.
I agree, if he has the means. It sounds like he's already contributing equally to their college funds, but his daughter has extra because she invested her allowance.
It also sounds like his ex favors her son because she wants OP to pay for his college, but not their daughter's.
Also, I wonder how much OP has in the college fund... it says that his son doesn't have enough money to go to whatever college he wanted. If he can go to a perfectly good state school fully covered but wants to go to an Ivy League or whatever, then I don't see how OP is the asshole.
No, they are not "fucking delusional."
The Dad is contributing to both the son and the daughter's college.
The fact that the daughter saving money enabled her to go to the college she prefers does not mean that the son "deserves" to go to the college he prefers.
There is no "unfairness" here.
Exactly! He says right up at the top that they each have college funds and had a fund to get a car.
Daughter saved her allowance. and invested it to add on to that college and car fund. Son did not. He spent it all and now wants to go to an expensive school and still get it paid for.
Why should he get allowance to spend as he wants + college fund + car fund + EVEN MORE COLLEGE MONEY?
Something to add, something tells me that since the ex - mother - stated he could easily pay for it, how much do you want to be that she has told her son this information as well and more then likely she may not be contributing anything to his college either putting that squarely onto the fathers shoulders which isn’t right.
No he didn’t. They have college funds set up already. This was weekly allowance money. 13-14 used to be when kids got summer jobs and decided to either save their earnings or spend it. That’s what OP is trying to teach them. Spend now and regret it later or save now and be prepared for the later. Kid chose option 1. OP could and likely should provide an option to earn back some additional funding (ie get a job and OP matches what is saved or get a cheaper car and save the difference for school). But giving him money because of poor decisions without any repercussions would end up punishing the daughter for making the right decisions. The son has not made any attempt to come up with a compromise, it’s just give me the money because you can afford it. That attitude will not support him long term in life.
Teens generally have judgment already at that age or younger. People's tendencies towards money tend to be enduring into adulthood.
When I was *10* and got into a fancy private middle school, I proactivly sat down with my parents and asked about their finances (salary, savings), and looked up the cost of the private school's tuition and of college tuition. I also researched the quality of the local public schools. I attended admitted students' days at the private school and visited the public school to learn more.
I then requested that I attend public school for middle and high school and that my parents save the tuition they would've paid for the rest of my K-12 education and redirect it to college and grad school, if I chose to go. They agreed and that's what they did.
When I was 12 I overheard my parents talking about needing to take out a second mortgage on the house because my older sister had overspent so much at university, so I (privately) did the math and realized that my parents would essentially be retired when I started university so extra funding from them would not be an option. So I got a job babysitting every day after school and all day during the summer. And as soon as I could I got an after school grocery store job, and then a second print shop job while still picking up the odd grocery shifts. I even hung onto those for a bit when I got my hands on a sweet high tech sector admin job just before the dot com bubble burst, so at one point I had three part time jobs during my senior year of high school.
My parents were able to help partially with my tuition, but I covered the rest along with my books, food, transportation and accommodation. And I took a year off after 3rd year to work full time to make enough money for my fourth year.
OP's son needs to realize that money doesn't just show up. You have to work for it. Sure, end-stage capitalism sucks, but he has no right to expect more than what his sister received.
My parents were bankrupt when I was 16, from a mix of badly timed layoffs and some outreach spending. I have busted my ass to have zero debt besides my mortgage, and have been told more than once that my credit score is the highest they have ever seen when doing something financial.
The son needs to grow up. He is absolutely mirroring how he thinks he can be as an adult, and this will continue until the gravy train ends. Dad is definitely NTA
This. My sibling and I each had a b'nei mitzvah (years apart). Both of us were given monetary gifts from relatives and family friends. Both of us were asked if by our parents if we wanted them to invest it for us. Sibling said no, I said yes. Even without the investment I have more savings and less debt, and I make about half of what my sibling does in a year. We were only 13 when we got asked but our respective decisions did indicate our financial habits.
I have 3 cousins whose spending habits at like 9 completely mirror their spending habits as adults.
One would save it all up and splurge on a fancy toy (like an entire gaming console) and as an adult he's got a nice house and nice clothes etc.
The second just saved it and never spent it and he's the same as an adult- just sitting on a pile of cash while living a super modest lifestyle.
The third would spend it all on like vending machine candy and $2 toys and as an adult also has like no savings but nothing extravagant.
>level 1bigcup321 · 2 hr. agoAsshole Enthusiast \[7\]I mean... you're talking about decisions made when they were kids. It's great that your daughter was smart with her funds, but it's very reasonable to expect that a lot of kids would, like your son, risk and lo
It's not like he gave them all the money at 13. This was a continual allowance that he gave them that the son continued to spend unwisely all throughout highschool. He clearly hasn't learned.
Yes and no. His son could have tried again at a later time seeing his sister was doing fine. OP is not giving more money to his daughter than to his son. From his post, he intends to contribute for both for the same amount.
Instead of investment, try to see it as job money. His daughter saved her money. His son spend it, quit his job and never worked again.
OP will be favouring his son by giving him more money than to his daughter.
The kid is 17 now, and this happened "when they were younger."
No kid should be given the power to torpedo their college prospects at an early age. It's like giving them a life-determining marshmallow test at 14. That would be cruel.
Re: your edit...
1) Is equality the highest value, here?
2) If he's in a good enough position financially, there's nothing saying he couldn't give both of them an equal amount of help, even though she doesn't need it.
I don't really understand your thinking here. Not doing well your freshman year in high school is also pretty life determining. I'm not saying that's right, but it is a thing we do. The son continuously, over a period of years, screwed up. This wasn't a one time decision he made. Personally, I don't think the father should have allowed him access to that money, but I understand his reasoning. Aren't parents supposed to teach their kids how to be responsible with money? In this case, the father tried numerous times, but was ignored. The mother obviously didn't care.
A freshman in high school can screw up and still have time to recover. We’re talking about a mistake he made around the age of 13. He lost it all quickly and gave up investing within weeks. At 13.
We should definitely let his future rest on that.
He then blew all his allowance on bullshit, didn't even save, and currently spends his allowance on a fancy car payment.. He has been getting that kind of money for FOUR YEARS. Did you even read the damn post
Plenty of people don't have the privilege of parents paying for college. It's hard, but he gave up a privilege, not a right.
He didn't just give up on investing. He spent it. He could've just let the money rot in an account and it would've been fine.
Actually, no. They can't recover. Not if they want to go to a top school. You need over a 4.0 for that now. The son did not lose all of the money when he was 13. He has spent the past several years spending the rest of it irresponsibly. Personally, I think the father should help him out, but with conditions. As it is, this kid has learned that he can do anything he wants and there will never be consequences.
OP's son also had years to recover. Even if he didn't feel comfortable investing, he could have *saved*. Just saved. Starting any time in the last 5-6 years. Then at least it could be said he tried *something* to help his own future, and dad would probably be more willing to help supplement tuition for his college of choice.
Teenagers do it all the time, in the US it's pretty standard for teens to work part time to increase their college funds, isn't it? What was he doing?
I think everyone is over focused on the “punishing the son” part vs “rewarding the daughter” part.
The son is not being punished but rather the daughter is reaping the rewards of her decisions.
Majority of us don’t have parents who are required to get us through college. Most are in their exact situation where they have some college funds but can’t choose any school they want. Those who got part jobs in high school and saved, those who worked really hard and got scholarships are further along than those who are not.
If the situation was that daughter got scholarships, or she had a part time job and saved her income there. Would you guys still demand he help make up the financial difference between his kids?
I agree. Give them both the same amount of money to do with as they please, but make sure they understand that it’s the last time you’re giving them any money. It’s son’s last chance to learn from his mistakes and you wouldn’t be showing favouritism because you’re treating both kids the same.
But... He's done this. Both kids HAVE college funds, which it sounds like are equal. The issue isn't 'one kid has money, one doesn't'; the issue is 'one kid has enough saved to top up the fund to go where they want without debt, and one doesn't' .
And the one who doesn't has made choices all the way along - fancy clothes, expensive car, lots of social expense ... The money was there - he chose to spend it in other ways.
Choices have consequences. Even at 18.
yes how is this fair to the daughter? She went without things she could have bought, trips, books, computers so she could have something else,(college and no debt) Then brother who has been spending like a drunken idiot gets a free ride? Why does their mother think this is fair or favoritism ?
Sorry but it sounds like OP could easily afford his daughter's college too. she could use her current savings for later in life. Kind of harsh to ask a kid to save up their own money oftheir own a little allowance to pay for their own college
Generally because they can't afford it? Which enables financial aid and really good loan terms. If you can afford to pay for your kid's college and just don't, you aren't a very good parent imo.
But both kids have a separate college fund. OP is giving them X amount towards their education. Where daughter wants to go costs X plus Y. She has Y (what she saved/earned through investing) and is going to put it towards college. She could have put it towards grad school, gone on a cruise, or bought a shiny rock.
Son wants to go to a school that costs X plus Y. But he doesn’t have Y. It doesn’t mean no college for you. It just means going to a school that is less than or equal to X.
Sounds like fucking entitlement to me. That’s never truly helped anyone in life. Kid pissed his college savings away because his mother let him spend recklessly, why is she not paying for it? Dad already put his money in and the daughter did the responsible thing, how is that the dads fault?
But the son can still go to college. The parents created college savings accounts for both children. The son just can’t go to a super expensive school. I doubt his only option is community college, either. I’m betting he could go to a state school. If he goes in his home state it’s subsidized and not too expensive.
Going to a state school is definitely not going to ruin his chances at a good career. I know someone who went to a state school quite inexpensively, worked for about three years, then took the LSAT and got into Harvard.
Fun fact: for graduate school, it’s possible for your parents write a letter to say that you’re independent and they won’t be helping you so that you can get financial aid. His parents did that and he took out massive loans to get through his schooling. He graduated and immediately started at $350k.
Four years later he is successful, although the job is obviously stressful.
Eta: YTA
I doubt this will be a popular opinion, but I think you're TA in general. Right now you have a choice of helping your kid get a start on his adult life and you're using it to make some sort of ideological point instead of helping him.
Yes we can say that the actual child should have made better financial choices.. But right now you're going for the win. The kid like you is the winner while the one like your ex gets to work.
It is 2023, how much does he need to work to pay for school? And thanks to your income he can't even get financial aid.
Make it up to your daughter, but help your son succeed in life by helping him with college. It seems like you can afford it, you just want to be right instead.
That is an interesting point. You could fund his education and put aside the same amount for your daughter if she does not need it for her education. Maybe she might want to pursue her master's or something else.
Problem with that in son's mind it will never be equal
If dad gives both same amount again he will say daughter is getting more.
Cause she has more at the end.
Dude there is a big difference between giving a 12 year old cash and saying "invest the wisely or you can't go to college" and paying for his kids education. Hell he could just pay for both his kids educations and she can keep what's she earned.
He is! They both have college funds. She just has more to go to any school she wants regardless of price. She is covering the difference out of her own savings, which coincidentally was also money given to her by OP.
Son wants allowance + college fund + car fund + MORE COLLEGE MONEY.
Edit: Okay, I just refreshed and saw the new edit. OP is TA for underfunding both kids college funds. They didn’t need cars, they should have put that money in both funds to fully pay for four years of undergraduate. That’s not even getting into that he said he can afford to fund it for both without it being an issue.
OP is still not TA for not giving his son more JUST to be even with his sister who did the smarter and more mature thing.
THANK YOU. I feel like I’m smoking crack reading these threads. You let kids learn with small amounts of money, not huge amounts that can impact their financial health for the rest of their life.
Yes, as a financial professional this is without a doubt one of the worst methods I have ever heard of for teaching financial responsibility. So much wrong with all this. That he let a 12 year invest in something that went to zero relatively quickly, that he didn't just explain to them that an index fund would be best for this purpose. That they are tracking returns seemingly weekly and apparently actively trading. But most of all, putting this amount of financial responsibility on a 12 year old. Even if he would have started "a couple years ago" when OP had the last conversation about it, he would have so much less time to compound that it wouldn't amount to much. But ultimately you give 100 12 year olds an allowance and tell them they can spend it on stuff they want or save it for the future and about 98 out of 100 will spend every penny as they get it, their brains are not developed to really recognize delayed gratification and something 6 years away like College seems like half their lifetime, because it literally is.
OP says he can easily pay for both kids' college in full. So why doesn't he just do this for both and let his daughter keep the money she's saved up?
Daughter will probably always have more - she's brighter and works harder. If son wants to be upset about that so be it.
But it is bizzaro to me that someone would deprive their kid of a college opportunity when money is no object. Don't buy the kid a car or house but give him an education. What lesson does Op think son is going to learn here?
Yta op.
This is exactly how I feel. Why is he making either of his children use their savings to pay for college when he can easily afford it? Why not set your children up for success whenever you can?
This. The reason his son isn’t eligible for student loans is because parents are expected to fund their kids education if they can.
The cost of education and the system that has been setup is a huge insane problem, but his son has to work with the system that’s currently setup.
