I don't want to judge anyone, just wanted to state that there is clearly quite a big cultural gap here. I don't know anyone around here who would do similar things.
This is an interesting mindset. I don't want to judge you either, but I never understood the value of keeping my money and collecting wealth. If I were struggling, I wouldn't go out of my way to help my family. But if I had extra income, I would help my family if they were in need.
Obviously, if my family doesn't need help, I wouldn't try to give them money. But if they were in need, I wouldn't say that it's not my responsibility to help either. I think this is a simple judgement call. The efficiency of the Scandinavian welfare system is besides the point.
As parent said, he may have the first type, but not the second, so it's hard for him to answer on it without making it sound like a culture clash.
That said, there are a few deadbeats who try to take advantage by always being in need. But only to finance their life of leisure, not real need.
I've given a decent amount to family over the years. For the most part it's about a recognition of what people have done for me. My mother sacrificed significantly so that I could be the person I am today.
Not every country rewards work equivalently. In Sweden I see people working in supermarkets and petrol stations that still have decent lives. Norway is wealthier still.
That's not the case in Britain for the most part - we have much higher income inequality. Someone can work a full time job and still struggle, because the low end jobs pay biscuits.
(This is probably a significant contributor to the sticker shock I have when shopping in Scandinavia - the staff actually get paid...)
If you can repay them somehow and make their lives easier, why not do so?
I wish her pension would cover her real living expenses.
Geography is interesting, but not deterministic.
This is why socialism works in scandinavian countries (it's a need, not a luxury), but fails in the south of europe
