Should I charge my children interest when they borrow money?
"I think there's value in charging family members/friends interest if it will make them take the loan seriously.  The problem is that if you're thinking about charging interest because the person seems to be borrowing from you too cavalierly, it may be too late to make them take it seriously. In the situation you describe, if you're concerned about the loans being paid back, I think you need to have a serious conversation with the kids and make it clear you expect them to pay the loans back on whatever schedule you agreed to.  If, based on your knowledge of your kids, you think charging interest would help motivate them to do this, great.  If not, charging interest is unlikely to accomplish anything that the conversation itself won't accomplish.  If you haven't previously outlined a specific schedule or set of expectations for how you want to be paid back, just doing that (in writing) may be enough to make them realize it's not a joke. The conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't lend money to anyone unless you're either a) okay with never being paid back; or b) willing to pursue legal remedies to ensure you're paid back.  Most people aren't willing to sue their own family members over small loans, which means in most cases it's not a good idea to loan money to family unless you're ""okay with"" never being repaid (whatever level of ""okay with"" makes sense for you). I should note that I don't have kids; my advice here is just how I would handle it if I were considering loaning money to my brother or a close friend or the like.  This means I don't really know anything about ""teaching the kids about the real world"", but I have to say my hunch is that if your kids are 25+ and married, it's too late to radically change their views on how ""the real world"" works; unless they had a very sheltered early adulthood, they've been living in the real world for too long and will have their own ideas of how it works." "Tell them you will not loan them any more money until their existing debts are paid off. This is closer to how the real world works and it won't come across as vengeful or like your changing your initial ""contract"". If they protest, lovingly tell them that your money is not their money, and that an interest free loan from their father is a privilege, not a right. As far as charging interest on your loans, go for it! Charge them 5% or something small. Just don't do it on the existing loans or that will come across as changing your initial ""contract"" again, and perhaps once they've proven themselves to be reliable borrowers they can once again earn the privilege to have an interest free loan. The book ""The Millionaire Next Door"" has really good thoughts on this in its section on Economic Outpatient Care." Parents are eminently capable of gifting to their children.  If it's a gift call it a gift. If it's not a gift, it's either a loan or a landmine for some future interpersonal familial interaction (parent-child or sibling-sibling).  I an concerned by some phrasing in the OP that it is partially down this path here.  If it's a loan, it should have the full ceremony of a loan: written terms and a payment plan (which could fairly be a 0% interest, single balloon payment in 10 years or conditional on sale of a house or such; it's still not a gift). Going from personal experience, my parents let my brother and me borrow money from them all the time. However there was always some noteworthy things to take into account. As an example, I borrowed a large sum of money on my student loan (we will just say it was $50,000). I had saved nearly $30,000 on my own and my parents lent me $10,000. I paid the remaining off over the course of about a year and a half. After this loan was paid off - I started paying my parents back. They dictated that I should not worry about paying them until my other interest loans were paid off. Once they were, my priority was to pay back my parents. Its supposed to help your children get ahead a little bit rather then sucking out interest from them. As long as the money was not needed elsewhere and is spent on something important I would not worry about it. Just make sure they are aware they are expected to pay it back in a reasonable amount of time or with specific requirements (such as after other loans are paid off). Would you expect your parents to charge you interest if you borrowed from them? Yes, if they said so when the money was borrowed.  No, if there were no terms communicated when the money was borrowed. Expectations need to be clearly laid out up-front. What is your advice? I think you are asking the wrong question of whether or not you should charge interest.  The real issue is that you are concerned about the 'borrowing', which are really turning out to be 'gifts'. The money amounts are not the issue as much as the lack of responsibility.  Going back to your children and asking for interest will not fix this issue.  This is my advice: This is a difficult process, and may not go over well with your children. Remember that this is not hurting them. You are actually hurting them more by allowing them to put off developing good habits, independence, and maturity.  It is hard to see someone make choices that hurt themselves and others, but you cannot prevent them from making that choice. If they never feel the results of that choice, they will lack the motivation to change. "This is not really the focus of your question, but it's worth noting that if you live in the United States (which your profile says you do), there are tax implications for you (but not for your children), depending on whether or not you charge your children (enough) interest.  