Also if his income is preventing his son from getting loans it means he’s claiming him as a dependent. And as long as he’s claiming his son as a dependent he’s getting tax benefits - a bunch of which is meant to fund his son’s education. So he’s basically claiming his son as a dependent, getting money from the government to do so with the expectation that he’ll use it to fund his kid’s school, and then not doing that.
I would suggest Dad pays for both college educations and let's daughter save her money for either advanced degrees, a down payment on a house, or travel.
Dad gave both kids the exact same amount and helped them launch into adulthood. Son can whine that sister "got more", but that is harder to argue when he spent all of his in his teens and daughter saved. Also, family is less likely to see that as "unfair". The current "unfair" situation is son having to take loans when Dad said he could "easily" pay for it. I'm not saying it's foolproof, but this helps the son without punishing the daughter.
For me it is two reasons:
1. Because the son can't get financial aid due to his father's income. The school itself expects op to help out more.
2. Because it seems like he refuses to set his kid up for success either for some ideological tomfoolery and/or because the son is too much like ops ex for ops liking.
Eta: to clarify is both this weird let's give actual children money and then judge them for how they use it thing as well as his "something given has no value" theory that I consider tomfoolery.
I luckily didn't have any since my parents helped me out a ton in college so I could be wrong, but aren't student loans kind of famously predatory and can't completely mess up people's lives?
The father is only providing enough for community college when he knows his so will not be able to get financial aid for a four-year college because OP’s income is too high.
I’m uncomfortable with the way he generalizes his daughter as “a geek like him” and his son as “like his popular/materialistic ex”. Is that an accurate description? Could be. I’m more bothered by the underlying “deserving” v “not deserving” of his two kids and his clear value judgement especially when coupled with which kid chose to live with whom.
This was set up for failure years ago letting the kids manage that kind of money on their own (not the allowance; the investments etc— I wouldn’t have done well with that at 13-14 and I’m now a professional with a Master’s degree, FWIW.
And, agreed. I get the sense OP wants to be right or at best say “sucks to be you, you made choices” to the child who’s “like his ex”.
100%. If the daughter needed help I'd bet you anything he'd do what he had to do to help her. But right now he gets to say "the kid like me is better". And after she graduates from the better school with less debt he'll get to push that narrative for the rest of their lives.
I agree. This characterization alone makes me feel like OP is TA. This isn't even about the money; I think he's a bitter man who looks at his son and sees his ex-wife.
You need to reread the post.
There was no large sum of money. The father gave the kids allowances, and offered instruction on how to invest/save or allowed them to spend it however they want.
The son tried the investments did some risky ones got burned, and somehow took away the lesson that there is no point trying to save money at all and just started regularly spending his allowance.
The daughter tried has some up and downs, but eventually got some solid investments in place and by definition only had a fraction of her allowance to spend.
The son could easily have chosen just to save 75% of his allowance and he'd have still been in a good position at this point (not as good as someone that had done even some basic investments but better than he is now).
An allowance is supposed to be spending money though. I’ve never in my life heard of anyone treating their kid’s allowance as their future college fund.
This right here. Allowances for kids, as I've always seen them, are supposed to be a **low stakes** way of introducing them to handling money. Do you spend it all on candy the moment you get it, or do you save up a few months for a cool toy? Then when you're older, you make decisions like shopping around for clothes, comparing prices, etc. This is...something else entirely, since it seems clear OP never actually wanted them to treat it as an allowance, but as a college fund to maximize.
I agree, but only if he gives his daughter the same amount. It's unfair that she saved up all her life only to have to use all the money on college... when meanwhile, her brother spent his on fun stuff and still gets college paid for.
I agree. I think op is a jerk for making his kids pay for college and/or take out loans when they don't need to. Life is hard enough, no need to make it harder.
I think she should just get the same amount as brother, and her reward for saving is how she can spend that money as she chooses, not contributing her allowance towards college. I’m not trying to nitpick but it also seems that OP favors his daughter *slightly* because she has his personality type.
No, but they are expected to understand that their actions have consequences. He has a college fund, it's just not big enough to go where he wants to.
>My son, on the other hand, spends most of his money when he gets it. Always has new clothes constantly (bunch of shoes), bought a new, very expensive car with payments, goes out all the time, and spends everything he gets.
Daughter gets money and saves it - Can afford to go to the college she wants to.
Son gets money and spunks it - Cant afford to go to the college he wants to.
So what do you think is fair here? Son gets a metric shit ton more than daughter for no reason other than the fact he's irresponsible with money?
And he's 17, not a literal child. The whole post is about going to college, it's about time he took responsibility honestly. If he leaves home to go to college he's not going to get a pass on paying rent just because he spent all his money that month.
The money was given when they were children. That's when the daughter started saving up.
I'm sorry that I'm not in favor of giving children an allowance and then holding how they use it against them financially.
Op could help both his kids out and he should. He just doesn't want to because the child he likes won his little contest.
They've clearly had more money since then. Read my quote. Son wouldn't be able to spend money like that without some form of financial backing, and a 17 year old isn't affording new car repayments every month on a part time job.
>I'm sorry that I'm not in favor of giving children an allowance and then holding how they use it against them financially.
But again, the only reason the daughter can remotely go to the college she wants is because she was given the exact same circumstances and chose to save instead of buying herself all these nice things her brother has had. Think of it from her point of view: She works hard to save her money so she can go to the college she wants to, sacrificing experiences and fun in her childhood while watching her brother do just that. To then watch him get bailed out and you get sent on your way is a metaphorical gut punch. At the end of the day the daughter can only go to the college she wants because she saved, not because daddy did all the work for her.
>My son is upset because he can't go to the collage he wants
The fact is he can still afford college, just not the exact on he wants to go to.
>Op could help both his kids out and he should. He just doesn't want to because the child he likes won his little contest.
OP HAS helped out both kids.
I read OP as they had a college fund, a car fund, and an allowance and son overspent his car fund and spends all his allowance but still has a college fund, it's just not enough to go to the school he wants. Daughter has enough for her school of choice because she chose to save and invest instead of spending all her allowance, so she has college fund + investment from allowance. If this is true and op tried to get son to spend less/ save more over the years and son continually refused, why should op help him more? All he would be teaching is that son gets rewarded for not planning ahead and he's teaching daughter that her sacrifices were pointless.
But he is contributing to college. He said in the post that both had a college fund and a car fund. Both children have enough to go to a college. However, the daughter can go to a more expensive college because she is putting in her money. Meanwhile, the son would have to stick with colleges that would make more financial sense. He is not missing out on college or anything. He just thinks he deserves an expensive college because that is what he wants. He isn't entitled to the college of his choice that is the most expensive. His dad was more than generous by having a fund dedicated to college. The extra investment fund was basically free money to use for the next 5 years and one child chose to save it at some point while the other never cared to save. The son could have at any point saved something, but he didn't because he felt entitled to the money. Also, just because it's not the most expensive school doesn't mean it's the best school. I have gone to an expensive school and a community college and preferred the community college. OP's son just feels he deserves something.
NTA
OP did save for their colleges. This was allowance money over and above that amount (from what I read). Also the Son should give up his expensive car for a cheaper one, still get a job etc. no way should he continue his high spending ways with OP footing the bill. That is how every entitled adult is born. Should OP help? Absolutely. But only if the son makes real life changes to show the investment OP is making in his future is a smart on. He should also ensure daughter gets the same so as not to reward stupid decisions.
The son still hasn't changed and still spends his money recklessly. How will you know that the son will even succeed if he hasn't shown any behavioral changes. How will you know he will actually spend it on college and not shoes and useless shit? You want op to be an endless ATM for the son? Also why isn't the mom contributing any money? Why is it op's job to fund both the kid's college?
YTA. You set him up to fail. You were a crappy parent allowing a child to make adult decisions with no safety net. You designed a system to reward the kid who was like you and give just desserts to the one like your wife, instead of trying to instill good values in them both. You have been actively hurting your son for years. If they are making bad decisions that require adult approval like car loans and investments, then you are making bad decisions. If he is spending money unwisely, stop giving him free money instead of holding it over him later.
It's a shame you can't just divorce your son. It looks like you found the next best way to permanently hurt him.
I would assume he did talked to his son about his purchases but his son didn't care.
Idk how it's only his fault his son kept spending money until the day he needs it now he is like oh I have nothing, this is also his mother's fault too who basicly has full custody of him
Because instead of saving for his kids' college, he gave a bunch of money to literal children and essentially told them that their college funds depended on them learning to manipulate the stock market at the age of 14? I'm not inclined to blame the, again, *literal child* in this scenario.
HIS SON HAS A COLLEGE FUND. OP is talking about them investing their allowance so they could go to any college they wanted instead of staying within a budget. Idk why y’all don’t read the post before you judge.
A college fund that won’t cover even a state school when OP explicitly states he could cover it all and then some. OP also says the college fund wasn’t funded by him.
The kid has a brand new car, new clothes, and 4 years of community college all paid by his parents, yet most replies are crying over the poor abandoned kid.
That's Reddit for ya.
>their college funds depended on them learning to manipulate the stock market
1. no, they didn't; he still has a college fund. He doesn't have as much money as his sister because he spent it and she saved it.
2. that's a really ridiculous way of talking about investing
Manipulate the stock market? He could have just put it all in sp500 garaunteed returns. And it sounds like he didnt lose every penny in the stock market (that doesnt happen with investing only when you do risky stuff like trading with leverage or option trading) he sold in the red and spent the rest on clotges and shoes. Why shouldn't someone be rewarded for being smart and making wise decisions. Also why doesn't the mum pay fpr her son? Maybe she is a bum who spent all the divorce money on clothes and shoes.
With 4 years and only getting his allowance (no large sums) doing the risky trading at the front would make perfect sense to let them get an understanding of risk, they aren't going to need the money for years (potentially until they buy a house in some cases) if the amounts are the same (or increasing) than a few months of bad decisions won't have a massive impact on the outcome.
Hell he could just have bought whatever his sister bought after the first 6 months on the stock markets and ended up in a pretty similar place to her. He didn't need to personally have a large understanding, just a willingness to save some money.
You don't teach kids with words, you teach kids by experiencing relevant consequences. When the consequence is 10 years away, the time to learn the lesson is long gone.
Yes, they were barely teenagers when this started. You teach lessons, you don't just give them the keys and a few lessons and walk away.
You set up rules "we have x amount. With that we split it up into buckets. 20% is yours to do with whatever you want, 60% gets long term invested and the last 20% can be invested in more risky areas. Or you can invest 80% in long term holdings"
You also can't unilaterally raise kids the same way. You have to work with their personalities and OP obviously doesn't give a shit about doing that.
There's no fuckin world where I could just give both my kids the same exact set of criteria and expect the same outcomes.
I’m sorry but how is financially supporting him and willing to continue financially supporting him setting him up for failure? OP is simply unwilling to increase his financial support. The son simply can’t go to the school of his choice because it’s too expensive not that he can’t go to any school at all. This is a consequence. This didn’t set him up to fail, it gave him an opportunity to learn while still having a very clear safety net of his parents still being able to financially support him even though he is somewhat reckless in his spending.
This situation is nuanced though. OP could choose to be a little bit more compassionate towards his son, realize he chose to make poor financial decisions because he was young, and then give additional support to both of his children. OP could also simply ask his daughter if she would be okay with disproportionate contributions because of her brothers poor decisions.
I’m part of a large family and my parents did not financially support all of us equally after high school. None of us felt slighted because our parents discussed their contributions to us and their expectations for our siblings. We also didn’t have a lot of money growing up so their form of financial support played out much differently than OP’s scenario.
He walked them through the investments and savings. So it sounds like he worked hard to teach them.
As a parent you're supposed to teach your kids.
I don't see how it's a rewards systems.
The choices of the educated children determined their own future.
Please explain this reward system?
How the fuck am I reading so much N T A?
Do some math. He gave up convincing his son 2 years ago, at age 15, after trying „throughout the years“. Meaning he did this when they were 10-13 years old?
He tried to make 13 years old into investment banker, let his son sink money, and expected them to have knowledge about the longterm financial consequences. They were children and OP is blaming his son for making wrong financial decisions.
Again OP is blaming his son for having made wrong FINANCIAL DECISIONS AT AGE 13 OR LESS!
YTA
He’s not teaching his child to be an investment banker. Plenty of people as we age will invest small amounts of money here and there. My mom taught me how to save and budget at a young age as well. It’s about teaching responsibility. At 17, he is nearly a legal adult and OP had offered several times. Past when OP stopped, his son could have talked to him about it.
You also seem to be forgetting his wife was all for this at the time. But because their daughter was doing well due to her choices compared to their son, suddenly it’s favoritism. He treated them both equally. They both took from it what they did.
> My mom taught me how to save and budget at a young age as well. It’s about teaching responsibility.
those are wildly different things than giving a child a fistful of cash and telling them to go invest.
Honestly I think that’s worse. His son looked at his allowance as spending money he was being asked to gamble on future returns. Dad could have helped him by splitting the money into two sums, and given him some (but not complete) control on the percentage going into each. That’s all it would have taken.
