Never got one (or knew a kid in our neighborhood who got one) and don't plan on giving it to our kids.

I think they're dead wrong. If your spouse stays at home, does s/he get "paid" based on how much work s/he does in a week? An allowance shouldn't be tied to chores, because chores aren't a job that's done for money, chores are just part of being a member of a household. I think it's fine to pay kids for optional jobs that are above and beyond (depending on your household, this might be painting a shed, digging a new garden bed or cleaning Grandma's basement). Ideally, you would want that sort of job done for someone, anyone, outside the home, because that requires greater responsibility. The entrepreneurial kids can shovel sidewalks or pick weeds for the neighbors, and that more accurately represents the world of work than chores=allowance does. A small allowance as part of the household, then earn the rest.

I do think they are right to insist that kids have a financial "plan" in place. I've heard of people who give their kids allowance in three pots - spending money, savings, and charity. That makes sense.

I never had an allowance growing up, because my parents wanted to be able to veto any purchases I made. I had to ask them each time for money. I do NOT recommend this method.

My sisters and I figured out we could get more money out of our parents if we didn't have a set allowance. Not as if we got everything under the sun handed to us--extra chores if we wanted something, and we all had little after school jobs for spending money, etc. But our dad would do things like fill up our car for us when we were in h.s. so we didn't have to use our money. My husband didn't get an allowance either so I doubt our son will get one.

Thank you for this edition of Ayn Rand's: Macroeconomic for Children.
"What worse lesson"? I can think of a heck of a lot of worse things than giving a kid a buck a week.
I will check out the rest of the list, but it sounds like it'll all be about making sure none of those lazy entitled children get any of those poor supportive parent's money without working darn hard to earn it.

I'm not a fan of the allowance, although I haven't decided yet how to deal with money with my daughter. To me, chores are a part of being a member of the family, and money you can spend however you like is another part of being a member of the family. I had an allowance as a kid and I grew up VERY preoccupied with money (how much I have, how I can get more, etc). I don't think that's a particularly healthy way to feel about money.

'What worse lesson could we teach our kids than "something for nothing"? '

How about "only help out if you are being paid for it?" or "you have no inherent responsibilities through being part of a family, only those you take on in return for payment"? Those seem worse to me.

I completely disagree with everything they said there.

My parents were very clear to my brothers and I as children that when we started getting allowance it was NOT payment for chores or doing things. That's essentially bribing your kids to do work for money. We understood we were part of this family and as part, our parents were ALLOWING us some of their money each week. It was a privilege and with growing up enough to have that privilege, it was expected that chores would be done, good grades, homework done, etc. It wasn't a "do chores, get paid" it was more than that and we knew that. I grew up with a better respect for money and my parents for that.

I didn't receive an allowance as a child, but my sister (six years my junior) did. I don't think either of us is more or less responsible with money than the other.

When our eldest (now four) turned three, we created a chore chart/allowance system, but it wasn't so much with the idea of getting her to do stuff around the house; it was to cut down on extraneous toy purchases. If the money comes out of her pocket for a trinket, and she can't something until she earns her allowance again, I think that's a valuable connection for her to learn. It literally gives her a visible illustration of work and reward.

I also disagree with this. It's pretty much the opposite of my philosophy. I started giving my five year old a dollar a week (4 quarters) a year ago. She has to put one quarter in each of her three banks (spend, save, and share), and she may choose where to put the fourth quarter. This allowance is not in any way connected to chores.

I teach my children that as part of a household, you contribute to getting things done simply because you live here. If we all put in effort, we all have a better experience in our home. Also, I want them to understand that their contribution is valuable and essential to the running of our home, which I believe is excellent for self-esteem.

Weekly money is separate. I give her this small amount each week because I'd like her to start feeling confident with money at a young age, so she can be smart and responsible with it by the time she leaves the nest. I think she should have a little bit to spend, and if she wants to save it up to buy something, she'll eventually have a lot to spend. It's also important to me that she learn to save, and to be generous with others.

On the personal end, I did not receive allowance of any kind, and I also did not have to do chores of any kind, ever. This meant I never learned how to deal with money, I didn't know how to take care of my home (my college roommates taught me to do laundry!), and I learned that a mother is a martyr. I'm doing my best not to pass any of these things on to my children!

