CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
15
yes no
Debate Score:34
Arguments:20
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (12)
 
 no (8)

Debate Creator

sunbeam9000(13) pic



should kids get a allowance for doing house chores?

yes

Side Score: 19
VS.

no

Side Score: 15
3 points

If they deserve it and their parents can afford to give them allowance. I've seen a lot of lazy kids whose parents use allowance as a way of bribing their kids into helping out around the house. The kids live there too. The least they can do is help out. If they show that they are willing to help out without complaining and do what is asked of them, then they should be rewarded with some cash. After all, they are just kids. It's good practice for them before they have to get a real job.

Side: yes
Sunset(2024) Disputed
2 points

that is so not a good practice, because the kids will get into the habit of whining and complaining about anything that is asked of them because they know that the parents don't want to hear so will pay them to do it. I would not bribe a kid of mine to do anything, they will just do it, I really don't care if they kick and scream because I can kick and scream a lot louder.

Side: No
GuitarGuy(6096) Disputed
2 points

That's why I said "if they show that they are willing to help out without complaining". It is good practice. It shows that they need to work for money. If your kids are well behaved and they do what is asked of them without complaining, then I think rewarding them is a good idea. Every kid wants money but they aren't all old enough to get real jobs.

Side: yes
mooo(1) Disputed
1 point

that's not a good approach to take, because you don't want to have a relationship where you are constantly screaming at your kid to work and your kid is screaming back. Make them feel that their work is appreciated and recognized with at least a little spending money for video games, outings with their friends, and other stuff that they want. If they know that they are visibly chipping in and their work is being appreciated, then they will feel good about it and there will be a good atmosphere in the house.

Side: yes
2 points

Sure, it helps them learn the value of working for a wage.

Side: yes
2 points

I agree totally. It teaches responsibility. Making children work and not get some sort of reward only teaches them slavery, because they're already entitled to live and eat and be taken care of as children.

Side: yes

Well, this is entirely up to the parents. Otherwise, yes because the government has now made it impossible for any child under 16 to get even the most menial job to earn valuable job skills and understand the value of the shrinking dollar.

Side: yes
1 point

why not ? mums are so tired and bored and helping them makes them feel happy . more than that girls must do that for the future

Side: yes
1 point

It teaches children that money is very important. Receiving money by doing labors helps children to learn how hard it is to earn money. This helps children when they grow up. They would try to save and manage their money well because they know that it is very hard to earn money and use it in a good way.

Side: yes
1 point

I believe they should because it helps in later years of life by preparing them to have a healthy living.

Side: yes

An allowance gives them the incentive to do house chores.

Side: yes
2 points

Bad bad idea. It'll give kids the idea that they don't normally have to help out around the house; if they do it's a special favour and they deserve compensation for it. Kids should learn that they should do chores anyway, because they live in the house and need to look after it like all family members do.

Nor do I agree with giving kids allowances for doing nothing. If they didn't have to work for the money, they wouldn't understand its true value. Of course it makes sense to give them lunch money and money for other necessities, but not extras that they can spend on whatever they like.

Another problem with giving money to kids is that there is a huge difference between a kid's finances and an adult's finances. Kids have no financial responsibilities, so every penny they get is money that they can spend on whatever they like. Adults have to worry about a huge array of daily necessities first, before they even think about "extra spending money". When you give money to kids (whether for chores or for nothing), you're of course encouraging them to spend money. And since kids have no necessities to pay for, it means you're encouraging them to spend money on unnecessary things without thinking about paying for necessities. If they hold onto this principle in adulthood... they will quickly find themselves in debt.

It's best for parents to just discuss with their children what they want to buy and why, and make a joint decision on whether or not they should buy it. Take some time to explain where money comes from, how much effort it takes to earn it, and why it needs to be spent wisely and saved whenever possible. And when the kids grow up and begin to have their own financial responsibilities, they'll get a real chance to put all that they've learnt about personal finance into practice, without getting a false head start.

Side: No
wforcier(98) Disputed
1 point

I really enjoyed reading your argument and found that it was rather well informed. However, I feel as if you are making a rather faulty assumption that is only a possibility when it comes to giving children allowances.

Introduction

You appear to link allowance and "non-essentials." This link is not necessary. It appears that if parents provide allowance as compensation for chores (i.e. the child's "job") and this allowance covers "essentials" (bus money, lunch money, etc.) then it bypasses the major force of your argument. Further, it teaches children valuable lessens in finance management. Sure, the child can use the money to purchase some non-essential thing, but then he or she would need to walk 3-miles to school instead of taking the bus.

Children tend to learn best by simply messing up, feeling the consequences, and eventually learning the proper decision. Obviously, it is good to discus the proper decisions with children, but if they choose to disobey that guidance, they will understand the consequences. If children never see or feel the real consequences of mismanagement of money, they will never grow to fully understand it. If they are the rare breed that is good with money from the start, then good for them. If not, then they will learn through their consequences, good and bad.