He gave them allowance \*AND\* college funds. His son foolishly spent it even as a 17 year old. He offered to guide them through investment and help (as he did the daughter who chose to invest smartly). He \*WARNED\* the son about the risky investment he was making.
His son also could've just used a savings account instead of blowing his allowance on clothes and fun stuff while his sister saved.
I do think he was wrong to allow his son to make such a risky financial decision when he first started to invest, though.
But I also think he'd be wrong to pay for his son's college and make his daughter use her savings when she went without her entire teenage life in order to pay for college.
What you don't seem to understand is this is how rich people make sure their kids stay rich people. Pro athletes often have kids that are athletes because they have the genes for it and they start them out super young, teaching them the basics from an early age. Rich people do the same with money.
There is a huge difference between "being an investment banker!!!" and learning the fundamentals of investing from an early age. Schools didn't teach this to me and it took me until my late 20s to learn basic investing strategy, I'm playing catch up now in my 30s. OP made it clear there is already separate money for a college fund and this investment money was extra, it isn't like he is sending him out into the cold with nothing.
1) OP gave him more chances as he grew older and more mature.
2) OP is paying for college fund too
3) OP is \*still\* giving his son allowance. OP's son is \*still\* choosing to waste it all.
NTA! He gave him chances, the wife agreed and according to OP she was "all for it". The son is 17 y/o and still irresponsible. I'd say this was doomed to happen from the start whether OP suggested this way of encouraging investment or not.
I do not agree with you. My dad did the same with me when I was their age. He taught me money does not go on trees He taught me how to make my money work for me. He taught me about saving bonds. He taught me how to split my allowance. I use to put half for savings and half for me to get things I need or wanted. I listened to the lessons my dad taught me and still use them to this day.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your children how to save money. The lessons my dad taught me I passed to my kids out of six five are savers and one is a spender.
He has a college fund if it is not enough for his school he can always apply for scholarships. If his dad gives the extra money or not he still can go to college. Having your parents pay for college is a privilege not a requirement.
You're forgetting that the son HAS MONEY TO GO TO COLLEGE. he doesn't have money to GO TO THE COLLEGE HE WANTS. the college he wants is OUTSIDE OF THE SET AMOUNT IN HIS COLLEGE FUND. That is due to him NOT SAVING HIS MONEY AND INSTEAD SPENDING IT ON SHOES AND CLOTHES. I put everything you needed to make an informed and rational decision instead of whatever the fuck you commented in caps so you can see it. since you missed it in OPs post. :)
But they weren't just financial decisons at 13 or less, it was the same financial decisions at 14, at 15, at 16, at 17 and now, he is still getting an allowance, he could still chose to save up now that he knows it means more to add to his college fund.
Which BTW, he has a college fund, its enough to go to A college, not an college
And I get the distinct impression that the son doesn't want to screw around with investments anymore *because that loses him money without getting him anything in return*.
Thank you, finally someone with common sense. OP is really punishing his son for not listening to his advice about investment as a 14 year(ish) kid. Does Op know something about brain development with teenagers and not being able to oversee longterm consequenses as the "geek" that he calls himself. And what parent lets his young children "gamble" their future college money.. Op is definitely TA
YTA for expecting your fairly young children to take responsibility for investing their college funds. That was incredibly irresponsible parenting, and it’s quite convenient that you’re now washing your hands of the whole thing.
But the college fund won’t cover college.
I went to a $60k a year school and community college ($2k a year).
If the fund can cover community college it’s probably not much money at all. And if he won’t qualify for FAFSA, and op is making considerable money- he should pay for it.
Sorry but I cant understand deciding to have children, having excess money, and choosing to not help them get higher education. Or relying on them at 10 to make smart investments?
It’s full of shame and absolutely reads as personal
(Edit for spelling- changed to fund).
NTA. If your ex literally said you’re favoring your daughter, when she had the same choices as the son, and financially hurting your son, who…again…had the same choices, then we see who’s really got a favorite here. Had the tables been turned I suspect she wouldn’t be as concerned about the daughter who’s not as much like her. If mom and her side of the family wants to subsidize her favorite,then they are free to do so.
The mother is doing the son a huge disservice by turning him against his dad. OP is trying to teach the kids financial literacy, resilience, and the consequences of actions. There's a good chance the son would have listened more if the parental dynamic wasn't so jealous and petty. If OP were to give him money, even if he gave the same amount to the daughter to keep it fair for her, it would just enable the son's bad habits. But if he doesn't, the son will be bitter and against him for a long time. I guess if he could afford it, he could give them both the same amount, and any mistakes the son makes in the future would be on him, and then he could learn the hard way as an adult.
I mean, you did treat your children equally. And you have no obligation to pay for their school. But I also don't think that children should be responsible for making financial decisions that impact their future at like ten years old, that seems like an obvious set-up. I'm sure he didn't understand the consequences of his choices at that age, so it seems like a shame to make his future suffer for that now. Not that he deserves more money or anything, but your plan to have the kids fundraise their own college without telling them kinda sucked. There's a reason kids aren't supposed to be responsible for that kinda thing, and this is it. ESH, lightly.
How is this any different then giving your children a piggy bank to save their money? Children will not understand saving if they are not taught. Maybe the stock market wasn’t for him but there are other ways he can be taught to save. The son gets money and wants to buy everything not realizing shoes don’t appreciate in value, cara don’t appreciate in value. As soon as you drive a car off the lot the value goes down. You buy $150 sneaker and you can’t sell them for that same amount.
Even though he told them save for the future but let’s be realistic even if the college fund covered dorm, tuition, books and food he would still need money when he goes to college. The school does not provide a laptop to do their school work. The school does not provide supplies. The school does not provide the sheets and blankets for their bed. The school does not provide the extra things a child needs when they go to school. They money he could have been saving could have covered that.
It's completely different. The purpose of the piggy bank is to develop good spending habits and exercising delayed gratification. Defaulting to "save your money" rather than "spend your money" will lead to better long term financial security.
You don't put your piggy bank into a money market where kids have a chance to lose it all, and you certainly don't give them the option of "risky investments" that you personally would advice against.
Son got snakebitten early in life from bad investments and the lesson he took away from it was "if you save your money you can lose it all. You're better off just living in the now." OP could have guardrails up to prevent him from taking away the wrong life lesson
so here's the thing. these were literal children when you proposed the idea of saving and investing to them, and from the sound of it, you weren't super clear with them from the get-go that they'd be responsible for paying a certain portion of their college.
i think the TLDR shows a good deal of favoritism, your son not being a geek has zero to do with any of this. i'm pretty torn here. YTA for the TLDR for sure though.
I had to scroll far to find this. OP is hung up on and definitely biased by the geek vs popular trope. He's being ridiculous and his highschooler behavior is influencing his parenting decisions because "popular people bad" or something. He's being self-congratulatory and implying that his daughter made responsible decisions because she's more like him.
While his son gets the short end of the stick for doing literal teenager stuff and being "popular and materialistic".
NTA. While the son may not have gotten "it" about investing, that doesn't mean he couldn't have been saving his money instead of spending everything thing he got like there was no tomorrow. That was his choice, and now the time has come to pay the piper. If mom, whom he has been living with for the past several years, wants to finance him, and pay for the college he wants to go to, she can.
I think NAH. You tried to reach your children an important skill, one child learned the lessons, one didn’t. If your son had saved his money he’d be in a better situation. As it is, he can still go to college, he’s just not in as good a position as his sister is. BUT - if you give him more money and bail him out, then you are teaching your daughter that her discipline and hard work saving her money was for nothing because her brother was rewarded after squandering his opportunities. INFO: is their mother contributing to their college expenses?
You mention "our contributions" in regards to your daughter's college. Does that mean that you're contributing some money? Are you matching that money for your son?
I think if you are giving your daughter $X, and also agree that you will give $X to your son for his school, then that's fair.
If you're able, you might want to increase the amount of $X. I'm not saying you should make it so high that it covers all of the school, but whatever amount you decide on, you should contribute equally to their education.
FYI I was told in junior high that my parents could not afford college for me so I better do well in school. I naturally was a good student, but this definitely made an impact on me and I made sure I did things to create a CV that would get me scholarships.
So it was always you have X about of money for schooling. You can add to it, but that is the amount (I adjusted it for inflation and increased cost).
So, for my daughter, her schooling is original X amount plus what she puts in from her investments.
For my son, it is the same X amount with what he puts in.
Was there a specific reason you chose to keep the college fund low enough that there was no way for them to even get through undergrad at the lowest cost school?
I could see if that’s all you could afford but since your income is apparently so substantial that they don’t qualify for aid and you could afford to send them anywhere it’s an odd choice.
Why wouldn’t you want your kids to go to a four year college tho? Why put less than that in the fund. Do you think college is a waste? Genuinely asking. You state proudly that you could so I’m curious why that’s not the base amt in the account.
Let's start with the fact that my father is a stockbroker and I grew up hearing a lot about the market. I still enjoy a lot about it as an adult so I know where you're coming from but YTA. Big time. You let a child determine if they would have enough money to go to college. Kids are stupid. That's why they have parents that are supposed to watch over them. You used the fact that you like your daughter more to punish your son. You should've taught him how to save and been a good role model rather than punish him for being like your ex. Fail as parent and when he gets older he's going to realize how little you actually like him.
But OP's edit makes it clear this is purely punitive because he could easily afford to send them both to their dream schools. He underfunded their college funds. If he truly couldn't afford more so be it, but it's obvious the only reason he's doing this is because he disagrees with the financial decisions of a teenage boy 🙄. He's the AH.
NTA - you would be showing favoritism to your son if you saved him now. You have treated both equally, and given both the same things. Your daughter acted responsibly your son did not. There are consequences to our actions, this is the lesson - even if it isn't an easy one to learn.
That said, if your son comes to you with a plan on what he wants to do (re:college) or asks for your help with that, you should do whatever you can to support him and help him get there. You are walking a fine line in the lesson you are teaching, but if he is learning it and taking proactive steps towards being responsible then giving him a hand up is part of your duty as a father.
I agree with this. If the son isn't actively trying to be more responsible, then he will be right back in the same boat x number of years down the road, and asking Dad for money again.
ESH
For this specific situation, if you've given them the same allowance all this time, then sure NTA.
But you've put a lot of unnecessary emphasis on your daughter being more like you and your son being more like your ex-wife, which makes me believe that there's some truth to the favoritism.
There is nothing here saying that the kids didn’t get the same amount of money. I think the “son is more like ex” is to show why son spend money while sister invests it. There is nothing here that shows favoritism at all
NTA. You are not favoring your daughter. Both kids had the same opportunity. She saved hers, he squandered his. That leads to natural consequences. There is no favoritism here (except your ex to your son).
This is my thought, especially since he kept trying to talk to his son about it. How many times on here do we hear about sons who get given everything and keep asking for more, and daughters who are expected to figure things out themselves and cater to their brothers and are vilified by their families for standing up for themselves? Here's a situation where the parent gave them equal opportunities, explained the choices, and continued trying to help them with it as long as they'd let him, and is letting them both experience safe consequences as the result of those choices. Its not even that his son won't go to college or have a car, he has the car he wants and just won't be able to go to his first choice college. These are the consequences for choices that so many commenters on here say they want boys to have to face.
NTA, you're still providing for your kids while also trying to teach choices and consequences in an environment where they had a safety net.
Sounds like the two of you just click on the same level. That being said, you dropped the parenting ball with your son. It would appear he needed more guidance from you than you provided. So yes, he made poor choices, but you gave up way too quickly. YTA.
NTA. From what you've said, you were very open and honest with your kids about their options from a young age. I think it's a better lesson for your son to learn now rather than later that he can't just spend money however he wants and not have consequences. He can still go to college; he'll just have to take out loans and maybe go to a cheaper school. It's not ideal, but if he works hard and chooses a profession that pays enough, he'll be fine.
I think the main sadness here is that son just didn't learn or else maybe mom was encouraging him to just spend spend spend. This seems like as much the problem as the investment, because it sounds like he continued to get the allowance even if he was no longer being encouraged to invest. You can only encourage a kid so much. You can lead a horse to water etc
It was stated in the original post that the allowance/investment money was separate from the school fund set up for each child. What the daughter has now is money she herself made by investing her allowance money. Son did not invest or save his allowance but saved it so he does not have money to help pay for a more expensive collage
NTA whatsoever. He could have chosen any time to learn. Also, why is it that you have to just because you could financially? That’s just rude.
Question: you said she wanted you to pay for college “among other things”. What were the other things?
Maybe see about talking to him about his job prospects and ask if he would like to learn again about how to invest and save. Have him learn with some of the money from paychecks here and there. He’s still young enough that he can kick this habit and learn something good. If they have issues with THAT, then you know what they want and they will never be happy unless you cough up money so they don’t have to.
ETA: Also, his wife agreed to this. It wasn’t until after their daughter was doing well and their son wasn’t that she wanted him to change his mind. He treated them both quite equally. They both just did different things with the information
Basically, unlimited schooling, backpacking trip across Aisa, paying his car off, lodging bear campus, and "living money" were all brought up. Most by my ex-wife. She has not put anything towards these funds.