If you charge less interest than the appropriate Applicable Federal Rate (for May 2016, at least 0.67%), you must pay taxes on the interest payments you would have received from the debtor if you had charged the AFR, provided that the loan is for $10,001 or more (p. 7). This is referred to as ""imputed"" income." "This is largely a cultural issue. I would be appalled at the very idea that my parents would charge me interest for lending me money. Just as they would be appalled if I were to do so if lending them money. I find the idea of attempting to make money off of your children fundamentally wrong.  I realize that you only want to do this to teach them, that you have their best interests in mind and not your own profit. Nevertheless, what will actually happen were you to charge them interest is that you would accrue a monetary gain at the expense of your children. Is that really something you would be comfortable with? Now, as I stated at the beginning, this is clearly a cultural issue. Based on the other answers here, many cultures, probably including your own, find nothing wrong with this. I've even heard of people charging their adult children rent when they come home for the holidays, something that is completely baffling to me.  The point I am trying to make is that asking other people's opinions on whether you should do this is not very useful unless those people share your own cultural background. My family and culture are such that the idea of charging interest to one's family members seems downright immoral to me. Given that you are asking here, it seems like you might be on the fence about it yourself. However, I freely admit that my answer is colored by my own cultural prejudices and may very well not be applicable to you.  Still, ask yourself, is a relatively small amount of money in the grand scheme of things—or, for that matter, an entire fortune—worth jeopardizing your relationship with your children? Do you really believe that having their parents retroactively charge them interest for a loan will somehow teach them something about the ""real world"" that your already adult children don't know? One of the main reasons they came to you and didn't go to a bank is precisely that they expected the loan to be interest free.  So, sure, tell them that you won't lend any more until they repay what they owe. Even better, sit them down and have an honest, adult conversation, explaining that the absence of the money they owe is making itself felt in your household and work out a way they can repay you.  What, in my opinion, you most certainly shouldn't do is treat your relationship with your children as a regular business transaction. It isn't and I am sure you don't want it to be." If they have borrowed money without paying it back, what makes you think you could get interest paid? The problem that you face first is to make clear to them that a loan is a loan. As long as they can get free money off you, they will keep borrowing. Because this is Money.SE and you're connecting it to offspring, I'd think about a discussion with them to get their agreements. From my perspective, anything (my wife and) I have will go to offspring in the end. As such, everything borrowed and not repaid simply reduces the estate by that much. Among multiple offspring, such reductions should be against the borrower rather than spreading it out. That should be accounted for in whatever will is created. This would be the discussion point. It might also be discussed how or even if any interest should accrue for unpaid amounts. If, for example, a 1% APR is agreed upon for unpaid loans, then the final principle+interest amount is taken off of the borrower's inheritance. Existing outstanding loans might (or might not!) be useful examples for sample calculations if desired or needed. (If nothing else, they might serve as reminders that loans were not forgotten.) By having such a discussion, you can show that you are trying to plan for a fair distribution of your estate, perhaps thereby sidestepping any concern about charging interest to offspring for repaid loans. At the same time, you're handing over some financial responsibility, giving them a power of personal choice, which seems to be a part of what you're concerned about. Once such a discussion is started, it's possible that any question of interest will resolve itself naturally. The discussion almost necessarily must include all offspring at once. One will find it harder to negotiate from a standpoint of pure self-interest without objection from another. Think beforehand about what will be said and about what responses might come. Think things through as much as you can. "As per the age of your son you mentions i would suggest Yes, charge them an interest amount but lesser than the market rate. And give them a valid reason behind taking interest on given amount. The reason you might grab from below real incident happen with me at the time of Diwali last year. I am 26, and i am currently doing job and my salary is not so much that i can accomplish all my dreams of buying expensive Watch and many things. So i borrowed some strong amount from my mom. She gave me the amount but she asked me to pay interest of 5% and when i asked the reason behind demanding the interest she said something which was valuable things. She said me ""If i would not give you money then you will definitely ask money from some money lenders or your friends because now that watch is your first priority. And in that case you need to pay the higher interest rate to them. And in life there might be situation where we would not capable to help you in terms of financial. So this is the time you should learn to pay interest and responsibility of borrowing amount and repaying it on time with interest rate. This will help you also to learn a lesson and our money will be withing home I am not expert in parenting because i am still unmarried but i shared my point of view for your question. Thanks" In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car.  If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift.  What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan.  Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other.
Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not. "So, the term ""ready market"" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A ""spot market"" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term ""futures market"").  So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date.  The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity.  In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it.  The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money.  That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security.  It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt.  There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference.  For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them.  So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112.  That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock.  If the stock drops to $100 and I ""cover my short"" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker.  I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short.  A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps." "Scenario 1 is typically the better description. If commercial banks were allowed to simply ""create"" money, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. In the U.S., the central bank is the Federal Reserve or Fed, and is the only entity (not the government, not the banks, not the people) that is allowed to create money ""out of thin air"". It does this primarily by buying government debt. The government spends more than it takes in, and so to come up with the deficit, it issues bonds. The Fed buys a certain amount of these bonds, and simply prints the money (or more realistically authorized the electronic transfer of $X to the Treasury) which the government then spends. That places money in the hands of corporations and the people, who turn around and spend it. However, long-term, the interest charges on money borrowed from the Fed will actually remove money from the economy. The central banks, therefore, have to constantly make marginal changes to various monetary policy tools they have when the economy is just humming along. If they do nothing, then too much of a short-term increase in money supply will result in there being ""too much money"" which makes an individual monetary unit worth less (inflation), while making money too hard to get will reduce the rate at which it's spent, reducing GDP and causing recessions. The exact scenario you describe is typically seen in cases where the government is running with a balanced budget, and the central bank thus can't give its ""new money"" to the government to spend when it wants to increase the money supply. In that situation, the central bank instead lowers its lending rate, the percentage interest that it will charge on loans made to other banks, thereby encouraging those banks to borrow more of the money created by the central bank. Those banks will then use the money to make loans, invest in the market, etc etc which puts the money in the economy.  In the U.S., the Fed does have this tool as well, but increases or decreases in the ""Federal Funds Rate"" are typically used to influence the rate that banks charge each other to borrow money, thus encouraging or discouraging this lending. A lowering in the interest rate makes banks more likely to borrow from each other (and from the Fed but the amount of money ""created"" this way is a drop in the bucket compared to current ""quantitative easing""), and thus increases the ""turnover"" of the existing money in the economy (how many times a theoretical individual dollar is spent in a given time period)." My opinion is that in general, it is probably not a good idea to borrow at a cost in order to make your RRSP contribution.  Banks, of course, have an interest in loaning you money.  Don't expect their literature to be objective on the matter!  They are selling you a product and the advice is biased.  What better way to double-dip than to get guaranteed interest payments from you, as well as ongoing fees for (probably also) getting your loan money invested in their high-fee mutual funds? A year's RRSP contribution room allowance isn't use it or lose it — unlike 401k contribution allowances in the U.S.. That is, unused RRSP contribution room accumulates and you can take advantage of it in later years. If we couldn't carry our RRSP contribution room over, I might feel different about the general case for RRSP loans. Yet there are two specific cases I can think of where it may make sense to borrow and pay back: (a possible case) ... if your tax rate is currently in a high bracket (e.g. 46%), and you anticipate being in a lower income and bracket next year (e.g. 35%), then it would make sense to take advantage of the higher tax savings in the current tax year.  If you waited until the following year to take the deduction, you'd lose out on 11% of the deducted amount.   For a typical person whose income is level or increasing from year to year, this isn't likely to be applicable, but it could help somebody who is going on leave or otherwise has irregular income. (a foolish case) ... if you knew, somehow, that you could realize a return on your invested RRSP money exceeding the pre-tax earnings required to pay the interest on the RRSP loan.  