OK, I just clicked over and read further. While there are a couple of things I agree with (primarily not worrying about whether my kids' allowance matches that of their friends), I found a lot of it downright offensive. For example, this:

In reference to allowance, it says "It implies that someone (parent) is allowing someone else (child) to have some of the parent's money."

OK...so the problem is what, exactly? Yes, yes I allow my children to have some of my money. I must be setting such a bad example.

Every member of the family is expected to contribute to the household in some way, including working outside the home, or housework, or being a good student. I won't pay my kids for any of that and I won't teach tham that those obligations stem from payment. We all have obligations to each other.

Jmorri26 said it well. Allowances in our houses are allowing children some freedom to plan, save, and dream. I am not teaching my children to get "something for nothing."

I never received an allowance; mom didn't believe in them. But I did make a tidy sum cooking dinner most nights for our family at age 11+. She didn't think it was responsibility to cook a full meal ever night but I enjoyed it. She paid me about $2/meal which was awesome money but never controlled how I spent it. Both as a child and now as a parent, it was a total win-win situation. And I am a good cook...

These tips kind of suck. Here are my (I think) unrelated gripes: A) Allowance shouldn't be tied to chores. Kids do chores as members of the household. B) Nothing wrong with welfare. Those of us that have and are able should provide for those of us that don't have and are not able. Seems like parents (who have money and are able to work for money) should provide for their kids (who don't have money and aren't able to work for money). That doesn't mean just giving them money and not teaching them how to manage it properly.

I honestly can't remember if I received an allowance or not. I must have though. I do remember that I was expected to help around the house as a member of our family. And I expected to get my first job as soon as I was mature enough and legally allowed to. I started working at 15.

We absolutely call it allowance! That's the money our kids are allowed to have out of our budget, just as we have a certain amount of money allowed for food, clothing, bills, entertainment, etc. My kids DO NOT get money or allowance as compensation for doing chores. They are expected to do their fair share around the house because they are a part of the family, not because they are a paid employee. In our home we use allowance as a money-teaching tool--how to save, how to budget, and how to suffer the consequences of your own money-mistakes. We even have rules about borrowing money: They pay interest!

The book "Parenting with Love and Logic" is a great resource on allowance. The basic point they make is that giving them allowance allows them to learn money lessons while they are comparatively cheap, i.e. wasting money on impulse-purchased toys that break quickly at age 5 is much easier than on an impulse-purchased motorcycle at age 18.

And I agree with all other commenters that chores should not be tied to allowance. Duh. I mean, I don't get paid for my chores around the house, so why should they?

Each of us got five dollars a week. There was no skipping out on not doing our chores which were divided and rotated among us three. The only part of the chores I did not agree with is there were no reminders no list to check we just had to remember and I was not so good about remembering. Allowence taught us that if we did a job we should get paid for it and save up to earn the item we wanted. Or better yet bank- loan money to my brothers :D although I wish I had been taught about intreast back then but I was just proud that I could be of help to my older brothers. Its some what of a stepping stool for the "real world" if you do a job you get paid if you dont you get yelled at or introuble just like real work. no thank yous and if you mess up at work you might get yelled at written up or fired. isnt that what raising kids is really about preparing them for the real world not just trying to go against what we were taught because it is outdated???

I read a book by David Owen about allowance that's basically in line with comments here (and not in line at all with the Desert News article).

Owen's basic concept is to give an allowance NOT tied to chores, and ALSO to offer kids a generous interest rate if they bank their money, with you. I thought that was a really nice idea.

http://www.amazon.com/First-National-Bank-Dad-Teach/dp/0743204808

It looks like I'm in the minority here, but our kids earn their allowance... $1 per day, paid monthly. They have a list of chores to complete every day of the week. For each chore they don't do, $1 is subtracted from their total. Believe me, NO ONE in our house doesn't do their chores because slacking off could take a huge chunk of their money. In addition, they have "regular chores" that everyone is responsible for: make your bed, clean up everything you get out, etc. They are not paid for these chores, as it's part of being a family and, heck, just learning to be a grown up. I guess in the big picture, I want my children to learn both lessons: 1) that they have to work for their money - no free rides around here and 2) there are some things that you aren't paid to do - you do them because it's the right thing.