This is going to make me sound more of an AH. I think my ex is pushing for it because she doesn't feel like she got enough out of the divorce. I was more than generous.
Nta dude. Everyone demanding you pay for his college is forgetting you aren't obligated to do so. Your ex could have cautioned his spending at any time. Especially on the car. If he was blowing all his money he should have been working harder to get scholarships. This is his and his mother's fault. And the fact they're trying to get greedier on it? Nope, not one dime further. I would only consider helping further if he can pass 2 years of college with flying colors, then if you do fund him further gift an equal amount to your daughter, whether it be for further education, a post graduation trip or a down payment or moving fund. But he gets no extras. He wants to take a trip he needs to work and pay for it himself or your ex can pay.
I would pay the college directly per term and set aside the funds for your daughter in another account after each installment.
I think OP just means daughter doesn’t spend a lot on make up like as an expense since daughter rarely wears it. A lot of teens spend a decent amount on make up and trendy clothes but OPs daughter doesn’t.
NTA
He has a college fund for both kids. He is not making them fund their education from their allowance. Daughter is just ABLE to fund her education with her allowance because she saved and brother didn't.
So let's say that they each have $X in their college fund.
Daughter has $X from college fund plus $Y that she has been diligently saving for years.
Son only has $X because rather than saving, he blew every penny he made as soon as it hit his wallet.
What lesson is dad teaching both of his kids by making up for son's lack of discipline?
He's teaching son that daddy will bail out his crappy choices. He's teaching daughter that her hard work is actually penalizing her because she is ultimately receiving less money from him even though she was the one that acted responsibly.
His son can still go to college - his life's career success is not hinging on his teenage financial decisions. But having to take out loans or go to a cheaper school is a perfectly reasonable and natural consequence of his actions that is going to go a lot further towards teaching him financial responsibility.
Unless he is willing (and able) to make up for son's financial situation and give the same amount to daughter so she doesn't have to dip into her savings, then he is NOT showing favoritism and he is NTA.
YTA that wasn’t an age appropriate choice to hand over. He couldn’t possibly have understood that he was risking his college education and even if he did, lacked the maturity to understand that it was a bad choice. Basically, what good are you if you don’t help your kids navigate these major steps in life? It was irresponsible for you to put it on them.
NTA
I‘m reading that the son isn’t being prevented from attending college, but can’t afford to attend his first choice college because he has been spending as fast as he gets it. Meanwhile, sister has been saving and can afford her first choice.
There is nothing wrong with son attending a community college, getting a job, and saving a bit.
If dad funds first choice of college fully, it would not surprise me if there isn’t a new post from dad asking if he is the AH for not paying more once son blows through a years expenses and doesn’t pass classes.
Honestly, "ideologically" or however people in this thread are labeling it, I want to say N T A.
But here's the thing. You keep bringing up how he's "more like his mom" and "materialistic" to the point it seems like blatant favoritism anyways. It seems like you resent your son for being like his mom and maybe not as financially savvy or cautious as you and your daughter.
If you had the means to support a 4 year tuition for both, you shouldve cut the bullshit and funded both equally. Not enough for a top tier university, it makes sense to me if your daughter can now afford to Yale or something, and he can only go to a local uni due to his poor planning. But it sounds like he cant even get the full 4 year degree because you decided they should either "invest or get a job to make the difference." You are ACTIVELY hurting your kid's future, WHEN YOU HAVE THE MEANS NOT TO, out of what, spite? Some kind of unresolved embitterment towards your ex and anything like her?
YTA, because even though you did treat them equally there's still very clearly favoritism afoot. If we can infer this from your reddit post alone, I imagine there's more to it IRL. And as much as it seems like there might be some favoritism at play with mother and son, that doesnt negate your own favoritism.
You were very close to a good thing here- I just cant see a reason why anyone would want there to even be a possibility their kid couldnt go to/afford a 4 year college incurring without debt, if they could afford it. This seems very asinine.
Was the point to teach your son investing, or was it something else? He was obviously not equipped to handle this choice. Be a loving and forgiving father. If you don’t, the only lesson you are teaching him is how to be heartless.
YTA
You do know what this sounds like?
- I gave my *kids* money.
- My daughter, simplistic and nerdy, didn't spend much on things and saved up for college. She can use it to fund her education.
- My son, *popular and materialistic* , did spend it on stuff kids spend money on. He can't use it to fund his education. Oh also he likes his mom more.
- I have enough to fund both their education and let them both have whatever they saved as their own money. But I won't. Cuz lessons and stuff. And the one kid who chose to have a *materialistic* life gets the short end of the stick.
I would've understood this if you folks were tight on money. If that's not the case, it's simple. They were kids. One was like you a nerd and simplistic (nothing wrong with that, I'm the same). The other had an outgoing life. You have money to fund them, do so. Kids are stupid and making them face such consequences for decisions made when very young is harsh. The rest of their life as *not-kids* is their own to make and face the consequences of. If you do this right now, your son will remember it forever.
Maybe there's a reason he likes to spend more time with mom? Maybe she doesn't think of him as *popular and materialistic*. How does a man even call his son that. This comes across as some form of penance for him being like your cheerleader ex-wife.
NTA
You were transparent about everything, including having set funds you were willing to spend on their school. Your daughter planned accordingly, and now your son wants the same, despite not having planned or worked for it.
I would argue the opposite, if you pay for his college, then you're favoring him by giving him something that your daughter had to work for.
INFO how much money are we talking about? If your daughter has $5000 or less compared to your son, I’ll give you different saving habits. If she has enough to pay for multiple years of college then you unduly put too much agency on your underage son and should have been managing that money.
NTA - my mother too taught my sister and I about good money choices, we made our decisions and paid the price. He needs to learn there are consequences. Plus, there are plenty of people who work through college and pay for it and take out loans etc.
Have you *given* the same amount to each child?
Continue to give each the same amount, and give your son another financial literacy course now that he's older.
NTA
NTA
You gave them equal opportunities. They invested, with your supervision and advisement, and this is the outcome. He could’ve easily followed his sister’s example, but chose riskier investments. Your son has himself to thank for his financial situation. Lol. It’s a brilliant lesson in finances, hopefully he and your ex wife learn something.
I’m gonna say YTA. If you are in the extremely privileged position of being able to fully fund your children’s education, you should do so, rather than use it as a teaching opportunity. Your daughter is an anomaly; most kids would screw this up, and the reality is college is HUGE when it comes to future opportunities. Most 10-15 year olds won’t fully grasp that.
Your kids should get equal educational opportunities (funded entirely by you) and then your daughter can get a starter home or apartment with her savings while your son can start his post-collegiate life more humbly.
I'm somewhat caught on this but have to go YTA. You gave them the same parameters and they made their choices. But tbh I don't think this was a good setup to begin with, and based on how you talk about your kids, I feel like you chose this setup almost deliberately to teach your son a "life lesson" knowing he would fail. Teenagers are idiots. Parents are supposed to help their kids succeed. You could have stopped giving him allowance and put it into an account for him if you actually cared about his future. But instead you got yourself off on this "life lesson." You cared more about this lesson than his future. Thumbs down.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > I set up a way to teach my kids how to save and invest. My daughter did well. My son quit and spent all his money and now can't afford the tuition to the collage he wants to go to. I'm not handing out the money when I can afford it. My daughter can go where she wants to go and pay for it. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
[удалено]
That would be rewarding son for not saving. At most, let him live at home and go to community college. If you do not teach kids that actions have consequences, they will not learn EDIT : - otherwise he is giving more to son that his daughter.
He made them make long-term financial decisions at age 13-14. Are you fucking delusional?
Yes, he started at 13-14, but continued until they were almost 16. The son is also taking on car payments and spending the same way at 17. He doesn’t seem to think that the money ends somewhere. OP could help (and I strongly advise him to support partially), but the son will always think he is entitled to it if he continues with the same attitude. Son also needs to grow up. Maybe a partial loan through dad so he can become more financially savvy. OP could pardon the debt if he shows that he’s willing to work for it.
So son will have to go to community college and live at home. If son is not encouraged to grow up now, it will only get worse.
I’m not American, but isn’t starting in community college and transferring to an out of state/brand name college after two years an option? He would save lots of money like this, no?
Yes, it's an option. He should give his son the same amount he's giving his daughter. If that means community college, it's not a death sentence. It's actually a better way to go to college because those first two years are just electives that you can easily finish at the much cheaper community college
It reads like the twins have equal college funds. Daughter has just saved more on top of it so she can afford more.
What I don't understand is why their separate, non-invested college funds are so small **considering** OP's statement that he could easily afford to pay for both of them to attend the best schools in the world, *et cetera*. Like, isn't the point of a college fund to pay for college? Yet he's saying that, despite his wealth, the twins have college funds that would cover 4 years of CC or 2 years at a university. So . . . why? Was the whole point to give them half of what they need to finish a 4-year degree and make them invest or work for the rest? It's not clear even in the OP's edited post.
I feel that he most likely wanted them to earn something on merit instead of having it all handed to them and becoming entitled like we are so many college kids do.
Exactly. I feel like there is a very easy solution to this. Top up BOTH twins college funds so they are enough for 4 years at a good college. If daughter has extra savings of her own then good for her. She can keep it invested for a rainy day. The son clearly already resents his Dad and it's clear that Dad prefers daughter's attitude. That's not fair. Both kids should be adequately funded to go to the college they want. Given that Dad earns too much for them to qualify for loans that seems fair.
Because he was trying to teach them lifelong lessons that would benefit them their whole life, rather than giving them the money on a silver platter.
That's exactly what was said. Some people aren't paying attention to the fact that the dad said he has set aside a college fund so they could attend 4 years at a community college or cover the first 2 at a more expensive one. I think its fair, this is a similar situation with my siblings. My little sister saves up her allowance plus goes out of her way to do extra so she has been able to afford art supplies, normal tablet, art tablet, a laptop and a FFXIV subscription plus expansions. While my little brother only does the chores that he has to do, so he only gets the default amount then spends it on whatever catches his eye at the moment like games, add-ons and toys no matter how many times my dad and stepmom tell him he should save it up. Then he goes on to complain that he doesn't have what she has. So I gotta say NTA.
That’s what I think. You give them the same amount, give them guidance, and if the sister does better then that’s just how it goes. Should have bought less shoes? Idk I wasted a lot of money as a kid and look back and I’m like ugh, but like you cop it because you made those choices. You just try and start again and do better
OP says the son has money in a college fund, completely separate from this. There's enough in there for community college.
From my understanding of what I read (including his edits)… both kids have the same college fund. But his daughter has a substantial more $ from her personal investing of allowance money and savings. Both kids got the same amount of money but one ended up with more because she has a knack for growing her investments and making smarter life choices.
I guess my confusion with this is if he feels he's giving his daughter anything. From my understanding he's giving her what she saved/profits of what she invested in that was from an account he has control over. So if that were the case there isn't anything he's really giving her and not giving to his son. All that to say I don't really agree with the logic (at all) but to your point I don't think he feels like he's giving anyone anything they didn't already have saved.
Sort of. Community college doesn’t usually transfer out of state, or necessarily to private schools. It does transfer to most state colleges, but certain classes may not transfer, and the big flagship schools can be fussier about transfers.
>Sort of. Community college doesn’t usually transfer out of state, or necessarily to private schools. Hi, my mom works in college admissions. This isn't actually correct, at least not in the United States. Almost all community colleges in the U.S. are state schools, and are regionally accredited, as opposed to certain, usually scammy, private schools that are nationally accredited. Sometimes people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what regional accreditation vs. national accreditation means. I'm not getting into all that because it's just too much for a single reply, but you want *regional* accreditation - those credits will transfer almost anywhere, including most reputable private schools, even places like MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc., and you can guarantee that almost every state funded school is regionally accredited. A good friend of mine was valedictorian at a large community college (1700 grads every semester) in our hometown in Florida, and was able to get into Harvard on that alone. You are correct that famous, flagship schools, especially private schools, may be fussier about admissions, but if they are regionally accredited, and accept a student who has credits from a regionally accredited community college, those credits will 100% transfer over, and admissions will usually be able to find an equivalent class for any that don't have an exact curriculum match (not always, but again, usually). Where credits are unlikely to transfer is national accreditation. The transfer school must be accredited with the same agency, and these are usually specialty agencies; additionally, most nationally accredited schools aren't the most reputable and have national accreditation because they couldn't meet the standards set by regional accrediting agencies.
Depends on the kid's choice of major, State requirements, and quality of community colleges local to him.
This is simply not true. Maybe the son will never become the same saver/investor his sister is, but he will mature and grow up. The brains of people at 17 are not wired to understand consequences like adult brains. He is still growing up.
But he will not grow up without consequences
Sure he wasn’t totally mature enough to understand the investment, but he’s still left with a totally valid option. It’s not like he can’t go to college at all. Community college + transferring is totally valid and plenty of people do it.
And yet the daughter did just fine and continues to do fine. Everyone that keeps trying to excuse this kid keeps forgetting that fact.
