My father mentioned wanting to get all the kids and grandchildren together next summer.
There are 5 kids.
2 kids (#1 and #2) have HHI- better than Obama Rich 1 kid (#5)is very affluent and probably will be Obama Rich by early 30s 1 kid is (#4) in grad school but husband has a very good job-definitely affluent 1 kid (#3) lives at home and makes a living as an "artist"
#1,2 and 5 live fairly far from father and all have multiple children (2-3 kids)
After much discussion we agree on renting a house in Maine for a week in July.
Originally agreed to split the cost 4 ways (no charge to #3 and dad since they'll have significant dog boarding cost and not a lot of $$)
#4 states that she is fine paying for dad and #3, but thinks she should pay less because she has no kids.
#2 says no. She's only going if it is divided 5 ways even though she will need at least 2 bedrooms for her family. She says she's going to incur extra expense getting there because she has to fly and rent a car unlike #4 who can just drive.
#1 and #5 could care less and just want to know how much to pay, although #1 told #2 they were being ridiculous and obviously it wasn't a money issue because travel pictures are posted at least once a month on FB and if she didn't want to spend time with the family to just own it.
#2 has been silent since then. Not even playing Scrabble which usually doesn't even stop while traveling abroad. #2 also canceled dinner with #5 last weekend.
Do we just drop #2 and go about our merry way? What about my scabble games :-)
In my family we pay per bedroom (or per bedroom amenities if it's an en suite vs a room with a shared bath). And we don't really give a crap who pays what to travel where - that's on you for agreeing to vacation at XYZ place from the start.
Drop #2, start a new scrabble game.
ETA: And we cover the costs equally for my dad. So next summer when we rent a beach house I'll pay for 2 bedrooms for my own family plus 1/3 of my dad's expense.
I would divide the cost based on bedrooms. Then, those who are willing to pay to cover #3 and dad can split that cost. While #2 may be ridiculous in her reasoning, at the same time, it's her money and it's not fair to dictate to her that she WILL pay for someone else's vacation.
however, I'll say that I don't know if this is really the right vacation for #2. I'd bet you she'll be the one who also wants to charge the rooms based on the size of the room. Then you get into who can/is willing to pay for the master, etc.
I've done many large trips like this and you have to "let go" of a lot and I don't know that #2 can.
I will add, though, that based on your reasoning for paying for dad... he has dogs so he doesn't have to pay, I can actually see why #2 might be a little miffed.
When you start taking those kinds of factors into account, you get into murky waters.
Post by SusanBAnthony on Aug 21, 2012 13:56:23 GMT -5
I would have everyone share dads cost, but split it 5 ways among all siblings.
If dad then wants to turn around and pay for 3, good for him.
If 2 wants to be stingy, well, her loss. Karma and all that.
Frankly I would want to just uninvite 2, but I would try to be the bigger person. To a point. But when I told 2 of the new arrangement, I would include some choice words about what I thought about her.
I will add, though, that based on your reasoning for paying for dad... he has dogs so he doesn't have to pay, I can actually see why #2 might be a little miffed.
When you start taking those kinds of factors into account, you get into murky waters.
I agree in general, but I have a hard time with it at the same time.
My family has issues with this all the time, so I am sympathetic to the "poor" people. A certain rich family member in my family proposes expensive family get togethers, which are unaffordable to most of us, especially those who have to pay airfare for kids. This person is very wealthy, and could easily help others out, but doesn't. It does create hard feelings to have someone be so oblivious to the fact that a lot of us would love to go, but just can't afford it. It's hurtful to have "family" trips planned, that really are "rich family only" trips. Either make it within everyone's budget, have some kick in more, or don't even pretend to invite those who can't afford it.
I will add, though, that based on your reasoning for paying for dad... he has dogs so he doesn't have to pay, I can actually see why #2 might be a little miffed.
When you start taking those kinds of factors into account, you get into murky waters.