And whoever was horrified of those lessons because stay-at-home moms don't get paid, that is not true. SAHM's don't get paid in a traditional way, but their hard work saves their family thousands of dollars each year. No housekeepers necessary. Less need to go out and eat every meal. No sending the laundry out or having someone else care for your children. Folks, that is money in the bank right there!

I love the comments here and wish everyone would also post their comments on the D-News website to give that discussion some balance!

I second Love and Logic and the David Owen approach to allowance-giving--both fantastic books.

I spent a lot of time researching allowance before giving my daughter one, and learned that the debate over whether it should be tied to chores is just about as old as the practice of giving allowance. I think each family needs to do what works for them.

The way my husband and I came to peace with the practice: we give our kids books so they can practice reading, we give our kids paper so they can practice writing. We therefore give our kids money so they can practice spending and saving and sharing. We give them enough so that they can actually do something significant and it encourages them to save up for big stuff (my daughter just purchased some Rollerblades and swim goggles--and you better believe those are the most well-tended recreation items in our house). But we also expect them to purchase their clothes and their after-school activities with the money, too. I created an envelope budgeting system with her, so that she gets the idea of planning for her expenses. Finally, we figured that when she gets a job as a teenager, she will have plenty of experience with working to get a paycheck. By then, if all goes according to plan, she'll have had lots of practice in budgeting appropriately.

But again, there are lots of different experts with lots of different ideas, all of them may work for a variety of kids. The Eyres do some amazing parenting things, it's just that in this case I happen to disagree with their approach--but mostly because it just doesn't fit for US.

I just checked back, and I find it so comforting to see so many who agree with me. It looks like we've all really put a lot of thought into these things, and that in itself shows a lot, I think.

Grabbing My Happy - I was the one who mentioned stay-at-homes. I was actually thinking of my own stay-at-home husband, not stay-at-home moms, but we're used to everyone assuming that only women stay at home, so don't worry about it. I certainly understand and value what he does, and I know well that his staying at home was a financial decision for us as much as anything else. My point was that he doesn't get "paid," he does work that contributes to the family financially, but I am not his employer. I don't keep money from him is the house isn't cleaned. Familial "contributions" aren't tied to money in the simple 1:1 correspondence that the authors of that piece seem to think was necessary for children (as you yourself say, they are not paid in the traditional way). That's a far cry from undervaluing their financial contribution. Please don't make rash assumptions.

No "allowance" here. My kids, ages 10, 7, 3, do their fair share around the house. They clean their rooms, they unload the dishwasher & they regularly neaten the downstairs when it's messy, especially since it's their stuff that it's messy with! They don't get paid to do these. They are their contribution for having food, clothing & shelter. When they balk, they frequently hear, "you don't work, you don't eat." My kids are hard workers & have never missed a meal! ;) If there is something specific that they want to buy, I offer to allow them to work it off by doing odd jobs. Folding/putting away laundry is the best because it can earn them $1 per load for a full load (I really hate that aspect of laundry!). After they've saved enough money, they can go buy what it is that they want. Sometimes, they receive small amounts of money here or there from grandparents and such. They almost always donate it to a missions project at church. My husband keeps a coin jar on his dresser for his loose coins which get deposited nightly. Each summer (at VBS time) they get to empty it, count it, split it and choose how to donate it. That's how we handle money.

So questions for all of you parents who don't tie allowance with chores, what do you connect it with? Behavior? Do they always get an allowance no matter what? What is the criteria for getting and more importantly not getting an allowance?

Degerkas--I don't tie allowance to anything. She gets it for being my daughter. That doesn't mean she keeps it, though.

For instance, she didn't do her chores on Monday night. No problem, I did them for her. And, much as I would have to pay someone to come clean my house if I didn't do it, she paid me to do them for her. Totally eliminated any arguing and guess who did her chores without any resistance at all last night?

