I'm by no means an expert when it comes to raising children, nor do I play an expert on TV. Like everyone else, I do have opinions on raising youngsters, and I get the chance to try them out in real life. I also share the plight of other parents when poor choices can come back to haunt you, though I'd rather take my chances than not have a chance at all.
Jordana
posted on her situation of paying her son for chores, as he has realized that with money he can buy Legos. She has given him different chores to do around the house, and she pays him for completing the chores. I made the comment that an allowance should be given to children just for being part of the family, and that
... payment should not be predicated on the completion of chores or daily tasks. Extra tasks can be rewarded with extra money. Non-completion of chores can be met with various levels of discipline, depending on the situation.
GOYL respectfully disagreed with me, as she raised her daughter to perform chores without monetary compensation initially, and now as a teenager she is being paid for chores.
But she has never had an allowance -- I just never saw the point of paying her to be a part of the family.
Now that she's old enough to want to have spending money of her own she gets a weekly stipend which is tied to the completion of additional chores, with the added caveat that they must be done well and without reminder from us. Out of that money she must pay for all non-family outings, personal items and entertainment. It's been an interesting lesson for her in money-management and deciding what it is she really wants -- and it has put a stop to the "I have to do EVERYTHING" whine we were hearing for a long time.
Could that whining have been stopped earlier if she had started the "stipend for chores" at an earlier age? Don't know. Jordana brought up an interesting fact that neither she nor her husband "... got either an allowance nor had chores to do". Fascinating! She also mentions:
I do not think I'm comfortable simply giving an allowance for being part of the family. I'd rather just pay for everything myself than dole out money weekly to children simply for being.
Both of these nice ladies propose that an allowance is some sort of payment for being a part of a family or "simply for being". I suppose you could view a "non-qualified" allowance as rewarding someone just for breathing and taking up space. I believe you can view it another way and gain benefits for your children early on in their development. My ground rules:
1. Amount of allowance is based on maturity.
2. Allowance is not something to be used by the parents to encourage good behavior or punish bad behavior.
3. Allowance can be taken away to pay for "restoration" of destructive acts (i.e. breaking a window).
4. Chores (age-specific of course) are expected to be completed. Non-completion of chores will result in disciplinary action (i.e. loss of TV or computer privileges).
5. Children should be strongly encouraged to follow an agreed division of allowance. For example: 10% tithe, 10% saving, 80% spending.
Li'l Tater has a plastic bank with three different compartments, decorated with a church, bank and store. He has received an allowance starting at age 6. He has on occasion performed extra chores and has received extra money. So what are the possible benefits of allowance at an early age?
You get opportunities for learning: the value of money, what things "cost", saving for something that you want, the consequences of good or poor economic choices, learning how to calculate change back during a purchase in your head. Now some folks think that they can teach these lessons without providing an allowance, and they just may, though giving one makes it much easier for the children to learn on their own.
The greatest thing you can teach your child by giving them an allowance is love, unconditional love, and the concept of grace. Grace is unmerited favor, something that God is pleased to give us though we have not nor could not possibly earn it or deserve it. If parents can effectively communicate the reasons for an allowance, a child can be shown that he is loved and will be loved no matter what. He is part of the family and is given the opportunity to share in the "riches" of the family not for what they do, but just for who they are, beloved and treasured. They are a SOMEBODY.
I can see where the cynics in the crowd could look at this as trying to buy the child's affections, that you're being too easy on them for not holding back funds due to poor performance. Like it or not, money greases the wheels of our society, and the better a child understands how to handle money, the better they will be able to handle life on their own. Parents can also show their love for their child in many other ways. If you're lucky you may get a chance to show how destructive the love of money can be before bad decisions become very expensive.
Some folks may disagree with me and continue to go on with paying for chores. I do hope that this brief explanation could help a few people and give them a chance to think about how they want to teach their children about economics and grace.
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
bravenet.com