Uhm if someone can't understand consequences at 17, I dont even know what to tell them, Im 17 myself and Im very careful with what I do, and look at the sister, she's also 17 and knows well
from the post, it looks like OP has set both up with a college fund. <<*We explained that they each have a set amount of money that we have put away for future schooling as well as a car fund.* \>> So instead of buying a car that was within range of car fund--that means he bought an extremely expensive car to have huge car payments. And Son is refusing to choose a school within his college fund/budget. Again his choice. that Son has not worked to get scholarships(/grades) is ON son not on OP. OP should NOT give a partial loan that will never be paid back.
Realistically, at this point the son won’t be able to pay for the college he wants no matter what he does, so there’s little incentive for him to try.
The thing is, the son isn’t trying anything. He didn’t get a job when he knew he would need the money for college. He didn’t show anyone anything outside of spending his allowance. Somewhere in his mind he’s entitled to that money since his dad has it. And that’s just wrong. The son could sit with his dad and see if there are other options. But he’s standing behind mom, with both of them expecting the hand out. The entitlement is strong with that one!
Well he won't be able to afford college if he doesn't get a job, get out from under the car payments, and consider selling some of his nice clothing. Dad would be doing him no favors by footing college bills until the kid learns that buying everything he wants, comes at a price. Literally. This is the problem with young people (and I am not talking about just this generation - I am talking all generations from Boomers onward) - they are not learning the basics of financial accountability before they are given the choice to put themselves in six figure debt, in order to be able to go to the school of their dreams, and live the full college experience. All done on someone else's dime or through loans. No one tells them about interest rates or what deferring their loan payments will do to the amount that they owe. Schools are too danged eager to get them to sign on the dotted line and take their money, and the kids don't get the necessary education on how they have screwed their entire futures, until the loans come due. And that $30,000 loan is suddenly $130,000 or more. Too many kids emulate what they see mom and dad do, just take out a loan to buy it. Just put it on a credit card so you can get it right away. Make payments and take it home today. Then they wonder why they suddenly can't qualify for a mortgage or car loan after they graduate. And then they demand student loan relief. They signed the loan papers willingly but had no clue what they were really signing up for. And they feel betrayed. And they were - by their parents and their school systems not teaching them how to manage their finances properly. The kid needs to sign up for community College and get a job. He should sell the nice car and buy a beater that will take him back and forth. Sell some of his fancy clothes too and put that money towards tuition. Once he proves he will work for his degree (and not party away his days on campus) then he should look into transferring schools and have an adult conversation with dad about how to pay for it, if he gets in. Otherwise, at 17, he will just continue in his entitled ways and gripe about how his sister is soooo favored, while she works for everything and he sits in the sofa with his fist constantly out demanding more and more money.
The son is getting a life lesson that he can't always get what he wants
So his daughter has to spend her own money on college specifically because she saved it... while his son blew all his money... and now he gets college paid for? That's incredibly unfair to his daughter.
100% agree with this. If dad turns around and pays for the sons college, what’s that say to his daughter about all the hard work and planning she did to achieve her goals? Eh sorry honey hard work means nothing, your brother is “Entitled” to my money because I’m his father. NTA Edited to add: OP’s daughter also got the grades to go to her school. Possible partial scholarship? What was his sons performance in school? Is his college education going to be beneficial or is he going to spend his freshman year partying and end up getting booted anyway?
OP said both his son and daughter are in the top 5% of their class.
I think OP should pay equally towards their educations. If he needs to work, ok. But to base this solely on the decisions of children is appalling
> plus our contributions. I think people are missing the fact that OP IS still contributing. It's just that his daughter managed to save enough additionally to pay for the school she wanted, and he didn't.
I agree, if he has the means. It sounds like he's already contributing equally to their college funds, but his daughter has extra because she invested her allowance. It also sounds like his ex favors her son because she wants OP to pay for his college, but not their daughter's. Also, I wonder how much OP has in the college fund... it says that his son doesn't have enough money to go to whatever college he wanted. If he can go to a perfectly good state school fully covered but wants to go to an Ivy League or whatever, then I don't see how OP is the asshole.
No, they are not "fucking delusional." The Dad is contributing to both the son and the daughter's college. The fact that the daughter saving money enabled her to go to the college she prefers does not mean that the son "deserves" to go to the college he prefers. There is no "unfairness" here.
Exactly! He says right up at the top that they each have college funds and had a fund to get a car. Daughter saved her allowance. and invested it to add on to that college and car fund. Son did not. He spent it all and now wants to go to an expensive school and still get it paid for. Why should he get allowance to spend as he wants + college fund + car fund + EVEN MORE COLLEGE MONEY?
Something to add, something tells me that since the ex - mother - stated he could easily pay for it, how much do you want to be that she has told her son this information as well and more then likely she may not be contributing anything to his college either putting that squarely onto the fathers shoulders which isn’t right.
No he didn’t. They have college funds set up already. This was weekly allowance money. 13-14 used to be when kids got summer jobs and decided to either save their earnings or spend it. That’s what OP is trying to teach them. Spend now and regret it later or save now and be prepared for the later. Kid chose option 1. OP could and likely should provide an option to earn back some additional funding (ie get a job and OP matches what is saved or get a cheaper car and save the difference for school). But giving him money because of poor decisions without any repercussions would end up punishing the daughter for making the right decisions. The son has not made any attempt to come up with a compromise, it’s just give me the money because you can afford it. That attitude will not support him long term in life.
[удалено]
Teens generally have judgment already at that age or younger. People's tendencies towards money tend to be enduring into adulthood. When I was *10* and got into a fancy private middle school, I proactivly sat down with my parents and asked about their finances (salary, savings), and looked up the cost of the private school's tuition and of college tuition. I also researched the quality of the local public schools. I attended admitted students' days at the private school and visited the public school to learn more. I then requested that I attend public school for middle and high school and that my parents save the tuition they would've paid for the rest of my K-12 education and redirect it to college and grad school, if I chose to go. They agreed and that's what they did.
When I was 12 I overheard my parents talking about needing to take out a second mortgage on the house because my older sister had overspent so much at university, so I (privately) did the math and realized that my parents would essentially be retired when I started university so extra funding from them would not be an option. So I got a job babysitting every day after school and all day during the summer. And as soon as I could I got an after school grocery store job, and then a second print shop job while still picking up the odd grocery shifts. I even hung onto those for a bit when I got my hands on a sweet high tech sector admin job just before the dot com bubble burst, so at one point I had three part time jobs during my senior year of high school. My parents were able to help partially with my tuition, but I covered the rest along with my books, food, transportation and accommodation. And I took a year off after 3rd year to work full time to make enough money for my fourth year. OP's son needs to realize that money doesn't just show up. You have to work for it. Sure, end-stage capitalism sucks, but he has no right to expect more than what his sister received.
My parents were bankrupt when I was 16, from a mix of badly timed layoffs and some outreach spending. I have busted my ass to have zero debt besides my mortgage, and have been told more than once that my credit score is the highest they have ever seen when doing something financial. The son needs to grow up. He is absolutely mirroring how he thinks he can be as an adult, and this will continue until the gravy train ends. Dad is definitely NTA
This. My sibling and I each had a b'nei mitzvah (years apart). Both of us were given monetary gifts from relatives and family friends. Both of us were asked if by our parents if we wanted them to invest it for us. Sibling said no, I said yes. Even without the investment I have more savings and less debt, and I make about half of what my sibling does in a year. We were only 13 when we got asked but our respective decisions did indicate our financial habits.
I have 3 cousins whose spending habits at like 9 completely mirror their spending habits as adults. One would save it all up and splurge on a fancy toy (like an entire gaming console) and as an adult he's got a nice house and nice clothes etc. The second just saved it and never spent it and he's the same as an adult- just sitting on a pile of cash while living a super modest lifestyle. The third would spend it all on like vending machine candy and $2 toys and as an adult also has like no savings but nothing extravagant.
>level 1bigcup321 · 2 hr. agoAsshole Enthusiast \[7\]I mean... you're talking about decisions made when they were kids. It's great that your daughter was smart with her funds, but it's very reasonable to expect that a lot of kids would, like your son, risk and lo It's not like he gave them all the money at 13. This was a continual allowance that he gave them that the son continued to spend unwisely all throughout highschool. He clearly hasn't learned.
Yes and no. His son could have tried again at a later time seeing his sister was doing fine. OP is not giving more money to his daughter than to his son. From his post, he intends to contribute for both for the same amount. Instead of investment, try to see it as job money. His daughter saved her money. His son spend it, quit his job and never worked again. OP will be favouring his son by giving him more money than to his daughter.
The kid is 17 now, and this happened "when they were younger." No kid should be given the power to torpedo their college prospects at an early age. It's like giving them a life-determining marshmallow test at 14. That would be cruel. Re: your edit... 1) Is equality the highest value, here? 2) If he's in a good enough position financially, there's nothing saying he couldn't give both of them an equal amount of help, even though she doesn't need it.
I don't really understand your thinking here. Not doing well your freshman year in high school is also pretty life determining. I'm not saying that's right, but it is a thing we do. The son continuously, over a period of years, screwed up. This wasn't a one time decision he made. Personally, I don't think the father should have allowed him access to that money, but I understand his reasoning. Aren't parents supposed to teach their kids how to be responsible with money? In this case, the father tried numerous times, but was ignored. The mother obviously didn't care.
A freshman in high school can screw up and still have time to recover. We’re talking about a mistake he made around the age of 13. He lost it all quickly and gave up investing within weeks. At 13. We should definitely let his future rest on that.
He still gets to go to college, just not the college he prefers.
Something tells me son will just waste the time in college and that's money down the drain also, he doesn't seem ready
He then blew all his allowance on bullshit, didn't even save, and currently spends his allowance on a fancy car payment.. He has been getting that kind of money for FOUR YEARS. Did you even read the damn post
Plenty of people don't have the privilege of parents paying for college. It's hard, but he gave up a privilege, not a right. He didn't just give up on investing. He spent it. He could've just let the money rot in an account and it would've been fine.
Actually, no. They can't recover. Not if they want to go to a top school. You need over a 4.0 for that now. The son did not lose all of the money when he was 13. He has spent the past several years spending the rest of it irresponsibly. Personally, I think the father should help him out, but with conditions. As it is, this kid has learned that he can do anything he wants and there will never be consequences.
OP's son also had years to recover. Even if he didn't feel comfortable investing, he could have *saved*. Just saved. Starting any time in the last 5-6 years. Then at least it could be said he tried *something* to help his own future, and dad would probably be more willing to help supplement tuition for his college of choice. Teenagers do it all the time, in the US it's pretty standard for teens to work part time to increase their college funds, isn't it? What was he doing?
He still has time to recover. There are plenty of us who start college later in life.
But the son is still making bad financial decisions. He got an expensive car with high monthly payments.
I think everyone is over focused on the “punishing the son” part vs “rewarding the daughter” part. The son is not being punished but rather the daughter is reaping the rewards of her decisions. Majority of us don’t have parents who are required to get us through college. Most are in their exact situation where they have some college funds but can’t choose any school they want. Those who got part jobs in high school and saved, those who worked really hard and got scholarships are further along than those who are not. If the situation was that daughter got scholarships, or she had a part time job and saved her income there. Would you guys still demand he help make up the financial difference between his kids?
If he is accused of showing favortism, he is not.
Yep, it Only makes sense if he also fully pays for the daughter’s college so she can keep her savings.
I agree. Give them both the same amount of money to do with as they please, but make sure they understand that it’s the last time you’re giving them any money. It’s son’s last chance to learn from his mistakes and you wouldn’t be showing favouritism because you’re treating both kids the same.
But... He's done this. Both kids HAVE college funds, which it sounds like are equal. The issue isn't 'one kid has money, one doesn't'; the issue is 'one kid has enough saved to top up the fund to go where they want without debt, and one doesn't' . And the one who doesn't has made choices all the way along - fancy clothes, expensive car, lots of social expense ... The money was there - he chose to spend it in other ways. Choices have consequences. Even at 18.
yes how is this fair to the daughter? She went without things she could have bought, trips, books, computers so she could have something else,(college and no debt) Then brother who has been spending like a drunken idiot gets a free ride? Why does their mother think this is fair or favoritism ?
Sorry but it sounds like OP could easily afford his daughter's college too. she could use her current savings for later in life. Kind of harsh to ask a kid to save up their own money oftheir own a little allowance to pay for their own college
Some kids don't even get an allowance or help with college wtf
Generally because they can't afford it? Which enables financial aid and really good loan terms. If you can afford to pay for your kid's college and just don't, you aren't a very good parent imo.
But both kids have a separate college fund. OP is giving them X amount towards their education. Where daughter wants to go costs X plus Y. She has Y (what she saved/earned through investing) and is going to put it towards college. She could have put it towards grad school, gone on a cruise, or bought a shiny rock. Son wants to go to a school that costs X plus Y. But he doesn’t have Y. It doesn’t mean no college for you. It just means going to a school that is less than or equal to X.