I give an automatic $2 a week. That way she can buy a small treat one week; or save for 2 weeks & get a small My Little Pony or something, more weeks of saving = bigger purchase.
While this is generally static, there have been weeks where I've told her that her behavior doesn't warrant an allowance. Alternatively, there are some weeks where her behavior is above expectations and I might contribute a couple bucks extra.
Her chores are just stuff she HAS to do. She has to keep her room clean, help w/ dishes, etc. That's just a given in our house. Her allowance is a supplement to her. Sure she gets presents on her bday/xmas and an occasional trip to the ice cream shop, but I use her allowance as something she has the flexibility to decide on.
We're also big on sharing. Make a lot of cookies? Give some to the neighbor. Got a new toy? Bring a friend over & play with it together. Have change from your purchase? Put it in the bucket the shelter or something. I don't teach her that the other kids should just work to get their own darn toy.

I think allowance should be just part of being in the household and not being of an age to earn money yet. Not tied to anything, although if a kid were abusing use of money (buying old girlie magazines? gambling? why do all the money-related infractions I can think of sound so unlikely?) I could see withholding an allowance until the kid can prove s/he can handle it.

Kari M. - I was raised similar to how it sounds your daughter is raised. We helped out around the house, as members of the family... and we received an allowance, as members of the family. Neither was directly tied to the other, but if you weren't going to keep up with your responsibilities (i.e. chores), you couldn't expect to have your right to your allowance. It worked well, and it made sense to us.

Our allowance was a fixed amount, which I think is a good thing, as it helps teach budgeting skills. You can't plan a budget without any idea of how much money you will be receiving. Recent studies have found that a child's ability to defer gratification is one of the biggest predictors of their future success, so budgeting and saving are really important habits to foster in young children.

@brooklynstar
"Nothing wrong with welfare"
Well said!!

I completely agree with pyewacket, LeahE, jmorri26 and several others. Kids should do chores because they are part of the family not because they are being paid. I give my son an allowance and it has been awesome. Every time he wants to buy something, he has to use his allowance. Video games, video rentals, candy, etc. He has learned that there are consequences for not planning. Also it has taught him about choices. He knows he can't have everything he wants; just like the rest of us. This year we are having him keep a journal of what he spends his money on so he can look back and reflect on his choices.

"Doling it out with no connection to work or performance. What worse lesson could we teach our kids than "something for nothing"?"

What nonsense. I would be fascinated to hear how the Eyre's children made payment for all the breastmilk they consumed as infants. Those moochers! And do their kids have to pay for their room and board with little tokens they earn doing household labor? Let's face it, the status of children (moreso the younger they are) is pretty much "getting something for nothing". It's called perpetuating the species.

"we give our kids books so they can practice reading, we give our kids paper so they can practice writing. We therefore give our kids money so they can practice spending and saving and sharing."

Exactly! Not everyone is privileged enough to be able to give their children money solely to teach them how to manage it, but I am, and I'm aware of how fortunate that makes me.

Chores and housework, on the other hand, are part of the family ecology of living together. Things get done because they need done.

If my kids carelessly break, filch (like from each other) or gratuitously waste something, they do pay for that out of their money. The fact that stuff costs money, it doesn't grow on trees, is another financial lesson they need to learn.

I like to give a regular weekly allowance and also "paid jobs," or extra jobs on top of the kids' chores, where they can earn extra cash. I save those special jobs for this category (cleaning the baseboards, behind the toilet). The paid jobs have to be perfectly done to merit the extra moolah.

Putting down people who are on assistance (welfare) is not really a good thing to teach children.

I'm in my 60s, and we didn't get an allowance when we were children, but my mother would always give us a bit of change when we'd pick up something at the corner mom & pop store, "for going." Kids were much less obsessed with money then! And it was a thrill that you got money just for going! I always smile when I think of that expression. You went to the store for your mother because it was the right thing to do, but you were also given a pat on the back (and a little monetary reward) for doing it!

Are you aware that the article you are linking to wasn't published in "Desert News" but in "Deseret News", which, as the name indicates, is likely an emanation of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, a.k.a. it belongs to Mormons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News

So, it's very likely that the article is strongly adhering to the values of that church, rather than rooted in recent research on children's psychology.

