This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

on parents buying their kids apartments — Brooklynian

on parents buying their kids apartments

brooklynpotter
edited November -1 in Park Slope
since that has come up before, and will likely come up again, i'd like to ask a question:

is it really that wrong for a parent to buy their child an apartment?

seriously, if i had a child and i could afford to help him/her out, i'd do so. wouldn't you, if you could, like your child (albeit an adult child, but still your child) to live in a nice place vs. the kinds of shitholes first apartments tend to be?

plus, isn't buying property an exceptional investment?

i'm not really understanding the hostility about it, except that it makes the people who have been priced out of the neighborhood pissed off.
«13

Comments

  • i would too, instead of wasting their money on rent. they would save it for something more important. and it would be also a good investment.
  • My mother-in-law loaned me and my husband the money for our down payment, so I don't think there is anything wrong with it. :) I hope I'll be in the position to do the same for my kids.

    On the other hand, the day I graduated from college, my father said, "I hope you get a job quickly, because you've gotten the last dollar you'll ever get from me." Which was fine, because I didn't feel like he had any obligation to continue to support me. After college I was a lowly editorial assistant making very very little money, and I was always surprised that my colleagues seemed to be able to afford to go out to lunch every day, buy clothes, take vacations . . . finally I realized that they were all heavily subsidized by their parents. I didn't resent them, I just felt really jealous. It was probably character-building for me to be poor and have to learn how to live on a really strict budget and brown-bag my lunch and so forth, but really, it sucked, and if my kids end up in that situation in their 20s, I will definitely help them out if I can.
  • Doesn't bother me a bit, my parents helped me out plenty, didn't buy me an apt., but I don't resent anyone whose parents did. People who feel like they are priced out of a neighborhood because other people have more money seem to have a more excessive sense of entitlement if you ask me.
  • No, buying your adult child an apartment does nothing to undermine their independence, maturity and responsibility. But the three-year-olds running amok at Two Boots: by God, we need to stop mollycoddling them!

    I kid, I kid!

    I don't see anything morally wrong with "helping out" an adult child. As with so many things about parenting, it's all in how you do it. It's possible to give money to a kid and still have him be a responsible, independent adult, and it's possible to do it in such a way that he never learns to rely on himself.

    I never got a dime from my parents for college (scholarships, luck) nor for housing. I'm glad in retrospect because it allowed me to make my own career and academic choices--many of which meant I would make much less money in the future than I could have--without feeling I had to provide return on anyone's investment. Am I proud to have fended for myself? Definitely. Would I have taken a handout if offered? Probably. Would it have changed me? Quite possibly.

    Would I do it for my own kids? I think this is one of those questions like, "What would you have done if you lived in Nazi Germany?"--you can answer however you want, but you won't really know until you're in the situation.
  • ditto to all of the above

    but really, i had to post in response to linus' re-introduction of the word mollycoddle to our lexicon.

    normally i don't make it a habit to thank people who make me pee in my pants. but some good ole fashioned fun with words - those pants just come off (to wash, you gutter-minded folk! sheesh!)

    mollycoddle. linus, you slay me. :lol:
  • Subject: Re: on parents buying their kids apartments

    brooklynpotter wrote: plus, isn't buying property an exceptional investment?
    Oh, BTW, on this point: not as exceptional as people think. Yes if you bought NYC property in 1995 and sold it in 2005. Not if you bought it in 1988 and sold it in 1995. Over the long run, historically, it's not bad and beats renting, but it's not as good on average as, say, the stock market.

    Not that any of this should be your main consideration in buying a home for your child, but a lot of people are in the mindset about real estate today that they had about stocks in the late 90s--it'll just go up up up, at a ridiculous rate, forever.
  • No inherent problem with it, though maybe giving them the down payment is a better way to do it so they can manage the mortgage payments.

    I do have an issue with parents looking for rental apartments for their children, which is what I think got you started on this - I read the Tampa dad looking for info on Brooklyn apartments that would accomodate his grown son's dog. I mean come on, can't your child find their own rental?

    Providing some financial assistance is one thing, doing all of the legwork and taking care of all the details is another.
  • Oh, enough with the Tampa dude already. He wrote one little post about 4 lines long; you have no idea whether he's really "doing all the legwork and taking care of all the details" for his kid. Maybe he just stumbled upon this site and impulsively decided to post. Maybe his involvement in his kid's apartment search begins and ends with his posts on this board. Maybe there's a really good reason he's helping his kid. Or maybe his kid's just a lame-o ... the point is, there's no way to determine any of that from what the guy has said here.
  • There is, in my opinion, absolutely nothing wrong with it. If I could, I would be buying apartments and houses for my family and friends who can't afford it, since I have no kids just yet.