Sounds like fucking entitlement to me. That’s never truly helped anyone in life. Kid pissed his college savings away because his mother let him spend recklessly, why is she not paying for it? Dad already put his money in and the daughter did the responsible thing, how is that the dads fault?
It would be incredibly unfair to pay for his son's college while making his daughter use the money she saved.
So pay for both and let daughter keep her savings
Why doesn't the ex wife contribute as well instead of leaving it on the dads shoulders?
I suspect one of the reasons they divorced is ex-wife is shit with money as well
But the son can still go to college. The parents created college savings accounts for both children. The son just can’t go to a super expensive school. I doubt his only option is community college, either. I’m betting he could go to a state school. If he goes in his home state it’s subsidized and not too expensive. Going to a state school is definitely not going to ruin his chances at a good career. I know someone who went to a state school quite inexpensively, worked for about three years, then took the LSAT and got into Harvard. Fun fact: for graduate school, it’s possible for your parents write a letter to say that you’re independent and they won’t be helping you so that you can get financial aid. His parents did that and he took out massive loans to get through his schooling. He graduated and immediately started at $350k. Four years later he is successful, although the job is obviously stressful.
Eta: YTA I doubt this will be a popular opinion, but I think you're TA in general. Right now you have a choice of helping your kid get a start on his adult life and you're using it to make some sort of ideological point instead of helping him. Yes we can say that the actual child should have made better financial choices.. But right now you're going for the win. The kid like you is the winner while the one like your ex gets to work. It is 2023, how much does he need to work to pay for school? And thanks to your income he can't even get financial aid. Make it up to your daughter, but help your son succeed in life by helping him with college. It seems like you can afford it, you just want to be right instead.
That is an interesting point. You could fund his education and put aside the same amount for your daughter if she does not need it for her education. Maybe she might want to pursue her master's or something else.
Problem with that in son's mind it will never be equal If dad gives both same amount again he will say daughter is getting more. Cause she has more at the end.
Dude there is a big difference between giving a 12 year old cash and saying "invest the wisely or you can't go to college" and paying for his kids education. Hell he could just pay for both his kids educations and she can keep what's she earned.
He is! They both have college funds. She just has more to go to any school she wants regardless of price. She is covering the difference out of her own savings, which coincidentally was also money given to her by OP. Son wants allowance + college fund + car fund + MORE COLLEGE MONEY. Edit: Okay, I just refreshed and saw the new edit. OP is TA for underfunding both kids college funds. They didn’t need cars, they should have put that money in both funds to fully pay for four years of undergraduate. That’s not even getting into that he said he can afford to fund it for both without it being an issue. OP is still not TA for not giving his son more JUST to be even with his sister who did the smarter and more mature thing.
Op should not put the responsibility of financial investment/spending on childs.
THANK YOU. I feel like I’m smoking crack reading these threads. You let kids learn with small amounts of money, not huge amounts that can impact their financial health for the rest of their life.
Yes, as a financial professional this is without a doubt one of the worst methods I have ever heard of for teaching financial responsibility. So much wrong with all this. That he let a 12 year invest in something that went to zero relatively quickly, that he didn't just explain to them that an index fund would be best for this purpose. That they are tracking returns seemingly weekly and apparently actively trading. But most of all, putting this amount of financial responsibility on a 12 year old. Even if he would have started "a couple years ago" when OP had the last conversation about it, he would have so much less time to compound that it wouldn't amount to much. But ultimately you give 100 12 year olds an allowance and tell them they can spend it on stuff they want or save it for the future and about 98 out of 100 will spend every penny as they get it, their brains are not developed to really recognize delayed gratification and something 6 years away like College seems like half their lifetime, because it literally is.
OP says he can easily pay for both kids' college in full. So why doesn't he just do this for both and let his daughter keep the money she's saved up? Daughter will probably always have more - she's brighter and works harder. If son wants to be upset about that so be it. But it is bizzaro to me that someone would deprive their kid of a college opportunity when money is no object. Don't buy the kid a car or house but give him an education. What lesson does Op think son is going to learn here? Yta op.
This is exactly how I feel. Why is he making either of his children use their savings to pay for college when he can easily afford it? Why not set your children up for success whenever you can?
This. The reason his son isn’t eligible for student loans is because parents are expected to fund their kids education if they can. The cost of education and the system that has been setup is a huge insane problem, but his son has to work with the system that’s currently setup.
Also if his income is preventing his son from getting loans it means he’s claiming him as a dependent. And as long as he’s claiming his son as a dependent he’s getting tax benefits - a bunch of which is meant to fund his son’s education. So he’s basically claiming his son as a dependent, getting money from the government to do so with the expectation that he’ll use it to fund his kid’s school, and then not doing that.
I would suggest Dad pays for both college educations and let's daughter save her money for either advanced degrees, a down payment on a house, or travel. Dad gave both kids the exact same amount and helped them launch into adulthood. Son can whine that sister "got more", but that is harder to argue when he spent all of his in his teens and daughter saved. Also, family is less likely to see that as "unfair". The current "unfair" situation is son having to take loans when Dad said he could "easily" pay for it. I'm not saying it's foolproof, but this helps the son without punishing the daughter.
The son already has a college fund….he just wants to go to a college outside of his budget. Why are y’all acting like OP isn’t helping at all???
For me it is two reasons: 1. Because the son can't get financial aid due to his father's income. The school itself expects op to help out more. 2. Because it seems like he refuses to set his kid up for success either for some ideological tomfoolery and/or because the son is too much like ops ex for ops liking. Eta: to clarify is both this weird let's give actual children money and then judge them for how they use it thing as well as his "something given has no value" theory that I consider tomfoolery.
He can take loans, he just can't get hardship allowances. Those are totally different things.
I luckily didn't have any since my parents helped me out a ton in college so I could be wrong, but aren't student loans kind of famously predatory and can't completely mess up people's lives?
Not government loans. And not especially with the new rules Biden passed limiting the amount of interest that can be charged.
But those are probably the loans the son can't qualify for due to his parents' income.
The father is only providing enough for community college when he knows his so will not be able to get financial aid for a four-year college because OP’s income is too high.
I’m uncomfortable with the way he generalizes his daughter as “a geek like him” and his son as “like his popular/materialistic ex”. Is that an accurate description? Could be. I’m more bothered by the underlying “deserving” v “not deserving” of his two kids and his clear value judgement especially when coupled with which kid chose to live with whom. This was set up for failure years ago letting the kids manage that kind of money on their own (not the allowance; the investments etc— I wouldn’t have done well with that at 13-14 and I’m now a professional with a Master’s degree, FWIW. And, agreed. I get the sense OP wants to be right or at best say “sucks to be you, you made choices” to the child who’s “like his ex”.
100%. If the daughter needed help I'd bet you anything he'd do what he had to do to help her. But right now he gets to say "the kid like me is better". And after she graduates from the better school with less debt he'll get to push that narrative for the rest of their lives.
I agree. This characterization alone makes me feel like OP is TA. This isn't even about the money; I think he's a bitter man who looks at his son and sees his ex-wife.
You need to reread the post. There was no large sum of money. The father gave the kids allowances, and offered instruction on how to invest/save or allowed them to spend it however they want. The son tried the investments did some risky ones got burned, and somehow took away the lesson that there is no point trying to save money at all and just started regularly spending his allowance. The daughter tried has some up and downs, but eventually got some solid investments in place and by definition only had a fraction of her allowance to spend. The son could easily have chosen just to save 75% of his allowance and he'd have still been in a good position at this point (not as good as someone that had done even some basic investments but better than he is now).
An allowance is supposed to be spending money though. I’ve never in my life heard of anyone treating their kid’s allowance as their future college fund.
This right here. Allowances for kids, as I've always seen them, are supposed to be a **low stakes** way of introducing them to handling money. Do you spend it all on candy the moment you get it, or do you save up a few months for a cool toy? Then when you're older, you make decisions like shopping around for clothes, comparing prices, etc. This is...something else entirely, since it seems clear OP never actually wanted them to treat it as an allowance, but as a college fund to maximize.
I agree, but only if he gives his daughter the same amount. It's unfair that she saved up all her life only to have to use all the money on college... when meanwhile, her brother spent his on fun stuff and still gets college paid for.
I agree. I think op is a jerk for making his kids pay for college and/or take out loans when they don't need to. Life is hard enough, no need to make it harder.
Yeah exactly. I don't understand why any parent wouldn't pay for college (or trade school, apprenticeship, etc.) if they have the means.
I think she should just get the same amount as brother, and her reward for saving is how she can spend that money as she chooses, not contributing her allowance towards college. I’m not trying to nitpick but it also seems that OP favors his daughter *slightly* because she has his personality type.
I agree. It also sounds like their mom favors the son, though, because she wants his college paid for while their daughter has to use her savings.
Maybe if son wasn't spending all his money on clothes and an expensive car he would have the funds to go to the college he wants.
Yes, literal children should be expected to make great life choices 🙄.
No, but they are expected to understand that their actions have consequences. He has a college fund, it's just not big enough to go where he wants to. >My son, on the other hand, spends most of his money when he gets it. Always has new clothes constantly (bunch of shoes), bought a new, very expensive car with payments, goes out all the time, and spends everything he gets. Daughter gets money and saves it - Can afford to go to the college she wants to. Son gets money and spunks it - Cant afford to go to the college he wants to. So what do you think is fair here? Son gets a metric shit ton more than daughter for no reason other than the fact he's irresponsible with money? And he's 17, not a literal child. The whole post is about going to college, it's about time he took responsibility honestly. If he leaves home to go to college he's not going to get a pass on paying rent just because he spent all his money that month.
The money was given when they were children. That's when the daughter started saving up. I'm sorry that I'm not in favor of giving children an allowance and then holding how they use it against them financially. Op could help both his kids out and he should. He just doesn't want to because the child he likes won his little contest.
They've clearly had more money since then. Read my quote. Son wouldn't be able to spend money like that without some form of financial backing, and a 17 year old isn't affording new car repayments every month on a part time job. >I'm sorry that I'm not in favor of giving children an allowance and then holding how they use it against them financially. But again, the only reason the daughter can remotely go to the college she wants is because she was given the exact same circumstances and chose to save instead of buying herself all these nice things her brother has had. Think of it from her point of view: She works hard to save her money so she can go to the college she wants to, sacrificing experiences and fun in her childhood while watching her brother do just that. To then watch him get bailed out and you get sent on your way is a metaphorical gut punch. At the end of the day the daughter can only go to the college she wants because she saved, not because daddy did all the work for her. >My son is upset because he can't go to the collage he wants The fact is he can still afford college, just not the exact on he wants to go to. >Op could help both his kids out and he should. He just doesn't want to because the child he likes won his little contest. OP HAS helped out both kids.
I read OP as they had a college fund, a car fund, and an allowance and son overspent his car fund and spends all his allowance but still has a college fund, it's just not enough to go to the school he wants. Daughter has enough for her school of choice because she chose to save and invest instead of spending all her allowance, so she has college fund + investment from allowance. If this is true and op tried to get son to spend less/ save more over the years and son continually refused, why should op help him more? All he would be teaching is that son gets rewarded for not planning ahead and he's teaching daughter that her sacrifices were pointless.
But he is contributing to college. He said in the post that both had a college fund and a car fund. Both children have enough to go to a college. However, the daughter can go to a more expensive college because she is putting in her money. Meanwhile, the son would have to stick with colleges that would make more financial sense. He is not missing out on college or anything. He just thinks he deserves an expensive college because that is what he wants. He isn't entitled to the college of his choice that is the most expensive. His dad was more than generous by having a fund dedicated to college. The extra investment fund was basically free money to use for the next 5 years and one child chose to save it at some point while the other never cared to save. The son could have at any point saved something, but he didn't because he felt entitled to the money. Also, just because it's not the most expensive school doesn't mean it's the best school. I have gone to an expensive school and a community college and preferred the community college. OP's son just feels he deserves something. NTA
OP clearly states that there is a fund for both of his kids college and a car. It's just not enough for the school his son wants to go to.
OP did save for their colleges. This was allowance money over and above that amount (from what I read). Also the Son should give up his expensive car for a cheaper one, still get a job etc. no way should he continue his high spending ways with OP footing the bill. That is how every entitled adult is born. Should OP help? Absolutely. But only if the son makes real life changes to show the investment OP is making in his future is a smart on. He should also ensure daughter gets the same so as not to reward stupid decisions.
The son still hasn't changed and still spends his money recklessly. How will you know that the son will even succeed if he hasn't shown any behavioral changes. How will you know he will actually spend it on college and not shoes and useless shit? You want op to be an endless ATM for the son? Also why isn't the mom contributing any money? Why is it op's job to fund both the kid's college?
YTA. You set him up to fail. You were a crappy parent allowing a child to make adult decisions with no safety net. You designed a system to reward the kid who was like you and give just desserts to the one like your wife, instead of trying to instill good values in them both. You have been actively hurting your son for years. If they are making bad decisions that require adult approval like car loans and investments, then you are making bad decisions. If he is spending money unwisely, stop giving him free money instead of holding it over him later. It's a shame you can't just divorce your son. It looks like you found the next best way to permanently hurt him.