Janet, I was thinking that it also probably was connected to the religious doctrine.

To answer the question about what I connect allowance to: nothing. It's a small amount of money. My children get to have some tiny opinion about how money can be spent. They have a tiny bit of money to buy gifts for others or to donate. And they'll save a tiny bit which, one day, might add up to be something.

I don't connect the tiny weekly amount to anything, just like I don't make them earn their food, I don't make them earn their clothing, I don't make them earn the heating bill. And I don't make them earn this tiny amount of money that, as far as I'm concerned, is part of their lifelong education in how to become an independent and functioning adult.

Janet: The Deseret News is in fact owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints (the Mormons), and while it often takes a more conservative journalistic stance, it nevertheless is a mainstream newspaper published here in Utah. Richard and Linda Eyre are members of the Mormon church, as well.

However, please be aware that the Eyres are respected authors and speakers regarding a variety of parenting issues, and Richard served (during the Reagan administration) as the director of the White House Conference on Parents and Children. (http://www.theeyres.com/eyre_biography.html)

Nevertheless, the article itself does not aim to speak for the Mormon church; neither do all Mormons take such a conservative political stance (yours truly being one of them).

I learned some valuable lessons from both methods as a kid. My parents "allowed" me the opportunity to have a bit of pocket money (like, $1.00 a week in quarters, but it started off with small change as a way to learn counting), and if I went above and beyond the normal call of duty, I had opportunities to raise extra.

I wanted one of those American Girl dolls when they first came out, but if anyone remembers, they weren't cheap then either. The lesson I learned was hard work, patience and saving over spending. I kept track of the amount I saved up, and knew exactly how much time I'd invested in it. In the long run, I value that lesson far more than I valued that doll.

I have a problem with the idea that children should be paid to do things (chores, cooking, etc) that are part of normal family life. And why would we teach kids that these things -- dishes, cooking, helping parents -- are *jobs*, and not very normal household activities?

This is really interesting. My brother and I both got allowances but they weren't implemented very fairly. I was expected to do the dishes every night (by hand after the dishwasher broke and was not replaced) and all my brother had to do was take out the trash once a week at least which he managed to whine his way out of and had my dad do for him.

Guess who has had a steady job history since high school and who has been OK with if not expected other people to support them because they don't want to work?

I don't agree with their advice. It's basically recommending parents to pay their children for work and pay more for a job well done. That's a a bit too commercial in my eyes. I think it's better to push children to want to be help out as a way to demonstrate their love, respect and care for others, not for a financial reward.

Just a note on the tips being in a Mormon publication: It does not reflect the views of the Church as I know it. Every week we run a free store to give food & necessities to those in need. Free. Every year we collect toys for Toys 4 Tots, without expecting those children to work off their presents. We hold drop-in tutoring sessions for children of all economic class, again for free. Many of us recognize that even though our time is valuable, and we have worked hard for the money we have, there is a greater good. There are those in need, and we need to function as a community that takes care of all it's members, regardless of their ability to repay us.
Just as we function as a family at home. Heaven help my daughter if I start billing her for expenses :-)

I didn't have an allowance but I wanted one very badly. As a pre-teen, I started to get invitations from friends to go do things:to the movies, to the mini-golf course, to the mall, out for ice cream, things like that. I'd ask my parents for permission and then for money. Often, they'd give one but not the other. It was very confusing and embarrassing. My friends would sometimes treat me but more often I'd just stay home. Having a bit of pocket money to spend as I pleased would have been so liberating. Eventually, I started babysitting and then got an after school job when I was sixteen. And yes, I continued to to chores around the house.

This has been a very interesting discussion. I remember reading Kiplinger's Money Smart Kids when my daughter was very young and thinking it had some good ideas in there. Now that my daughter is at allowance age, I should go back and visit it.

I know a family who gives their teenage children quarterly clothing allowances. The children have become very value conscious (shopping at second hand place, forgoing name-brand trends, etc). I thought this was an interesting idea.