    I have a dear friend who still lives in a rental with three kids and a boyfriend, father of her children. She was able to borrow and take out a mortgage years ago for her first aparment, but when she divorced her first husband, he tricked he out of the aparment, which was on both of their names. I would buy her a house in a second.

    If you buy a place for your child to live in, they still have to take care of all the bills and the upkeeping, which, giving the prices in this city, is not easy either.
  • As was mentioned above, I think ideally the money should be a loan, not a gift. I know it's a separate issue, but after recently reading an op-ed written by Muhammad Yunus (winner of this year's Nobel Prize for his work providing micro-loans), I've been thinking a lot about what he said. Yes, I know that was in the context of helping out the poor, not your kids, but some of the principles he talked about still apply. Namely, receiving a loan instead of a handout builds pride instead of dependency and humiliation (let's face it, who among us is proud to say how spoiled they were by their parents, even if they liked it?); second, and more importantly, when you know you have to pay the money back, you are incentivized to work hard. How many children of privileged parents are complacent and lacking ambition? The lazy 2nd generation is a cliche, largely because the 1st generation, who worked so hard to earn its wealth, imagines it unthinkable that its own children could just sit around playing videogames and smoking doobies. But that's often what happens.

    There are various ways to do it: buy the place and have your kid lease it from you with a principal component, so that he's gradually purchasing it; loan him the down payment and have him pay back the interest and down payment over time; or some other alternative. To distinguish yourself from Citibank, you can obviously loan at tiny to zero interest rates, give him a break on the occasional missed payment, guarantee any bank loans he takes out, etc. But overall, in principle, I think by framing it this way you're giving your kid both a financial gift and the gift of teaching him responsibility. That's my intention, at least.

    (btw, didn't mean to be gender-biased, I just didn't want to write he/she again and again)
  • i don't know. loans between family and friends can get very, very tricky. personally, i've never loaned $$. if someone has needed it i've decided either to give it to them or not. i don't believe in putting that kind of pressure on any type of non-professional relationship.

    the fact is, things happen... and when do you renegotiate?

    it can quickly become an ugly quagmire.

    i'm certainly not saying we should give give give without thinking of the consequences, but if you're trying to "teach" your adult child something, shouldn't that lesson have been learned a long, long time ago?
  • On the other hand, if they had learned that lesson long ago, perhaps they either wouldn't need someone to give them a house, or would have too much pride to accept the offer (and the implied beholdeness)?
  • jennitrixie wrote: On the other hand, if they had learned that lesson long ago, perhaps they either wouldn't need someone to give them a house, or would have too much pride to accept the offer (and the implied beholdeness)?
    this is pretty much what i was referring to when i mentioned that people had issues with this. (jenntrixie, not bashing you. honest, just showing that the viewpoints on this, esp. in our ever-changing neighborhoods, are very different.)

    and it does change the neighborhood and the playing field: i helped my brother look for a new apartment for months in PS/PH, and each time we went to an open house there was a 20-something with his/her parents who'd outbid everyone each time. and i'm talking far, far above asking price. so it absolutely raises property values, but prices a lot of people out of the market.

    as for "needing" someone to give them a house... need is a very strong word. do i need a house? no. does someone my age with several kids need an affordable place to live that's not in bushwick? yes.

    i can't imagine having too much pride to accept a home/$$ for a home from a family member i have a good relationship with. doing so would just be ridiculous. i think there's a very big difference between those who think its their parents' obligation to buy them a home, vs. those who are thankful and grateful that their parents want to help them out.
  • When we bought a coop several years ago, we were the only new buyers in the place whose parents hadn't bought the place or at least put the downpayment down on the place for them. I would say that we, in some ways, valued the purchase more since we had sacrificed to save for a downpayment. I was the president of the coop and cared a lot about the place while some of the other people were lets just say slackers. But we did end up having to borrow 5k from my stepfather to help with the closing costs which we hadn't really factored in when we started to save.

    But is there something wrong with parents buying kids property? No obviously not. When I was in high school some kids saved and bought themselves a used car and some kids' had parents who bought them a new car.