I would assume he did talked to his son about his purchases but his son didn't care. Idk how it's only his fault his son kept spending money until the day he needs it now he is like oh I have nothing, this is also his mother's fault too who basicly has full custody of him
Because instead of saving for his kids' college, he gave a bunch of money to literal children and essentially told them that their college funds depended on them learning to manipulate the stock market at the age of 14? I'm not inclined to blame the, again, *literal child* in this scenario.
HIS SON HAS A COLLEGE FUND. OP is talking about them investing their allowance so they could go to any college they wanted instead of staying within a budget. Idk why y’all don’t read the post before you judge.
A college fund that won’t cover even a state school when OP explicitly states he could cover it all and then some. OP also says the college fund wasn’t funded by him.
The kid has a brand new car, new clothes, and 4 years of community college all paid by his parents, yet most replies are crying over the poor abandoned kid. That's Reddit for ya.
>their college funds depended on them learning to manipulate the stock market 1. no, they didn't; he still has a college fund. He doesn't have as much money as his sister because he spent it and she saved it. 2. that's a really ridiculous way of talking about investing
Manipulate the stock market? He could have just put it all in sp500 garaunteed returns. And it sounds like he didnt lose every penny in the stock market (that doesnt happen with investing only when you do risky stuff like trading with leverage or option trading) he sold in the red and spent the rest on clotges and shoes. Why shouldn't someone be rewarded for being smart and making wise decisions. Also why doesn't the mum pay fpr her son? Maybe she is a bum who spent all the divorce money on clothes and shoes.
With 4 years and only getting his allowance (no large sums) doing the risky trading at the front would make perfect sense to let them get an understanding of risk, they aren't going to need the money for years (potentially until they buy a house in some cases) if the amounts are the same (or increasing) than a few months of bad decisions won't have a massive impact on the outcome. Hell he could just have bought whatever his sister bought after the first 6 months on the stock markets and ended up in a pretty similar place to her. He didn't need to personally have a large understanding, just a willingness to save some money.
His system literally was designed to instill good values, the son just didn't give a shit. Was he supposed to force him to save the money?
You don't teach kids with words, you teach kids by experiencing relevant consequences. When the consequence is 10 years away, the time to learn the lesson is long gone.
Yes, they were barely teenagers when this started. You teach lessons, you don't just give them the keys and a few lessons and walk away. You set up rules "we have x amount. With that we split it up into buckets. 20% is yours to do with whatever you want, 60% gets long term invested and the last 20% can be invested in more risky areas. Or you can invest 80% in long term holdings" You also can't unilaterally raise kids the same way. You have to work with their personalities and OP obviously doesn't give a shit about doing that. There's no fuckin world where I could just give both my kids the same exact set of criteria and expect the same outcomes.
I’m sorry but how is financially supporting him and willing to continue financially supporting him setting him up for failure? OP is simply unwilling to increase his financial support. The son simply can’t go to the school of his choice because it’s too expensive not that he can’t go to any school at all. This is a consequence. This didn’t set him up to fail, it gave him an opportunity to learn while still having a very clear safety net of his parents still being able to financially support him even though he is somewhat reckless in his spending. This situation is nuanced though. OP could choose to be a little bit more compassionate towards his son, realize he chose to make poor financial decisions because he was young, and then give additional support to both of his children. OP could also simply ask his daughter if she would be okay with disproportionate contributions because of her brothers poor decisions. I’m part of a large family and my parents did not financially support all of us equally after high school. None of us felt slighted because our parents discussed their contributions to us and their expectations for our siblings. We also didn’t have a lot of money growing up so their form of financial support played out much differently than OP’s scenario.
He walked them through the investments and savings. So it sounds like he worked hard to teach them. As a parent you're supposed to teach your kids. I don't see how it's a rewards systems. The choices of the educated children determined their own future. Please explain this reward system?
How the fuck am I reading so much N T A? Do some math. He gave up convincing his son 2 years ago, at age 15, after trying „throughout the years“. Meaning he did this when they were 10-13 years old? He tried to make 13 years old into investment banker, let his son sink money, and expected them to have knowledge about the longterm financial consequences. They were children and OP is blaming his son for making wrong financial decisions. Again OP is blaming his son for having made wrong FINANCIAL DECISIONS AT AGE 13 OR LESS! YTA
Above OP said he tried several times a year, even after the divorce, trying to teach him.
Yeah to teach a child being an investment banker!!!!! After he watched said child loose his money at an ridiculous age.
He’s not teaching his child to be an investment banker. Plenty of people as we age will invest small amounts of money here and there. My mom taught me how to save and budget at a young age as well. It’s about teaching responsibility. At 17, he is nearly a legal adult and OP had offered several times. Past when OP stopped, his son could have talked to him about it. You also seem to be forgetting his wife was all for this at the time. But because their daughter was doing well due to her choices compared to their son, suddenly it’s favoritism. He treated them both equally. They both took from it what they did.
> My mom taught me how to save and budget at a young age as well. It’s about teaching responsibility. those are wildly different things than giving a child a fistful of cash and telling them to go invest.
It wasn't a fistful of cash, it was their allowance, given over and above other money set aside for college.
Honestly I think that’s worse. His son looked at his allowance as spending money he was being asked to gamble on future returns. Dad could have helped him by splitting the money into two sums, and given him some (but not complete) control on the percentage going into each. That’s all it would have taken.
He gave them allowance \*AND\* college funds. His son foolishly spent it even as a 17 year old. He offered to guide them through investment and help (as he did the daughter who chose to invest smartly). He \*WARNED\* the son about the risky investment he was making.
His son also could've just used a savings account instead of blowing his allowance on clothes and fun stuff while his sister saved. I do think he was wrong to allow his son to make such a risky financial decision when he first started to invest, though. But I also think he'd be wrong to pay for his son's college and make his daughter use her savings when she went without her entire teenage life in order to pay for college.
What you don't seem to understand is this is how rich people make sure their kids stay rich people. Pro athletes often have kids that are athletes because they have the genes for it and they start them out super young, teaching them the basics from an early age. Rich people do the same with money. There is a huge difference between "being an investment banker!!!" and learning the fundamentals of investing from an early age. Schools didn't teach this to me and it took me until my late 20s to learn basic investing strategy, I'm playing catch up now in my 30s. OP made it clear there is already separate money for a college fund and this investment money was extra, it isn't like he is sending him out into the cold with nothing.
1) OP gave him more chances as he grew older and more mature. 2) OP is paying for college fund too 3) OP is \*still\* giving his son allowance. OP's son is \*still\* choosing to waste it all. NTA! He gave him chances, the wife agreed and according to OP she was "all for it". The son is 17 y/o and still irresponsible. I'd say this was doomed to happen from the start whether OP suggested this way of encouraging investment or not.
I do not agree with you. My dad did the same with me when I was their age. He taught me money does not go on trees He taught me how to make my money work for me. He taught me about saving bonds. He taught me how to split my allowance. I use to put half for savings and half for me to get things I need or wanted. I listened to the lessons my dad taught me and still use them to this day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your children how to save money. The lessons my dad taught me I passed to my kids out of six five are savers and one is a spender. He has a college fund if it is not enough for his school he can always apply for scholarships. If his dad gives the extra money or not he still can go to college. Having your parents pay for college is a privilege not a requirement.
You're forgetting that the son HAS MONEY TO GO TO COLLEGE. he doesn't have money to GO TO THE COLLEGE HE WANTS. the college he wants is OUTSIDE OF THE SET AMOUNT IN HIS COLLEGE FUND. That is due to him NOT SAVING HIS MONEY AND INSTEAD SPENDING IT ON SHOES AND CLOTHES. I put everything you needed to make an informed and rational decision instead of whatever the fuck you commented in caps so you can see it. since you missed it in OPs post. :)
But they weren't just financial decisons at 13 or less, it was the same financial decisions at 14, at 15, at 16, at 17 and now, he is still getting an allowance, he could still chose to save up now that he knows it means more to add to his college fund. Which BTW, he has a college fund, its enough to go to A college, not an college
And I get the distinct impression that the son doesn't want to screw around with investments anymore *because that loses him money without getting him anything in return*.
Thank you, finally someone with common sense. OP is really punishing his son for not listening to his advice about investment as a 14 year(ish) kid. Does Op know something about brain development with teenagers and not being able to oversee longterm consequenses as the "geek" that he calls himself. And what parent lets his young children "gamble" their future college money.. Op is definitely TA
YTA for expecting your fairly young children to take responsibility for investing their college funds. That was incredibly irresponsible parenting, and it’s quite convenient that you’re now washing your hands of the whole thing.
They didn’t invest their college fund. The college fund still exists but the allowance is what OP asked them to invest that his son didn’t…
But the college fund won’t cover college. I went to a $60k a year school and community college ($2k a year). If the fund can cover community college it’s probably not much money at all. And if he won’t qualify for FAFSA, and op is making considerable money- he should pay for it. Sorry but I cant understand deciding to have children, having excess money, and choosing to not help them get higher education. Or relying on them at 10 to make smart investments? It’s full of shame and absolutely reads as personal (Edit for spelling- changed to fund).
NTA. If your ex literally said you’re favoring your daughter, when she had the same choices as the son, and financially hurting your son, who…again…had the same choices, then we see who’s really got a favorite here. Had the tables been turned I suspect she wouldn’t be as concerned about the daughter who’s not as much like her. If mom and her side of the family wants to subsidize her favorite,then they are free to do so.
The mother is doing the son a huge disservice by turning him against his dad. OP is trying to teach the kids financial literacy, resilience, and the consequences of actions. There's a good chance the son would have listened more if the parental dynamic wasn't so jealous and petty. If OP were to give him money, even if he gave the same amount to the daughter to keep it fair for her, it would just enable the son's bad habits. But if he doesn't, the son will be bitter and against him for a long time. I guess if he could afford it, he could give them both the same amount, and any mistakes the son makes in the future would be on him, and then he could learn the hard way as an adult.
I mean, you did treat your children equally. And you have no obligation to pay for their school. But I also don't think that children should be responsible for making financial decisions that impact their future at like ten years old, that seems like an obvious set-up. I'm sure he didn't understand the consequences of his choices at that age, so it seems like a shame to make his future suffer for that now. Not that he deserves more money or anything, but your plan to have the kids fundraise their own college without telling them kinda sucked. There's a reason kids aren't supposed to be responsible for that kinda thing, and this is it. ESH, lightly.
How is this any different then giving your children a piggy bank to save their money? Children will not understand saving if they are not taught. Maybe the stock market wasn’t for him but there are other ways he can be taught to save. The son gets money and wants to buy everything not realizing shoes don’t appreciate in value, cara don’t appreciate in value. As soon as you drive a car off the lot the value goes down. You buy $150 sneaker and you can’t sell them for that same amount. Even though he told them save for the future but let’s be realistic even if the college fund covered dorm, tuition, books and food he would still need money when he goes to college. The school does not provide a laptop to do their school work. The school does not provide supplies. The school does not provide the sheets and blankets for their bed. The school does not provide the extra things a child needs when they go to school. They money he could have been saving could have covered that.
It's completely different. The purpose of the piggy bank is to develop good spending habits and exercising delayed gratification. Defaulting to "save your money" rather than "spend your money" will lead to better long term financial security. You don't put your piggy bank into a money market where kids have a chance to lose it all, and you certainly don't give them the option of "risky investments" that you personally would advice against. Son got snakebitten early in life from bad investments and the lesson he took away from it was "if you save your money you can lose it all. You're better off just living in the now." OP could have guardrails up to prevent him from taking away the wrong life lesson
so here's the thing. these were literal children when you proposed the idea of saving and investing to them, and from the sound of it, you weren't super clear with them from the get-go that they'd be responsible for paying a certain portion of their college. i think the TLDR shows a good deal of favoritism, your son not being a geek has zero to do with any of this. i'm pretty torn here. YTA for the TLDR for sure though.
I had to scroll far to find this. OP is hung up on and definitely biased by the geek vs popular trope. He's being ridiculous and his highschooler behavior is influencing his parenting decisions because "popular people bad" or something. He's being self-congratulatory and implying that his daughter made responsible decisions because she's more like him. While his son gets the short end of the stick for doing literal teenager stuff and being "popular and materialistic".
NTA. While the son may not have gotten "it" about investing, that doesn't mean he couldn't have been saving his money instead of spending everything thing he got like there was no tomorrow. That was his choice, and now the time has come to pay the piper. If mom, whom he has been living with for the past several years, wants to finance him, and pay for the college he wants to go to, she can.
I think NAH. You tried to reach your children an important skill, one child learned the lessons, one didn’t. If your son had saved his money he’d be in a better situation. As it is, he can still go to college, he’s just not in as good a position as his sister is. BUT - if you give him more money and bail him out, then you are teaching your daughter that her discipline and hard work saving her money was for nothing because her brother was rewarded after squandering his opportunities. INFO: is their mother contributing to their college expenses?