However, I would suggest this is foolish bet to make.  The interest you pay is guaranteed, but the return you are expected to get is probably not (or if it is, it is probably a return lower than what your bank wants to charge on the loan.) If for some reason it does make sense for you, take the money and invest it somewhere better than the high-fee mutual funds the bank is also pushing. Is it inevitably taxed by the government? Which government? Tax treatment of familial loans varies greatly be jurisdiction. What is proper documentation procedure? If you want to get paid back, definitely a lawyer ... each. Is it better to ask several family members to help contribute so each person loans less? Or is it taxed the same? If this is only a tax issue then see above. If it is a means of spreading risk then sure. "Although my kid just turned 5, he's learning the value of money now, which should help him in the future. First thing, teach him that you exchange money for goods and services. Let him see the bills, and explain what they're for (i.e. ""I pay ISP Co to give us Internet; that lets us watch Youtube and Netflix, as well as play games with Grandma on your GameStation""). After a little while, they will see where it goes, and why. Then you have your automatic bills, such as mortgage payments. I make a habit of taking out the cash after I get paid, and my son comes with me to the bank where I deposit it again (I get paid monthly, so it's only one extra withdraw). He can physically see the money, and understand that if the stack is gone, it's gone. Now that he is understanding things cost money, he wants to make money himself. He volunteers to help clean up the kitchen and vacuum rooms in the house, usually without being asked. I give him a dollar or two for the simple chores like that. Things like cleaning his room or his own mess, he does not get paid for. He puts all his money into his piggy bank, and he has some goals in mind: a big fire truck, a police helicopter, a pool, a monster truck, a boat. Remember he's only 5. He has his goals, and we have the money he's been saving up. We calculate how many times he needs to vacuum the living room, or clean up dishes, to get there, and he realizes it takes a long time. He looks for other ways to make money around the house, and we come up with solutions together. I am hoping in a year or two that I can show him my investments and get him to understand why they make or lose money. I want to get him in to the habit of investing a little bit every few months, then every month, to help his income grow, even if he can't touch the money quite yet." "The bottom line is that this just does not work, and as such you should not do it.  Here is a question that you really need to think about:  How will you handle non-payments?  How will you handle it when they talk about purchases they made or vacations they went on when they have been short for the last three months?  Yes, it will happen. The majority of people who engage in debt consolidation, which you are proposing, end up with the consolidated debt and more consumer debt.  One cannot borrow themselves out of debt.  Carrying credit card debt is a sign of poor money management and improper spending behavior.  That behavior will not change if you ""bail them out"" with the consolidation.  They need to find a way to work their way out of this situation by budgeting, living a more austere lifestyle, and earning more.   Encouraging them to do so will serve them far better then your generous attempts to reduce the pain of their own making. In the end it is always a parent's desire to help their children.  If you can afford to give, then it is well within your right to do so.  It is also within your right to qualify that giving with behavioral conditions.  However, if you cannot afford to give, it is best not to loan." Well to start with I would make sure that the interest total you are collecting each month is greater than the interest total you are paying each month on your credit card debt.  So if you have $200 a month in interest you pay the credit card company I would make sure that the interest you collect on the loan is more than $200 a month.  And make sure that you use some portion of the principle payment to pay down the credit card debt so that you are still even or ahead of the interest you owe the credit card company. Beyond that I would want the rate to be higher than the borrower could expect from a bank.  This will incentivize the borrower to either pay it off early or refinance the loan through a bank effectively paying it off early for you.  Anything that shifts the risk off of you and onto someone else is in your favor here. You could also implement some sort of final payment fee and reduce this fee by a certain amount (presumably up to 100%) if it is paid off early.  I would graduate that amount so there is still incentive if the buyer misses the original date but still incentive to meet the date.  If the loan was for 10 years then I would probably do around .5% per year early.   I would also get an attorney to draw up the loan paperwork to make sure that you(and potentially your heirs) are covered should you need to recover from a default, bankruptcy, or other potential problems.  I would bet the lawyer fees will save you 5x+ the amount if only in headaches.  And if you are dealing with family the lawyer makes a great fall guy to say I wish I could do that but the lawyer won't let me if the family member tries to take advantage.