How much board should a teenager starting full-time work pay?

[Sketchy_Racer]

Because I think that parents should support their kids by providing food and shelter, free of charge.

Why? In this country by the time you are age 15 you are considered responsible enough to drive a motor vehicle, and legally have a full time job.
I think it is only fair that once a person is old enough to start earning and the responsibilities of a job, then they are responsible enough to start paying their way. Obviously every situation is different and I would think if I saw that a teen was being smart with their money, saving for a worthwhile goal, then I would probably suggest charging less, however if the kid is just pissing it all away on booze and pointless crap, charge more. Support those that support themselves.

depends on the kid. if they are responsible then give em a break so they can save and pay for stuff later. If they still have some learning to do then charge them whatever and give half back at the end of the year. Its an incentive thing.

You are dead right about it varying with the kid, every single one is different and will react totally different to being told to pay board. Naturally, the reaction to being told to cough up will be largely affected by the kids up bringing. I think the charging money, and saving it on part of the teen is great, as it gives the teen something to use when they move out and need such things like a bed, and essentials.

I voted none because parents share the responsibility of supporting and providing for their children whilst they are trying to transition into the "real" world and trying to get up on their own feet successfully.

Why should a teen get a free ride? Where is the incentive to take some responsibility for themselves? If every teen never had to put any effort into supporting themselves, then they would all walk around thinking everyone else should be licking the shit off there arse, because they don't have to anything.

Charging a teenager money to stay at their own home (somewhere they have lived for 18 odd years for free and called home) is a bit harsh and in no way instils any form of responsibility but could form a basis of resentment. It should come from them direct as a form of appreciation and they should wilfully contribute towards the household in whatever way they can.

So what is the teen going to do when they move out and have to pay bills? Get resentful to a land lord when they don't feel like paying and tell them to go fuck themselves? I'm a teen and I know from my own nature that if given the opportunity to NOT pay bills, then I wouldn't. Why would you, I could spend that money going racing. I'm lucky to be in a situation where I am supported for the fact that i'm trying to go racing, but even then, bills are still there and have to be paid.

Setting a fixed amount on a teenager isn't right.

The only thing in that teenagers mind will be why should I pay them $100 a week when I can go group flatting with my mates at $110 a week and get on the piss every day and party every weekend, something they won't be able to do at home.

Rather short sighted though isn't it, and I put money on the fact that the teen will come crawling back once they have to stick it in the real world. I work with a person that sounds like an exact product of what you are suggesting;

22 years old, he gets on the piss every night, party all weekend, comes to work (if you lucky he does) on monday hung over as fuck. He lives at home with mummy and daddy who still wipe his arse in every manner. What hope has HE got? he's earning minimum wage, and I doubt that's going to improve any time soon. What's he going to do the day mum and dad get fucked off and give him the boot...

Now I know what you're thinking right now. It's AND WHAT?

Well I believe in education and that a kid should go to University/Tech and further his/her studies and obtain some kind of qualification therefore increasing his/her chances of a better paying job and living at least a half decent lifestyle.

Support those who support themselves. If the teen isn't putting any effort into getting where they want to get in life, why invest in them?

Dropping out of school, getting into ordinary full time employment at an early age, moving out of home when you're a teenager will most likely lead you to be very ordinary citizen of this country (Read, someone of the lower socio-economic, uneducated, struggling ordinary citizen)

I dropped out of school early, but I knew what I wanted, I wanted to do a apprenticeship in something related to the engineering trade. I'm extreemly happy with my choice to leave early, as school wasn't working, and it would have just been 2 extra years of my life wasted away. Also, I moved out of home when I was just over 18. But for good reason, moving out was going to help me (both in travel to work) but also improve my relationship with my mother by creating a bit of space, and letting her accept that i'm old enough to make my own decisions.

And remember they may have a full time job and be classed as adults but are still kids who have a lot of learning and growing up to do with the GUIDANCE of their parents not their mates who know no better.

That's why kids should live at home till they have grown up a bit and at least gain some qualification and their lives should be made easy whilst they are transitioning not difficult.

I know his case is a little bit different but a lot applies.

I know many 15yo's that far exceed the maturity and responsibility levels of a scarily large amount of 20+ yo's.. Age is something that is purely relative to each person, as different people mature at different rates, some have had a up bringing with responsibilities put on them, so the responsibilities of the real world seem more manageable. However, someone who's had everything on a platter is going the struggle aren't they? It's simple logic.

However, I digress. I think that every situation is unique and needs to be tailored to suit needs. I would say to chuck a blanket over the average teen, a 15-30% cut of wages is a reasonable amount for board.

(Bring on the KB attack because I've posted something totally different )

Nothing wrong with being different! The world would be one hell of a boring place if we were all the same.

Cheers,

-Glen

[hmurphy]

Hmmm very interesting. I am 19 and still live at home. Never paid for anything at home. I have a job for 7 hours a week but when I want something I ask my meemy to buy it for me. I wanted an R6 so I kicked my Hyosung over and told mum to buy me a new one. Within a week I had a shiney new 1999 R6! Of course on $90 a week I can hardly fund my daily Rimutaka run so meem had to pay for some gas too. 95 Octane, not that shitty 91 crap. I don't go cheap.

If there isn't any food at home I give meem a call and tell her to stop draggin' the chain and bring some food home. And none of those boring cerials either, I am talkin' 'bout Nutri-Grain. Also I use a lot of internet on very important youtube videos. I must watch my daily 3 hours of sport bike videos. If the internet bandwidth runs out for the month I tell meem she has to pay for it because I don't want to.