I think giving children money without strings is a useful lesson. It is good to make little mistakes and learn the value of trade-off at a young age. I especially liked LeahE's comments and I think Saral08 speaks to why a parent might want to give some spending money to their children. And Esan's comment demonstrates that using your allows to save for a goal.

My husband and I gave each other allowances for many years before we had a child. It was great; no guilt, no resentment, no overspending or underspending, and I know a lot of couples do the same. Did he take money away if it was my turn to cook and I didn't? Did I take his away if he didn't fold his clean laundry for 2 days? No, or course not -- that would be disrespectful. Why do we treat our children with less respect than our spouses?

Back when I was canvassing door-to-door for an environmental campaign I went to a house where, after my introduction, the woman who had answered the door called her young son (definitely under the age of 10) over and asked me if I could tell him about the reason I was there. She asked him if he thought it was a good cause and he said yes. He got out his little bank and handed over five dollars. His mom explained that she gave him an allowance expressly for making donations. She'd give him information on different programs or charities and he would pick which ones to send his money to. I think that's pretty much the best parenting tip I've ever gotten, and plan to do the same thing if I ever have kids. It's a three-for-one... there's still the value-of-a-dollar/savings lesson, but there's also the opportunity to learn a bit about a broad range of issues, as well as teaching about the importance of giving back and helping others. Pretty awesome, if you ask me.

I started allowance with my kids when they were small and have evolved it as they've grown into teenagers, expressly so they don't have the experience saral08 did. The amount has gotten bigger over the years (currently $10 a week, they are 14 and 16) but I buy the things they NEED like shampoo and bus cards and lunches. (If they want something like a cool t-shirt or whatever, they have to buy it themselves.) I also pay my daughter for babysitting her baby brother, and bump up allowance if one has to do something like walk the dogs all week bc the other is at camp. I've also been known to give them extra cash if they are doing something special, like going to a carnival. In my home, allowance is not tied to chores but they do have chores.

This year, when my son turned 16, we opened up a checking and savings account for him, complete with a debit card. It's tied to my account so I can keep tabs on his spending and also deposit his allowance directly. So far he seems to be handling his money pretty well. He does need to find a job though!

Jillandmo: True. But if nobody cooked, you'd have to spend money on take out, and if neither of you did the laundry, you'd have to pay to have it cleaned.

I think that goes back to the point, though, that each family has to do what works for them--the debate over paying for chores or not. The way our own family dynamics work, having my daughter pay me to do her chores was not disrespectful (what would have been disrespectful for me would have been to yell and/or nag at her, or to allow her to let me do them for her without consequence, or for her to not contribute to the household); however, I can totally imagine family dynamics where you'd have to work it out differently.

I think household chores are something that you should participate in for intrinsic, not extrinsic reasons. It's part of your role in the family to contribute to the household tasks.

I do think allowance money of some sort is important to teach kids about managing money. Learning to save and that "you can only spend it once" is something you can't learn in theory and as a kid, the stakes are much lower than if you have to figure this out when you leave home. When I was a teenager, my parents gave me a yearly allowance and boy was that a lesson in budgeting.

Janet Brandt - Yes, the article is from the Deseret News and Kari M. did make the correct clarifications in the comments below you.

Kari M. - Thanks for being on top of it for me!

Wow this is a really good discussion. Thanks for answering my questions about not linking allowance to chores. I totally agree that there are some really life dependent lessons that can be learned from receiving an allowance.

Growing up, I got a fixed allowance based on my age which got larger as I got older. If we did all of our chores for the week, practiced our instruments and did our homework, we would get our allowance on Sunday morning. I never really felt like I was getting paid to do chores, so I suppose it was more like if my responsibilities were completed then I got my allowance. If not, then it was forfit. Also I believe my parents started a kid friendly savings account for me when I was fairly young. I remember using that to save up to buy my little sister a Jasmine barbie doll which she really wanted for Christmas as well as my first real mountain bike in 8th grade (which I owned for 12 years). It was a great learning tool to save for what I really wanted and how to budget for it.

I got an allowance when I was a child, enough for penny candy and going to the pool, etc. It wasn't much, but I didn't have a lot of expenses. I was a child! We did earn extra, but it wasn't through chores, we set up lemonade stands and such. I guess the monetary aspect wasn't a big thing when I was growing up.