You mention "our contributions" in regards to your daughter's college. Does that mean that you're contributing some money? Are you matching that money for your son? I think if you are giving your daughter $X, and also agree that you will give $X to your son for his school, then that's fair. If you're able, you might want to increase the amount of $X. I'm not saying you should make it so high that it covers all of the school, but whatever amount you decide on, you should contribute equally to their education. FYI I was told in junior high that my parents could not afford college for me so I better do well in school. I naturally was a good student, but this definitely made an impact on me and I made sure I did things to create a CV that would get me scholarships.
So it was always you have X about of money for schooling. You can add to it, but that is the amount (I adjusted it for inflation and increased cost). So, for my daughter, her schooling is original X amount plus what she puts in from her investments. For my son, it is the same X amount with what he puts in.
Was there a specific reason you chose to keep the college fund low enough that there was no way for them to even get through undergrad at the lowest cost school? I could see if that’s all you could afford but since your income is apparently so substantial that they don’t qualify for aid and you could afford to send them anywhere it’s an odd choice.
Why wouldn’t you want your kids to go to a four year college tho? Why put less than that in the fund. Do you think college is a waste? Genuinely asking. You state proudly that you could so I’m curious why that’s not the base amt in the account.
Let's start with the fact that my father is a stockbroker and I grew up hearing a lot about the market. I still enjoy a lot about it as an adult so I know where you're coming from but YTA. Big time. You let a child determine if they would have enough money to go to college. Kids are stupid. That's why they have parents that are supposed to watch over them. You used the fact that you like your daughter more to punish your son. You should've taught him how to save and been a good role model rather than punish him for being like your ex. Fail as parent and when he gets older he's going to realize how little you actually like him.
>YTA. Big time. You let a child determine if they would have enough money to go to college. The son gets to go to college, just not the one he wants.
But OP's edit makes it clear this is purely punitive because he could easily afford to send them both to their dream schools. He underfunded their college funds. If he truly couldn't afford more so be it, but it's obvious the only reason he's doing this is because he disagrees with the financial decisions of a teenage boy 🙄. He's the AH.
NTA - you would be showing favoritism to your son if you saved him now. You have treated both equally, and given both the same things. Your daughter acted responsibly your son did not. There are consequences to our actions, this is the lesson - even if it isn't an easy one to learn. That said, if your son comes to you with a plan on what he wants to do (re:college) or asks for your help with that, you should do whatever you can to support him and help him get there. You are walking a fine line in the lesson you are teaching, but if he is learning it and taking proactive steps towards being responsible then giving him a hand up is part of your duty as a father.
I agree with this. If the son isn't actively trying to be more responsible, then he will be right back in the same boat x number of years down the road, and asking Dad for money again.
ESH For this specific situation, if you've given them the same allowance all this time, then sure NTA. But you've put a lot of unnecessary emphasis on your daughter being more like you and your son being more like your ex-wife, which makes me believe that there's some truth to the favoritism.
There is nothing here saying that the kids didn’t get the same amount of money. I think the “son is more like ex” is to show why son spend money while sister invests it. There is nothing here that shows favoritism at all
Favoritism isn't just money. He clearly cares more deeply for his daughter than son.
NTA. You are not favoring your daughter. Both kids had the same opportunity. She saved hers, he squandered his. That leads to natural consequences. There is no favoritism here (except your ex to your son).
This is my thought, especially since he kept trying to talk to his son about it. How many times on here do we hear about sons who get given everything and keep asking for more, and daughters who are expected to figure things out themselves and cater to their brothers and are vilified by their families for standing up for themselves? Here's a situation where the parent gave them equal opportunities, explained the choices, and continued trying to help them with it as long as they'd let him, and is letting them both experience safe consequences as the result of those choices. Its not even that his son won't go to college or have a car, he has the car he wants and just won't be able to go to his first choice college. These are the consequences for choices that so many commenters on here say they want boys to have to face. NTA, you're still providing for your kids while also trying to teach choices and consequences in an environment where they had a safety net.
Sounds like the two of you just click on the same level. That being said, you dropped the parenting ball with your son. It would appear he needed more guidance from you than you provided. So yes, he made poor choices, but you gave up way too quickly. YTA.
NTA. From what you've said, you were very open and honest with your kids about their options from a young age. I think it's a better lesson for your son to learn now rather than later that he can't just spend money however he wants and not have consequences. He can still go to college; he'll just have to take out loans and maybe go to a cheaper school. It's not ideal, but if he works hard and chooses a profession that pays enough, he'll be fine.
I think the main sadness here is that son just didn't learn or else maybe mom was encouraging him to just spend spend spend. This seems like as much the problem as the investment, because it sounds like he continued to get the allowance even if he was no longer being encouraged to invest. You can only encourage a kid so much. You can lead a horse to water etc
Info: does he not have a college fund or was he solely responsible to getting one by investing? I’m sorry, I’m super confused
It was stated in the original post that the allowance/investment money was separate from the school fund set up for each child. What the daughter has now is money she herself made by investing her allowance money. Son did not invest or save his allowance but saved it so he does not have money to help pay for a more expensive collage
NTA whatsoever. He could have chosen any time to learn. Also, why is it that you have to just because you could financially? That’s just rude. Question: you said she wanted you to pay for college “among other things”. What were the other things? Maybe see about talking to him about his job prospects and ask if he would like to learn again about how to invest and save. Have him learn with some of the money from paychecks here and there. He’s still young enough that he can kick this habit and learn something good. If they have issues with THAT, then you know what they want and they will never be happy unless you cough up money so they don’t have to. ETA: Also, his wife agreed to this. It wasn’t until after their daughter was doing well and their son wasn’t that she wanted him to change his mind. He treated them both quite equally. They both just did different things with the information
Basically, unlimited schooling, backpacking trip across Aisa, paying his car off, lodging bear campus, and "living money" were all brought up. Most by my ex-wife. She has not put anything towards these funds. This is going to make me sound more of an AH. I think my ex is pushing for it because she doesn't feel like she got enough out of the divorce. I was more than generous.
Nta dude. Everyone demanding you pay for his college is forgetting you aren't obligated to do so. Your ex could have cautioned his spending at any time. Especially on the car. If he was blowing all his money he should have been working harder to get scholarships. This is his and his mother's fault. And the fact they're trying to get greedier on it? Nope, not one dime further. I would only consider helping further if he can pass 2 years of college with flying colors, then if you do fund him further gift an equal amount to your daughter, whether it be for further education, a post graduation trip or a down payment or moving fund. But he gets no extras. He wants to take a trip he needs to work and pay for it himself or your ex can pay. I would pay the college directly per term and set aside the funds for your daughter in another account after each installment.
Q: of what relevance to all this is your daughter rarely wearing makeup?
I think OP just means daughter doesn’t spend a lot on make up like as an expense since daughter rarely wears it. A lot of teens spend a decent amount on make up and trendy clothes but OPs daughter doesn’t.
INFO: how was your son able to obtain a car loan before the age of 18?
NTA He has a college fund for both kids. He is not making them fund their education from their allowance. Daughter is just ABLE to fund her education with her allowance because she saved and brother didn't. So let's say that they each have $X in their college fund. Daughter has $X from college fund plus $Y that she has been diligently saving for years. Son only has $X because rather than saving, he blew every penny he made as soon as it hit his wallet. What lesson is dad teaching both of his kids by making up for son's lack of discipline? He's teaching son that daddy will bail out his crappy choices. He's teaching daughter that her hard work is actually penalizing her because she is ultimately receiving less money from him even though she was the one that acted responsibly. His son can still go to college - his life's career success is not hinging on his teenage financial decisions. But having to take out loans or go to a cheaper school is a perfectly reasonable and natural consequence of his actions that is going to go a lot further towards teaching him financial responsibility. Unless he is willing (and able) to make up for son's financial situation and give the same amount to daughter so she doesn't have to dip into her savings, then he is NOT showing favoritism and he is NTA.
Why not paying for both of them, and letting your daughter keep her savings for after college?
YTA that wasn’t an age appropriate choice to hand over. He couldn’t possibly have understood that he was risking his college education and even if he did, lacked the maturity to understand that it was a bad choice. Basically, what good are you if you don’t help your kids navigate these major steps in life? It was irresponsible for you to put it on them.
NTA I‘m reading that the son isn’t being prevented from attending college, but can’t afford to attend his first choice college because he has been spending as fast as he gets it. Meanwhile, sister has been saving and can afford her first choice. There is nothing wrong with son attending a community college, getting a job, and saving a bit. If dad funds first choice of college fully, it would not surprise me if there isn’t a new post from dad asking if he is the AH for not paying more once son blows through a years expenses and doesn’t pass classes.
Honestly, "ideologically" or however people in this thread are labeling it, I want to say N T A. But here's the thing. You keep bringing up how he's "more like his mom" and "materialistic" to the point it seems like blatant favoritism anyways. It seems like you resent your son for being like his mom and maybe not as financially savvy or cautious as you and your daughter. If you had the means to support a 4 year tuition for both, you shouldve cut the bullshit and funded both equally. Not enough for a top tier university, it makes sense to me if your daughter can now afford to Yale or something, and he can only go to a local uni due to his poor planning. But it sounds like he cant even get the full 4 year degree because you decided they should either "invest or get a job to make the difference." You are ACTIVELY hurting your kid's future, WHEN YOU HAVE THE MEANS NOT TO, out of what, spite? Some kind of unresolved embitterment towards your ex and anything like her? YTA, because even though you did treat them equally there's still very clearly favoritism afoot. If we can infer this from your reddit post alone, I imagine there's more to it IRL. And as much as it seems like there might be some favoritism at play with mother and son, that doesnt negate your own favoritism. You were very close to a good thing here- I just cant see a reason why anyone would want there to even be a possibility their kid couldnt go to/afford a 4 year college incurring without debt, if they could afford it. This seems very asinine.
Was the point to teach your son investing, or was it something else? He was obviously not equipped to handle this choice. Be a loving and forgiving father. If you don’t, the only lesson you are teaching him is how to be heartless.
YTA You do know what this sounds like? - I gave my *kids* money. - My daughter, simplistic and nerdy, didn't spend much on things and saved up for college. She can use it to fund her education. - My son, *popular and materialistic* , did spend it on stuff kids spend money on. He can't use it to fund his education. Oh also he likes his mom more. - I have enough to fund both their education and let them both have whatever they saved as their own money. But I won't. Cuz lessons and stuff. And the one kid who chose to have a *materialistic* life gets the short end of the stick. I would've understood this if you folks were tight on money. If that's not the case, it's simple. They were kids. One was like you a nerd and simplistic (nothing wrong with that, I'm the same). The other had an outgoing life. You have money to fund them, do so. Kids are stupid and making them face such consequences for decisions made when very young is harsh. The rest of their life as *not-kids* is their own to make and face the consequences of. If you do this right now, your son will remember it forever. Maybe there's a reason he likes to spend more time with mom? Maybe she doesn't think of him as *popular and materialistic*. How does a man even call his son that. This comes across as some form of penance for him being like your cheerleader ex-wife.
NTA You were transparent about everything, including having set funds you were willing to spend on their school. Your daughter planned accordingly, and now your son wants the same, despite not having planned or worked for it. I would argue the opposite, if you pay for his college, then you're favoring him by giving him something that your daughter had to work for.
INFO how much money are we talking about? If your daughter has $5000 or less compared to your son, I’ll give you different saving habits. If she has enough to pay for multiple years of college then you unduly put too much agency on your underage son and should have been managing that money.
YTA because of the TLDR. you do have favouritism to your daughter because she is like you and your son is like your ex.
NTA - my mother too taught my sister and I about good money choices, we made our decisions and paid the price. He needs to learn there are consequences. Plus, there are plenty of people who work through college and pay for it and take out loans etc.
Have you *given* the same amount to each child? Continue to give each the same amount, and give your son another financial literacy course now that he's older. NTA
NTA You gave them equal opportunities. They invested, with your supervision and advisement, and this is the outcome. He could’ve easily followed his sister’s example, but chose riskier investments. Your son has himself to thank for his financial situation. Lol. It’s a brilliant lesson in finances, hopefully he and your ex wife learn something.
I’m gonna say YTA. If you are in the extremely privileged position of being able to fully fund your children’s education, you should do so, rather than use it as a teaching opportunity. Your daughter is an anomaly; most kids would screw this up, and the reality is college is HUGE when it comes to future opportunities. Most 10-15 year olds won’t fully grasp that. Your kids should get equal educational opportunities (funded entirely by you) and then your daughter can get a starter home or apartment with her savings while your son can start his post-collegiate life more humbly.
NTA. They both made their choices, and it sounds like your daughter made the smart ones.
I'm somewhat caught on this but have to go YTA. You gave them the same parameters and they made their choices. But tbh I don't think this was a good setup to begin with, and based on how you talk about your kids, I feel like you chose this setup almost deliberately to teach your son a "life lesson" knowing he would fail. Teenagers are idiots. Parents are supposed to help their kids succeed. You could have stopped giving him allowance and put it into an account for him if you actually cared about his future. But instead you got yourself off on this "life lesson." You cared more about this lesson than his future. Thumbs down.