Why would any parent make their kids pay rents?

You sir, are an idiot.

You haven't got a clue have you, you poor selfish ****? Before about 1920 when you were old enough you went to work and you gave ALL your money to your parents. You lived for the day you could move out or marry. If you were a girl then you chances were slim to none that you'd get your choice of husband either. Responsible parents find the best way, FOR THEM, to imbue some sort of sense of responsibility in their children. What? You want to go back to the days where they sent 8 year olds down in the coal mines to lay gunpowder to open narrow channels/tunnels? Twit!!! (great flame but)

it just teaches them responsibility......it'a a good thing

Some Aussie families make the kids pay rent. Some of it is functional or purposeful. I have known Chinese immigrant families that send their kids out for jobs to help pay the mortgage, sure it helps them become "responsible" and gives them experience, but i am sure there also is a cost in time; if you hold a job while in school, your grades won't be as good as some kid who devotes 100% time to school without working. But business contacts can come in handy in the future, so it really depends. Yes there are parents that do make their kids work. Sometimes it is simply because parents regard their own money as their own, and their children as seperate entities that must fend for themselves eventually. Surely in America there is this culture where teenagers must leave home to work and eventually have their own life... seperate from their parents.. while occasionally keeping in touch. The reasoning behind it has to do with the degree that each consumer or "household" considers itself to have a self-perpetuating life-span or time-period. So let us say that Mr John and Mrs John form an economic unit and share joint accounts, they own assets such as a house and amenities, they work. Mr and Mrs John form an economic unit, they can expect to work for say 50 years, and then retire for 20? So their time period is 50+20 = 70; until they die. And that will be it. Say they have a child; John jnr... if they consider him part of their economic unit, then the income and time do not necessarily stop at 70, because they can bequeath their income to John, who could live at least for anoter 70 years. That way the total time period; assuming they have 1 son, is now 140 years at least. Thus if all family members think of themselves as a unified economic unit, their behaviour will be reflected in their investment/bequeathment decisions; like whether or not Mr and Mrs John wish to spend all of their own money before they die at 70, leaving nothing for John jnr, making him pay his own way at 18 as if he is a seperate economic unit... OR not. The term for this is life-time wealth. Whether or not life-time only includes the parents, or whether it includes future generations; the latter is more long term in thinking. Cheers

Because some kids want to mooch after awhile. Its on a case by case basis. If the "kid" has a fulltime job a nice car no bills but a nice car, he should be helping with something whether its with a part of the mortgage or the electric or even groceries. Parents should not have to support their kids forever. Now there are circumstances such as you lost your job where people move back in with their parents. That's all fine and if parents are charging rent then they have the right to do so but they might be hurting more than they are helping. In what I see most parents allow then to move in and once they get on their feet ask them to pitch in a little.