The legal obligation of a child only exists from an annual gross income of €100k if one wants to name it. Initially, there is actually only a one-sided obligation from the parents towards the children.
That's just how it is.
I read from this that one selectively claims the pleasant rights unilaterally, similar to Minister Spahn, who could not imagine ever caring for his parents but gladly wanted to be supported by them. If this is the current success model, then all I can say is good luck for the future, for young and old.
To rely on the fact that only parents have duties and not to look at what duties I have myself as an adult person does not correspond to my life philosophy. This is not how I thought as a young person towards my parents and do not think so now towards my children; fortunately, this has been foreign to me so far.
Measured against the sums that are inherited today and usually already (without legal obligation) gifted before death, I am surprised at how exactly some young people with dream houses know their rights, but do not know contrary duties, even if they are purely social or human in nature. There have already been cases here where the excavator was already around the corner for grandma’s house while she was still living there.
As already said, black and white is and remains nonsense.
In an ideal world, parents of course grant their children the support they are entitled to.
True – and in the same world, children take care of the well-being of their parents, then it turns into a wonderful thing. I do not understand at all how this can always be named only one-sidedly; the exploding numbers of nursing homes and the people wasting away there speak a clear language about our social awareness.
Unfortunately, there are enough parents who do not fulfill their duties and put their children in the unpleasant situation of having to claim maintenance. But that cannot be blamed on the children, only on the parents.
Yes, absolutely, and I would encourage every child to consistently claim this. But it does not correspond to the experienced reality if one perceives such misconduct only on the parents' side; there are always both. Greedy and inconsiderate children exist just as well.
The legal obligation of a child only exists from an annual gross income of €100k if one wants to name it. Initially, there is actually only a one-sided obligation from the parents towards the children.
That's just how it is.
In an ideal world, parents of course grant their children the support they are entitled to.
Unfortunately, there are enough parents who do not fulfill their duties and put their children in the unpleasant situation of having to claim maintenance. But that cannot be blamed on the children, only on the parents.
Therefore, any maintenance obligations should of course be taken into account when financing a house. Otherwise, the house may still have to be sold – nobody wants that.
Maintenance obligations definitely, it is rather about the respective extent or what goes far beyond these obligations.
If our house is used someday to pay for our care, then that is alright if nobody is found who wants to take over. We do not expect that. If someone wants to take over, it can certainly be different, very gladly even.
It is by no means a discussion between old and young. I hear from my children that sometimes the same generation is also surprised about some absurd ideas about what is supposedly owed to them.
To reassure: the same differences of opinion also exist within the older generation about what the young should do for them, so here too no black/white or old/young!