I am surprised so many people are against this. I think children should have typical chores, making bed, cleaning dinner table, etc. that don't get paid for, but I also don't just give them money for nothing. If they want something they have to work for it, and any thing they are paid they have to give 10% to charity, before spending.

What is wrong with teaching your child that they have to work for what they want? Maybe that is what is wrong with our world today...not enough people were taught to work for what they want. I guess Mom and Dad were the first line of credit.

I'm in the same boat as degerkas. My allowance stopped once I turned 16 because that was the legal age to start working in more job sectors.

I might add that no matter if a kid receives any manifestation of allowance or not, I can only hope that the adults the kids have as role models use their money well. Wouldn't it be weird if the kid got allowance and the parents were going into bankruptcy?

Actually you can combine both systems - I used to have a weekly allowance when I was a kid, with no expectations attached. But there were some chores that everybody hated, and you could get an upgrade for doing those.

Totally disagree with many of these tips. I won't pay my kid to do chores; they have to do them because they are members of my household. When they're older they will also get a modest allowance to do what they want with...that autonomy, I hope, will teach them how to budget.

saraI08 raises a very good point. My MIL's family was very poor growing up, and she vividly remembers how her mother's friends would all go for coffee, and her mother couldn't because they didn't have the dime. Like it or not, not having spending money shuts people out of a lot of social opportunities. True, no one needs to be a high roller to have good friends, but little things like ice cream and bus fare are so important to developing healthy social networks, especially for adolescents who are learning to be more independent.

"What is wrong with teaching your child that they have to work for what they want?"

It's not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just that it's such an inconsistently applied idea; somehow it only gets whipped out for allowances. Do your kids do chores to earn their birthday gifts? Do you require a 1:1 ratio of floors mopped or porches swept for the monetary value of each
meal? Do they have to wipe down a windowpane for every sheet of paper they use up while they draw or paint?

I want my kids to learn to work, but I don't want them to learn to work because they have the idea that they're entitled to a tangible reward directly connected to every task they do. I want them to learn that being part of a social group means everyone puts in and everyone gets out. For kids, that manifests as doing chores around the house because they need to be done and then having needs (and not-so-much-needs) met, like food and clothes, gifts and allowances.

I didn't get an allowance as a child either and don't plan on giving my children one. I agree with the philosophy that chores are part of being part of a family. I do give my daughter incentives (a toy for example) when she's filled up her reading incentive sheet....

Common mistakes? That implies that there are clear right and wrong ways to deal with allowances. I love reading condescending posts.

I've seen it work as a marriage of two ideas...

Yes, the child is part of a household and there are age-appropriate chores to do. They will always get a fixed amount for doing them all, but they will get docked privileges (or money) if they are not done or if they act inappropriately. If they went beyond the chores, then they were not given more money, but they did earn more privileges. Every kid I know that's followed that "allowance" plan has turned out pretty well.

Every household dynamic is different. In our house hold our 5 year old has been getting an allowance since he was 3. It started at $1 a week and now has progressed to $5 a week. In that time we have been able to begin the understanding of managing money. If he sees a toy he wants at the store he can only get it if he has enough money. He understands that he needs to save his money. If we tell him he cannot afford a certain toy he does not argue and accepts. Believe me this did not always happen. He will usually choose to save his money. I do not see anything wrong with teaching him the value of money. His chores are handled differently, he has a chart so he can keep track of what he did and at the end of the week he can see his weekly accomplishment. He is very helpful without expecting something in return, because he is thanked and told he did well or he tried. He is a part of the household and he does need to learn the responsibility of caring for himself. I think if you are honest with your kids and are respectful to them they will become honest and respectful adults. As long as you are teaching the value and responsibility of money, I do not see why not. He has been told that his dad contributes financially and his mom contributes at the home and we work together to make a family run. Not to offend anyone but I do think we stay at home parents are technically paid, I eat here, live here buy clothes and necessities and entertainment. Yes I contribute through keeping the house afloat ect. and I know we work hard, but I am still being financially supported by someone else.