I agree in general, but I have a hard time with it at the same time.
My family has issues with this all the time, so I am sympathetic to the "poor" people. A certain rich family member in my family proposes expensive family get togethers, which are unaffordable to most of us, especially those who have to pay airfare for kids. This person is very wealthy, and could easily help others out, but doesn't. It does create hard feelings to have someone be so oblivious to the fact that a lot of us would love to go, but just can't afford it. It's hurtful to have "family" trips planned, that really are "rich family only" trips. Either make it within everyone's budget, have some kick in more, or don't even pretend to invite those who can't afford it.
#4 basically made this comment and closed it with "she probably votes republican" (just to make this CEP)
I will add, though, that based on your reasoning for paying for dad... he has dogs so he doesn't have to pay, I can actually see why #2 might be a little miffed.
When you start taking those kinds of factors into account, you get into murky waters.
Yeah I agree. I could see paying for dad because he's dad, but not because he has dogs.
I think paying per room is a good idea. Or maybe choose something cheaper that everyone can afford.
It does create hard feelings to have someone be so oblivious to the fact that a lot of us would love to go, but just can't afford it.
Has anyone ever spoken up and said this? Sadly some rich people lose perspective and need to be reminded that not everyone has the same budget they do.
I will add, though, that based on your reasoning for paying for dad... he has dogs so he doesn't have to pay, I can actually see why #2 might be a little miffed.
When you start taking those kinds of factors into account, you get into murky waters.
I agree in general, but I have a hard time with it at the same time.
My family has issues with this all the time, so I am sympathetic to the "poor" people. A certain rich family member in my family proposes expensive family get togethers, which are unaffordable to most of us, especially those who have to pay airfare for kids. This person is very wealthy, and could easily help others out, but doesn't. It does create hard feelings to have someone be so oblivious to the fact that a lot of us would love to go, but just can't afford it. It's hurtful to have "family" trips planned, that really are "rich family only" trips. Either make it within everyone's budget, have some kick in more, or don't even pretend to invite those who can't afford it.
are we related? we're expected to spend a week at the jersey shore by renting a house so we can spend time with my father. my father HAS a house at the shore. a three million dollar house. with 6 bedrooms. that are unoccupied. but we have to rent another house. because we just have $5K laying around for a week with a man i see every day.
needless to say, we do not participate in that week.
Post by laurenpetro on Aug 21, 2012 14:18:25 GMT -5
septimus, as for your family, can you divide the cost of the place by the number of bedrooms without adding in your father or the other one who isn't paying? does that violate any of the rules?
septimus, as for your family, can you divide the cost of the place by the number of bedrooms without adding in your father or the other one who isn't paying? does that violate any of the rules?
#2 refuses to divide by the number of rooms or beds used. Supposedly it it is the "principle" and #4 is sticking with her principle that she shouldn't have to subsidize #2's kids.
If #2 doesn't come we have a little more space and divided the place into 7 shares 2 shares each for the 2 with kids and 1 share for #4, #3 and dad
1, 4, 5 would each pay their appropriate share and then divide the remaining 2 shares 3 ways to cover dad and #3.
#2 refuses to divide by the number of rooms or beds used. Supposedly it it is the "principle" and #4 is sticking with her principle that she shouldn't have to subsidize #2's kids.
I'd agree w/ #4 if it weren't for the fact that she's willing to subsidize #3 and your dad.
Again - you've entered murky waters.
But #2 is so way off base to "refuse" to pay for the rooms/beds HER family uses. Maybe the rest of you can get your ducks in order to make this a successful vacation, but hopefully you can ditch #2 in the process! She sounds like the biggest trouble maker.
septimus, as for your family, can you divide the cost of the place by the number of bedrooms without adding in your father or the other one who isn't paying? does that violate any of the rules?
#2 refuses to divide by the number of rooms or beds used. Supposedly it it is the "principle" and #4 is sticking with her principle that she shouldn't have to subsidize #2's kids.