    I think it just unlevels the playing field further and makes it harder for people who are TRYING to save. Buying property is getting harder and harder for first time buyers. But when a parent can step in and pay cash for a place and immediately outbid middle class people (as happend to us three times on our hunt for a house) it sends a message that 500k is an acceptable price for a one bedroom coop and the realtors will continue to push that envelope further--knowing that there are parents who can step up with the cash.
  • brooklynpotter wrote: as for "needing" someone to give them a house... need is a very strong word. do i need a house? no. does someone my age with several kids need an affordable place to live that's not in bushwick? yes.
    As someone with a couple kids, I feel I have to note: then so do the people living in Bushwick. And every time mom and dad pony up somebody's downpayment, that gets a little bit harder for them. Hell, I'm sure the Bank of Mom and Dad have made it much harder even to live in Bushwick, if you read all the "next hot neighborhood" articles about it.
  • linusvanpelt wrote: [quote=brooklynpotter]as for "needing" someone to give them a house... need is a very strong word. do i need a house? no. does someone my age with several kids need an affordable place to live that's not in bushwick? yes.
    As someone with a couple kids, I feel I have to note: then so do the people living in Bushwick. And every time mom and dad pony up somebody's downpayment, that gets a little bit harder for them. Hell, I'm sure the Bank of Mom and Dad have made it much harder even to live in Bushwick, if you read all the "next hot neighborhood" articles about it.

    linus, i don't disagree in theory. but in real life, do you want to be living with little kids in bushwick? really, think about it. i'm not being snarly because it really does suck for the people being displaced in these neighborhoods. but in the meantime, it's not a place i'd feel comfortable living as a single woman, esp if i had young children.
  • brooklynpotter wrote: linus, i don't disagree in theory. but in real life, do you want to be living with little kids in bushwick? really, think about it. i'm not being snarly because it really does suck for the people being displaced in these neighborhoods. but in the meantime, it's not a place i'd feel comfortable living as a single woman, esp if i had young children.
    Oh, trust me, I've thought about it. That's exactly my point--I wouldn't want to live there. But if I use my kids to justify my "need" to live in Park Slope or wherever--and more important, if someone uses that need to justify a six-or-seven-figure gift from the parents--there is an objective effect on families with exactly the same needs but far fewer options, because prices go up. That's not a moral judgment, it's just an economic fact.

    As I said above, I can't really say it's morally wrong to buy your kid a place. But I do think we have an obligation to acknowledge that those decisions have real effects on other people, whose kids need safety and good schools as much as mine do but are not necessarily going to get them. (Now, does that mean I'm going to move to the projects to prove a point, or sell my house and give the money to a poor family? Don't wait up.)

    Ironically, I was kind of trying to make a devil's-advocate argument, since I'm usually on the people-with-kids side of so many threads. Although I have a family, I have always been uncomfortable with people using their kids as rationalizations for anything. If it's defensible to have Mom and Dad buy you a home, then it's defensible whether you have kids or not, IMHO.
  • linusvanpelt wrote: As I said above, I can't really say it's morally wrong to buy your kid a place. But I do think we have an obligation to acknowledge that those decisions have real effects on other people, whose kids need safety and good schools as much as mine do but are not necessarily going to get them. (Now, does that mean I'm going to move to the projects to prove a point, or sell my house and give the money to a poor family? Don't wait up.)
    I totally agree. And isn't that why there was historically an estate tax or as the Bush cronies call it-the "death tax?" The founding fathers were TRYING to keep the playing field level by not allowing huge fortunes to pass easily from one generation to the next? They were trying to prevent a recreation of the class system of England. Nowadays it seems that real estate is our "huge fortune" for most people and it DOES have a ramification on people trying to buy for the first time. I just wish we cared as a society to help those left behind. But you can't blame parents for wanting to set their kids up--it is up to the government to level the playing field so that everyone has a shot at that opportunity STILL today.
  • While I agree with you that the repeal of the Estate Tax is beyond stupid; it is historically inaccurate to say that our 'founding fathers' institutued it to redistribute wealth. Throughout most of our early history our country had no estate tax and when one did exist it was minimal.
  • brooklynpotter wrote: i don't know. loans between family and friends can get very, very tricky. personally, i've never loaned $$. if someone has needed it i've decided either to give it to them or not. i don't believe in putting that kind of pressure on any type of non-professional relationship.

    the fact is, things happen... and when do you renegotiate?

    it can quickly become an ugly quagmire.

    i'm certainly not saying we should give give give without thinking of the consequences, but if you're trying to "teach" your adult child something, shouldn't that lesson have been learned a long, long time ago?
    Well, there's also the added benefit that you get your money back. Not everyone is able to just give away $100K or more, after all.

