Well, this might be an idea we can work with if the 30 year olds are no longer adults.
Curfew is 10:00 on school/work nights. Lights out at 11:00, including that computer monitor young man! Quiet hour lasts until we, the adults, get up.
The family clunker/spare car is available for one night per weekend, provided you have earned your own gas money by mowing my lawn or polishing *my *hot rod.
If you do not like these conditions, talk to your mother. She has sinks that need scouring and there is always that weekly toilet cleaning.
And no sex for you! If the guy who pumps my septic tank tells me one more time that condoms do not disolve, you are personally hand digging that son-of-a-bitch out next time.
God, NO! That insurance law is the dumbest thing in existence. And that’s saying something. Just what we need, teaching people that mommy and daddy will take care of them not past 18, or college, but until they’re 30!?!! :rolleyes:
Perhaps they should be, but can they? What if there are no jobs available? If you’re willing to work, but nobody will provide you with a job, what ought we do with such people?
I agree with you, although I’d probally extend it until high school graduation (note I’d also declare a 17 graduate an adult). Also I think it should be easier for college students are genuinely financial independent of their parents to prove it and access the financial aid they’re entitled too.
Why would you assume the parents have a job though? Between a 20 year old trying to get employment and a 50yo, I’m pretty sure I know who’s in the better position.
So the logical consequence of this idea would seem to be a law that requires any adult to pay support to a family member who is currently jobless. Which would be…interesting.
Absolutely not, I’d favor Blalron’s foolishness before I’d favor turning parenthood into a 25+ year obligation. Society has an interest in making sure children get raised properly, and there is a strong historical and legal basis for making parents responsible for the minors they’ve created. However, there’s no reason it should go past the age of majority.
I honestly find it fucking sickening that parents are forced to pay child support until 21 now if the child goes to college.
I’ve gone back and forth a lot on my personal opinions on parents paying college tuition, when I was that age I was very fortunate to go to a Federal academy because my family was better off than most in my area but still far too “cash poor” to have paid tuition rates at the time. This was of course prior to the age of FAFSA and such, which has made it far easier on young people.
However, I’ve gone from thinking a parent should let their kid fend for themselves when it comes to tuition to thinking that I’d help my hypothetical kid pay for tuition but under certain criteria. Namely that I’d expect them to take the maximum amount of Federally subsidized student loans, and any scholarships and et cetera for which they qualified. After that, I’d cover the gap and pay the balance of their tuition, fees, books, and housing. All other expenses they incurred (meaning pretty much any cost of living aside from the rent or dorm board) I’d require they either get a job to pay for themselves or they could just go without food, clothes, cell phone and et cetera. I think if you’re covering those base expenses it’s not unreasonable to expect the college aged adult to work a menial job to cover the remainder.
Alternatively, if they just really refused to work to cover the difference I’d tell them they’re welcome to look into loans over and above what they can get from FAFSA (private lenders and et cetera.)
However, I think that is a choice parents get to make. Child support payments for adults enrolled in college is so ridiculous because it is a very clear cut case of legal discrimination against divorced parents. If I have a wife and remain happily married to her, and our kid hits 18 and goes to college and asks that we pay his tuition he has no legal recourse if we refuse. If he tried to sue us to get us to pay, the case would be tossed out.
We as a society have been extended childhood by various means. Many things were established at age 18, where they got that from who knows, but it was much later already from biological maturity. The drinking and smoking age, then extending the drinking age to 21. At one time a high school diploma was more then sufficient now not even a 4 year college degree cuts it anymore. Encouragement to delay having children and delay getting married. Someone is going to have to support these kids. as society doesn’t let them become adults.
Some more thoughts on my above thought, particularly the pressure that society places on delaying marriage and children are particularly relevant to this thread. Finding a mate and having children are part of growing up, it is a normal part of humanity, having a family, and therby needing to support a family both with external resources and internal love. This has been pretty much removed by society for ‘young adults’, so they don’t have that same urge, very possibly a biological urge, to provide.