Sometimes when I am in the local bike shops I give meem a call and tell her I need new leathers. Alpinestars. New gloves too because meem doesn't want her baby getting sore hands.

I have often thought "should I contribute around here? Maybe do some lawn mowing or do some dishes, anything to help out?". My usual conclusion; "Meem will do it" "Meem will pay for it".

Why should I stop? I have it eeeeeaaaasssssyyy!!! 5 day weekends, everything paid for, anything I want. Who would NOT want this? Honestly. Am I right? Am I right?

[matoc]

Hmmm very interesting. I am 19 and still live at home. Never paid for anything at home. I have a job for 7 hours a week but when I want something I ask my meemy to buy it for me. I wanted an R6 so I kicked my Hyosung over and told mum to buy me a new one. Within a week I had a shiney new 1999 R6! Of course on $90 a week I can hardly fund my daily Rimutaka run so meem had to pay for some gas too. 95 Octane, not that shitty 91 crap. I don't go cheap.

If there isn't any food at home I give meem a call and tell her to stop draggin' the chain and bring some food home. And none of those boring cerials either, I am talkin' 'bout Nutri-Grain. Also I use a lot of internet on very important youtube videos. I must watch my daily 3 hours of sport bike videos. If the internet bandwidth runs out for the month I tell meem she has to pay for it because I don't want to.

Sometimes when I am in the local bike shops I give meem a call and tell her I need new leathers. Alpinestars. New gloves too because meem doesn't want her baby getting sore hands.

I have often thought "should I contribute around here? Maybe do some lawn mowing or do some dishes, anything to help out?". My usual conclusion; "Meem will do it" "Meem will pay for it".

Why should I stop? I have it eeeeeaaaasssssyyy!!! 5 day weekends, everything paid for, anything I want. Who would NOT want this? Honestly. Am I right? Am I right?

I hate you so very, very much.

[ManDownUnder]

1/3 of their pay is board

[wickle]

30% of net income


he's a Brain surgeon right?

One third board, one third saving, one third to live on, was the rule for our family

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

Mmm, got a 21 yr old part time at Uni but able to work 5 days a week, working where he could work for each of those 5 days. Each day he works he earns approx $170, we ask for $35 for every day he works pro-rata. For this he gets everything but his own personel toiletries and he takes care of clothing etc and does his own washing (using our stuff).

I think its important if your kids are starting to make their way in life they get an understanding that living costs money but soften that blow with a little subsidy.

[sels1]

One third board, one third saving, one third to live on, was the rule for our family

I grew up on sometimething similar, and tried to instill this principle in my own kids.

[Quasi]

One third board, one third saving, one third to live on, was the rule for our family

I left home as soon as I started working sp was straight into full responsibility but the 1/3 rule is pretty appropriate plus they would also need to take some responsibility for household chores. It can't be a set amount as it is going to depend on what they are earning.

[Maha]

1985 I was living in Taupo and paying $80 per week full board, which was three meals a day and everything done for me ie: washing/ironing etc. Cooked breakfast every morning and while I was eating breakfast, Francis would be making my lunch (filled rolls/cake) Tea was always there for me when I got home, she would go to the RSA on thursdays so my tea would be cooked, on a plate and covered, sitting on pot of simmering water on the stove. She would even make me a milo at night, with warm milk...

But that was full board, so just 'living at home board'??... $120.

[The Baron]

I had three boys all on different incomes. Our rule was 20% of take home pay. Hope this helps.

[Mully]

Miss Mully had her brother living with her before we "hooked up" - she was charging him 25% of his take home - regardless how many hours he worked (part-time), it was always 25%. He's now pretty responsible with money for a 22 year old.

Because I think that parents should support their kids by providing food and shelter, free of charge.

Which I think they should do while the kid is studying. I disagree with you when the kids start working.

My sister is doing this, and to be honest, I'm worried about her kids when they leave home - they have NO idea how money works and that there is a commitment (this is a 16 and a 17 year old). They'll be fucked when they eventually leave home, because they haven't had to be responsible and make that commitment to a regular payment.

Here I am showing my age (again!) but when I started work I was earning $18.50 a week and paid $10 board. I barely had enough money left to buy bus tickets and panty hose

That's all you had to purchase? The mind boggles!!

[Mully]

Dropping out of school, getting into ordinary full time employment at an early age, moving out of home when you're a teenager will most likely lead you to be very ordinary citizen of this country (Read, someone of the lower socio-economic, uneducated, struggling ordinary citizen)

I tried to bling you for this post, but you must be a Mully bling whore, and I have to spread it around more.

I actually disagree with this bit though - I left school at 16 and started working fulltime (at the same time, I ended up flatting too) because I knew formal education at that time wasn't right for me. Subsequently I now earn more than a couple of beneficiaries that have been in the news lately (conbined) and went back to Uni part-time as an adult to do more training.

TBH, I think this situation depends on the kid and their attitude.

Sorry for dragging this off-topic.

[gatch]

When I started my apprenticeship my rent was over 1/3 my net wage. So him being your kid I guess you could go a little easier ? 1/4 net wage would be fair I reckon.

[MSTRS:Me]

I think a % of net income is the way to go. BUT with a $ minimum - say $50 - cos even with no income, living costs continue. This way, they get to appreciate the need to save a bit every week to have a buffer in case of lost income.

[Slyer]

I was paying $105 a week plus internet till I left home nearly a year ago.
Now I'm paying $105 a week plus internet plus electrickery plus food plus blah blah blah.