    I hear what you're saying about how mixing family and money can be very dangerous. I've certainly accepted benefits from my parents and the "loan repayment" is essentially just my feeling that in the long run I hope to take care of them when our roles are reversed. I just see so many spoiled people out there, and so many people who don't understand the value of money, that I hope to try to avert those characteristics in my own kids someday.
  • While I see nothing inherently wrong with a parent buying an apartment for a child, there is still a part of me that looks down on the child for not wanting to grow up and stand on his or her own two feet. My wife and I scrimped and saved for years to buy our home and received not one penny from family. And our income is very modest, so it's not like we simply used our bonus checks. It was hard work and we gave up nearly everything in order to buy. Now that we own, however, we feel a sense of pride knowing that we did it by ourselves.
  • The thing is: my parents' generation could afford to buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood straight out of college on one income. No way have incomes kept up with real estate prices. Everyone has to live somewhere; all that's really happened during the housing boom is a redistribution of wealth from the young to the old, from those who didn't own before to those who did. The benficiaries, middle-class baby boomer homeowners, are basically faced with two choices: hand over real estate (or equity thereof) to their kids before they die, or after. Sooner or later, the wealth will flow back in the other direction, plus or minus estate taxes.

    When you look at it in those terms, wouldn't you rather provide a downpayment now and be around to see the kids make a home of their own?
  • Does anyone know what the tax implications are? I believe that the gift tax kicks in after $10K per parent per child, but does buying your kid a house count as a gift? If so, you're saddling your kid with one gigantic ass tax burden (isn't it around 50%?); if not--Holy tax loophole for the rich, batman!! What's to stop people from just gifting their entire inheritance in the form of real estate or some other non-taxable asset to their kids to escape the "death tax"?

    If indeed you do have to pay draconian taxes if your parents buy you a house, then my loan idea seems a lot more enticing.
  • Jack Krohn wrote: While I see nothing inherently wrong with a parent buying an apartment for a child, there is still a part of me that looks down on the child for not wanting to grow up and stand on his or her own two feet. My wife and I scrimped and saved for years to buy our home and received not one penny from family. And our income is very modest, so it's not like we simply used our bonus checks. It was hard work and we gave up nearly everything in order to buy. Now that we own, however, we feel a sense of pride knowing that we did it by ourselves.
    i think that you're assuming that all parents who help their children buy homes are doing so because their child doesn't want to grow up; that's a pretty major assumption.

    there are tons of good and lousy reasons why adults, young and old, have $$ or not. not being able to "grow up" is merely one of them
  • escap wrote: Does anyone know what the tax implications are? I believe that the gift tax kicks in after $10K per parent per child, but does buying your kid a house count as a gift?.
    I have lots of friends whose parents make yearly "gifts" to them of $10,000 to avoid any estate taxes.
  • kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=escap]Does anyone know what the tax implications are? I believe that the gift tax kicks in after $10K per parent per child, but does buying your kid a house count as a gift?.
    I have lots of friends whose parents make yearly "gifts" to them of $10,000 to avoid any estate taxes.

    Right, I'm aware of this law. And in fact, now that I think of it, I know that you can securitize your house and gift $10K worth of equity in the house to your kids each year.

    But so doesn't this mean that you can't buy your kid a house, or put down the downpayment for him/her? Or is this some kind of an exception?
  • escap wrote:
    But so doesn't this mean that you can't buy your kid a house, or put down the downpayment for him/her? Or is this some kind of an exception?
    What about buying a house, renting it to the kids for a year, selling it to them at a loss, and then claiming a tax write-off for the loss of capital?
  • doctorj wrote: [quote=escap]
    But so doesn't this mean that you can't buy your kid a house, or put down the downpayment for him/her? Or is this some kind of an exception?
    What about buying a house, renting it to the kids for a year, selling it to them at a loss, and then claiming a tax write-off for the loss of capital?

    No, I specifically asked an FC that once and he said the sale has to be at something approximating fair market value, or else it will be considered a gift (at best) or tax fraud (at worst).
  • escap wrote:
    No, I specifically asked an FC that once and he said the sale has to be at something approximating fair market value, or else it will be considered a gift (at best) or tax fraud (at worst).
    Interesting. So it could still be legit and worthwhile play in a falling market. The CME NYM futures market is predicting a fall of 5% in the next year; now'd be a great time.
  • escap wrote: [quote=doctorj][quote=escap]
    But so doesn't this mean that you can't buy your kid a house, or put down the downpayment for him/her? Or is this some kind of an exception?
    What about buying a house, renting it to the kids for a year, selling it to them at a loss, and then claiming a tax write-off for the loss of capital?

    No, I specifically asked an FC that once and he said the sale has to be at something approximating fair market value, or else it will be considered a gift (at best) or tax fraud (at worst).

    I know nothing about finances or how tax codes work but I do know you can bequest a gift of $10,000 per year as Kmom says. I do know that with an FHA mortgage you can give/loan the person the downpayment without any type of official loan document or even having to pay taxes on the gift. That would probably be the better deal for a parent.

    ecap - I work with an attorney who has transferred the ownership of homes to family member for as little as $10 but I think the few times I have seen this there has been no mortgage on the house and I think that the person paid a lump sum transfer tax which was pretty substantial
Sign In or Register to comment.