At what age are you too old to be living with your parents?

18...

 

No, but I would pay my folks something if I were an adult. Just the principle. A token gesture would be enough for me as a parent.

 

As someone who was out on my own, far away from home at the age of 17, I'll say ...

At the same age when you're too old to be single.

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons why you should get out of the house and learn to make it on your own, but I don't see how learning how to be a responsible adult and living with your parents have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, if you're a responsible and smart person, the financial benefits heavily outweigh whatever perceived social disadvantages your situation might cause you.

I wish I had the option of staying with my parents during and after college. I could've saved enough to make a 50% down payment on my house and I would be living large by now.

 

My dad never moved out, just bought the house.

 

There are a lot of heads of households that think if you're bringing home enough money to afford some kind of rent somewhere, then get on out and rent. Wont even allow you the luxury of staying home and saving all of it.

Right, thats how I think. Either put an out-of-house target age on it, or put a price amount on it.

 

I don't think I have lived with my parents since I was 18. I have stayed at home few months at a time in between.

It is sometimes just hard to live with your parents.

 

Hey, how could you leave out the bankers and loan companies, they'd love it as well (possibly even more than real estates moguls) , especially if Congress could pass a law that required people of a certain age to move into their own residences by a certain age and draw a limit upon how many people can stay in a household over the age of 18 (unless they are above 65) and if they hold anyone over the limit, that household has to pay an extra tax fee. Everyone over the age of 18 would be mandated in some way, shape, or form to have a contribution to their own household (apartment, condo, mobile home, town house, house, cave, or castle). If you can't pay a certain amount, then you will be forced to an annual penalty or face jail time for the failure of payment (kind of like one of the health care bills required for people who didn't have insurance or didn't want to acquire any). Also, this is what societies did in the past for people couldn't pay their debts...they put them in jail.


I guess that's good, if we want more homeless people on the street, and we know how Americans love the homeless. It's kind funny, too, since some counties and cities don't even allow people to sleep under bridges, on the street, and even in their cars. Another option would be requiring higher minimum salary wages...but we know how popular that is.

I don't knock other people's living arrangements, if it is fine for the parties involved then I can say nothing about that. Especially, if the parties are getting along and everyone is adding their fair share to the things, and the space is adequate. I understand more for older teenagers, people in their 20s (in college), single mothers, or laid-off workers struggling to met end meet. Rent is definitely not the cheapest thing in the world, unless you live in a rural area or a crime-ridden neighborhood. I can probably say most homes and apartments I see are grossly overpriced. Ex. I could understand a young lady moving back home with her parents, if she is struggling to find work and has few mouths to feed.


I thought the perspective of the unemployed Italian sound engineer made a interesting point about it. Unemployment. modern industry, and the existence of well-paying jobs (along with affordable homes or living places), which is probably a few things to mention. I'd imagine would be alot easier for people to find a decent job in a big city, during the late 40s to early 80s...because of steel mills, factories, and industrial plants.

 

I lol'ed

 

Here's what I don't understand though. If you're involved in all the daily processes of owning the home, you contribute the same amount as your parents (both physically and financially) in running the household, and you live your life the way you want to live it, WHY is that considered to be dependent? I would have a hard time even calling that "THEIR" roof.....if anything, it's shared equally. Just because one chooses to remain close to his/her parents doesn't mean that they are dependent upon them. If anything, I think the pros far outweigh the cons. I think the biggest factor that contributes to this stigma is that most people feel like their parents would intrude in their lives.

 

That's different. If you are contributing rent (comparable to market value), then you can consider yourself independent. Your earlier scenario indicated that a man was living with his parents (without paying rent) for the sole purpose of saving money. In that case, the man is dependent on his parents.

 

Well, what if the financial contributions AREN'T rent money? What if it's just the daily expenditures any home owner would have (i.e. groceries, light bulbs, A/C filters, etc)? I mean, the financial aspects of the situation really aren't even important.....the parents aren't hurting for money whatsoever, the son/daughter isn't hurting for money either....it's just the family living under the same house, all equally assuming responsibility for running the household. Again, I'm not seeing where either party is dependent on the other here.....and I would be hard-pressed to find a parent who would be willing to charge rent to their own son/daughter for living in a house they've lived in their entire life.

 

How much are groceries per month? $150? Light bulbs, A/C filters? Seriously? How often do you change those? 4 times a year for filters and less for light bulbs? Those arent even worth mentioning.

The person supplying groceries/daily expenditures in this instance is dependent on his parents.

No, they are not "equally" assuming responsibility if the parents are paying the lion's share of the bills. Like I said earlier, if you're capable of living on your own but choose to live with your parents at a heavily discounted rate, you're still being dependent.

Let's say you take the monthly mortgage, property tax, insurance, groceries, and other expenditures and lump that into one sum. If person A (parents) is paying the lion's share, then person B (child) is a dependent.

It's very simple. If you're not seeing it, you're being intentionally dense.

That's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the child is depending on the parents for a roof over his head.

 

I my Dad lived in Houston i wouldnt mind living with him. Mostly because he has a separate apartment away from the house so i'd essentially have my own house.

 

I think it's also different with a single parent as opposed to both parents in a lot of cases. In a traditional household with two parents, the parents have had the authority over the child growing up...so when that child is an adult and still living with them, they are still living under that authority (or may at least feel like it) even if it's not as dominant as it once was (ie the parents don't tell the kid how to live anymore).

That's kind of how it was for me when I lived at home temporarily after graduating college. I wasn't treated like a kid anymore, but I still felt like I needed to get out ASAP to live under my own roof and out of someone elses authority.

 

It depends on the culture...it is acceptable to Hispanic women that men are living with their parents...however, the chick has to take in account if he has a job and etc. If he's a bum and living with the parents at age of 25, dump his butt!

I moved out at 25 so it's no big deal. I have no debt for college expenses and i have a house/car so take advantage of your parents if they offer to support you during college.

 

Ok, I think the main difference in our opinions here is our interpretation of the word DEPENDENT. When I think of that word, I think of a situation where person A NEEDS person B to be the sole contributor (or at least a heavy portion of it) of the household in order for it to run. Person A is completely DEPENDENT on person B for food/shelter, because person A's personal situation makes them that way.

In your interpretation, person A's personal situation makes no difference.....they are DEPENDENT simply because person B happens to pay the lion's share of expenses, even though person A has/would take care of those whenever the time has called for it. Anyways, I'm done debating it. It's really not important either way to me.....every individual scenario is different, and it really doesn't matter what other people think anyways. Like someone else said, I think it's time to move out when it starts affecting whether or not you're gettin trim....

 

I'll say 23. Final answer.

 

Like others have said, it depends on the situation. I moved out for good when I was 20. I love my parents and they are totally awesome, but I can't imagine living with them again full time.

 

I moved out at 16 to go to college...