Just to clarify and add to that point, I'll respond based on the above idea:

It'll give kids the idea that they don't normally have to help out around the house

In the above provided scenario, children do need to help around the house. Sure, they don't need to help, but the alternative is not exactly positive for them.

If they didn't have to work for the money, they wouldn't understand its true value.

Not much to say, considering they do work for the money in their own way through chores.

Kids have no financial responsibilities, so every penny they get is money that they can spend on whatever they like

I'd disagree with the no portion of that statement. Properly delegated like the example above, children can be given financial responsibilities (such as dealing with transportation to and from school, lunch at school, etc.). They are not big, but they can be given some financial responsibilities that will teach them the value of money. Since they have financial responsibilities, they need to spend it on necessary things.

Conclusion

While your joint decision making idea does hold some ground, it does not provide a child with even simulated responsibility. While speaking with children about the importance of financial responsibility is a good thing, providing them with experiences is also relevant.

Side: yes
Peekaboo(704) Disputed
2 points

It's true that I hadn't talked about the scenario of getting kids to do chores in return for money that they should be spending on essentials. The reason I hadn't talked about that, though, is that if you can choose between paying and not paying for that essential and still live at an acceptable standard, then it's not really an essential. And if you need to pay for it to live at an acceptable standard, then the parents have no right to deny it to their children because it's their duty to take care of them. So if you live close enough to the school that you can just walk there, then bus money would be an extra if you want the comfort of sitting. If you have the ingredients at home to make lunch to take to school, then lunch money would be an extra if you want the enjoyment of a chicken drumstick instead. If neither is a reasonable possibility (because it'll take three hours to walk to school, or there's not much food you can take with you) then I'd think the parents must provide their children with lunch and bus money even if they haven't done any chores.

But what I must admit truly never occurred to me, now or in the past, was kids taking money for an essential (like bus money because they cannot walk to school), and spending it on a game instead. I got lunch money each week when I was in school, and I had never even thought of the possibility that I could disobey my parents and use it on something other than lunch, then go hungry for the week :p You're right in that it does give kids financial responsibility - or rather, it will punish them for financial irresponsibility if they don't use their money for its intended purpose. It's still nothing like the sort of responsibility you'd get as an adult (when there's nobody to tell you that these hundred bucks is for the rent and those twenty bucks is for the food), so I don't know how useful it is as an educational tool... but it is certainly a better situation from what I originally described. I'll leave this question open for now, since I don't really know what to make of it.

Finally, I still take issue with giving kids money for doing chores. It teaches them, first and foremost, that it is their right to live in the house and mess it up and expect someone else to clean up. If they do the cleaning up themselves, they're doing their parents a favour and can get paid for it. Again it's a matter of passively instilling the wrong values into them. They should do chores, and if they need money they should get an allowance, but these two shouldn't be linked in the child's mind.

Side: No
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
1 point

You started out making a really good argument, you should have just wrote the first paragraph. I think that would have made a more solid argument. Short and to the point.

I find fault in your other paragraphs.

The idea of Giving allowance for chores requisites that the chores are being completed. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should give allowance to children for doing nothing. The whole point is by giving allowance is to promote industriousness and money management.

As to your second point, I don't think children's lack of bills should be a reason to deny them an allowance. One of the first lessons children learn about money is how to save money. If you want a bike or a game then you have to save up for it, this teaches a valuable lesson to children.

Of course you can talk to them about the value of a dollar, but until they are earning it themselves they won't understand.

Side: yes
Peekaboo(704) Disputed
1 point

I should have been clearer - I'm not saying that by giving money to kids for doing chores, you're giving them money for doing nothing. In my first paragraph I said that kids shouldn't get money for doing chores, and in the second I said that they shouldn't get money for nothing either. The fact is that a number of parents do give their children allowances for free, so I wanted to cover that situation as well.

The problem with giving money to kids to teach them to save is that, ultimately, it is still teaching them to spend disproportionately. Money is a cool extra that they can spend on stuff they like, not an essential to spend on stuff they need. If they save, it's only for a few months and only because they want a bike or a game. At the worst, if they spent all their money on the bike, they wouldn't be able to buy the game until next month. They don't need to worry about how they'd pay the rent or the power which is due this month if they used all their money on a bike. They don't need to worry about retirement or any other long-term saving. And considering that the inability to prioritise between different types of spending/saving is probably many adults' worst financial fault, it is ever more important not to teach children to manage their money in a situation where their priorities are completely out of proportion and where money just isn't all that important.

Side: No
2 points

No they should not get allowance for doing something that they have to do anyway. What if you lost your job does that mean that they stop doing their chores because you couldn't give them an allowance.

Side: No
2 points

I don't think that is a good Idea. Well... Kids must be paid. But, not cuz they help their mums out. That must not be done with a monetory notion. Kids must be taught to that house chores is their job and responsibility.

Side: No
2 points

Kids should have to do chores. It teaches them discipline and helps their parents out a bit. They shouldn't expect any $$ for doing their small part.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with giving children a small monthly allowance IF their parents can afford it.

Side: No
1 point

your mom should not get you an allowence because you will be greaty

Side: no