This is just one of many results IMHO of religious, educational and political authorities trying to decouple sex, love, and (the creation of) children, they were made to always go together.
This decoupling is (again in IMHO) causing the very issue above in the OP, along with many others, providing child support is treating the symptom, having Love flow in all it’s forms is the answer to correct and cure the disease causing the symptoms.
Child support is not before-tax income. Also, noncustodial parents do not get the tax benefit of having dependents in the household. The net cost to the noncustodial parent is actually much higher than the dollar amount paid each month.
That sounds fair. Keep in mind though that because of your income, your adult offspring will not be able to get nearly as much support elsewhere.
I know people who waited until 24-25 to go to college, because even though there was no way their parents would help them, the fact that their parents were alive disallowed them from getting other aid.
This age of “semi-dependence” keeps creeping higher, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it does eventually hit 30.
This is exactly what happened to me. My father runs a businesses, but he’s dyslexic and extremely bad at keeping track of his business records (thus he hasn’t filed a tax return for several years). This made it impossible for me to fill out any of the FAFSA forms until I was considered “Independent” at 24.
I don’t think this makes any sense for America right now.
There are countries- indeed, it’s probably the global norm- where children generally do live with their parents until (or even after) they are married or otherwise independent. Support laws vary greatly around the globe. For example, in China there are laws requiring children to support their aging parents!
Our 18-and-out tradition is fairly unique, but I think it serves a good purpose. I think it’s a big part of our culture of independence and self-reliance.
That said, I think the “boomerang kid” phenomena is a result of a wider social change and not just an economic issue, and has to be looked at in that context. With smaller family sizes, the amount of time that a parent spends raising children has shrunk considerably. Raising one kid for 18 years is different than raising 4 kids spread out over an eight year period. Parents have more resources and energy for their older children. I think the number of single parents also affects this. The empty nest is less fun when you are alone. One the kid’s side, we get married later, are less able to buy property young, and generally just have different expectations.
In other words, we are not going to go back to the 1950s. We are not going to recapture what used to be. These changes are with us now, and we are going to adjust to them. It’s probably going to be a while before we find a new tradition that works well for everyone. Child-support-till-30 is not the answer, but I wouldn’t be surprised if our grandkids have a very different idea of parent-child arrangements in early adulthood than we do.
Good gravy, no way. In many states, child support last until age 18, or until completion of secondary school (but no later than age 20). While, thanks to my ex not paying, we will be receiving payments for many years beyond when TheKid emancipates, I do not believe accruing support should continue after she has graduated high school.
My viewpoint is skewed because I emancipated myself at 16 and other than a small trust fund that was for tuition and books only I supported myself by working one and two jobs pretty much until I was 26 and got married. I ended up losing my apartment and having friends move all my stuff and adopt my cat while I was stuck in hospital when I fucked up my back and was in hospital/in rehab for more than a year because I wasn’t working and had no savings to pay rent.
I say turf kids off the parental teat at 18 - if they want to help with tuition, that is up to them. Until 30 - are you fucking nuts? We have enough trouble with helicopter moms and entitlement whore kids.
I don’t believe it is colleges that determine this. When a student fills out a FAFSA I believe the only role the college performs is in communicating the school’s expected semester costs back to FAFSA. FAFSA is the entity that runs the algorithm that comes up with the “Expected Family Contribution” the higher that contribution the lower the benefit for the student. But FAFSA is after my time and wouldn’t have applied to me in any case, so I won’t say I have personal knowledge of it. It is unfortunate that FAFSA has it hard coded that unless you’re married, have a child, or are over the age of 24 you can’t file as an independent. Meaning you could be a child totally abandoned by your parents and unable to receive aid as an independent. I’ve ever read, perhaps on this very forum, a thread about a young woman who was actually essentially orphaned (two parents that had abandoned her as a child) and even with documentation wasn’t able to get her status changed to independent.