If #2 doesn't come we have a little more space and divided the place into 7 shares 2 shares each for the 2 with kids and 1 share for #4, #3 and dad
1, 4, 5 would each pay their appropriate share and then divide the remaining 2 shares 3 ways to cover dad and #3.
This kind of hurt my head to think about but it sounds like a good plan.
You know, I knew this would be a hot mess from the second you started it out with your dad wanting everyone to be together. I think its an unrealistic expectation and parents put a lot of unnecessary guilt on kids to pull this sort of crap off. The reality is that there just isn't enough room for everyone and it would be a small fortune to go, and its a *forced* vacation as you all didn't agree to do it yourselves when the time and place were all on your schedules.
We planned for a big family trip to Disney for 2.5 YEARS to be able to pay for it all and plan everything out. As time goes on I'm more and more convinced that that was a genius way to go for the shear scale of the event.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 21, 2012 16:03:45 GMT -5
#2 is an ass. Principle of what? That renting a house with more bedrooms for more children should be a cost subsidized by the others?
I agree it should be by bedroom. I'd be ok with subsidizing dad equally, but I'd also be ok with him paying. Boarding dogs is just something that's part of the cost of vacation.
I just got back from the family vacation from hell. My advice is to run. RUN!!! Run fast! Run far!!!
J/k. Kind of. Seriously, do it by bedroom. It's the only fair way. Whoever wants to subsidize anyone else behind the scenes is free to do so, but every adult who agreed to go should be responsible for their share of accommodations. If they require 2 bedrooms while someone else only requires 1, then they should pay more. Finally, it is just tough shit if someone has to spend more money getting there than someone else. It is not incumbent upon anyone else to make up for that. DH and I live 1500 miles from any family, and the cost of getting to and from family events is ours alone to boot. We can choose to go or not go, but we would never expect anyone else to subsidize our trip because we had to pay more to get there.
Post by MixedBerryJam on Aug 21, 2012 18:18:07 GMT -5
Actually, I can sort of see where number 4 is coming from. Why would a couple want to pay the same as a family of 7? (I'm just making up numbers, of course.) Rather than dividing it by rooms or families, how about dividing it by people? I assume the numbered people are your sibs, and I don't know how many of the next generation are involved. Does #3 have kids?
Count Dad and number 3 in the calculations and then each family pays a prorated portion of their week, or simply leave those two out of the count altogether. My less than superior math skills can't quite figure out if one method of calculation would be more or less objectionable than the other.
This is a riff on how we used to do our group, pre-marriage vacations in Maine, where people came and went kind of randomly. We totalled up the people that were there each night, times the number of nights of the vacation, which gave us our "peoplenights", the amount each person paid per night. If you were there 2 nights, you paid 2 peoplenights. If a married couple was there the whole week, they paid fourteen peoplenights. This always worked for us, and we did it many times over the years.
Instead of a house, everyone can rent their own condo or hotel room. Or find a B&B where everyone can rent the number of rooms they need for their family.
My family vacation next year is a cruise. Everyone pays their own way. You don't want to pay for a vacation, I guess you're not going. Done.
The thought of a vacation with my mom and two brothers and their wives makes me want to run screaming in the other direction, however I know some people actually like their siblings and the respective spouses.
To me....it's family. If you can comfortably afford to cover someone else, just do it. Is it really worth the drama and possible hurt feelings? Really?
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
How much money are we talking about here,anyway? It can't be that much; why aren't the superrich here just pickign up the tab?
The "compound" is about $6k for the week.
Yikes! All the more reason to use my peoplenights process.
In the interest of accuracy, you could not pay me to vacation for a week with all of my family. I would not be able to pretend I can't afford it, and I don't have a job so I couldn't use work as an excuse. But in a million years I would not be able to spend a week under the same roof with the lot of them. And I like all of them.