
A parent's guide to raising money-smart kids: from pocket money to supermarket lessons
But despite the challenges it poses, it's very important because learning how to manage money in a way that is measured without being mean is a lesson that might endure if done right
The first question is when to start the lessons in lolly?
On the one hand, parents can be forgiven for wanting to protect their children from the crass and cold world of commerce for as long as possible.
READ MORE
They will, after all, spend enough time worrying about money and where it's coming from without having to start
stressing before they go into senior infants.
But on the other hand, the longer we shield our little ones from the financial realities of the world, the harder it will be for them to develop an essential life skill.
In fact learning to manage money, is at least four life skills bundled into one. It teaches children prudence, responsibility, delayed gratification and self-discipline.
While there is no definitive starting age – all children are different – the commonly accepted wisdom is that young ones are ready for some money lessons from the age of four when counting is central to their lives.
The key thing is easy does it though.
You are not looking to make you child a Nobel Prize winning economist or burden them with your own woes. You just want to teach basic numeracy and how to make decisions as to how and when they should spend whatever money they have.
Choosing the right piggy bank
Piggy banks are an excellent idea when introducing the notion of money but do make sure to pick one that is transparent so your child can watch the money they put into it grow.
It is also important to teach them the concept of the future them. This can be tricky as children tend to live in the moment but a fun way of locking in the concept of saving is a chart broken into small denominations which they can colour as the coins build up to set amount.
This teaches them about saving, about counting, about bar charts and about colouring so what's not to love about that?
Lessons at the supermarket
When shopping in supermarkets make them aware of labels and how to compare prices and choose the cheaper alternatives or the ones that are on promotion.
If they are a little bit older, it is no harm to show them how unit prices can paint a very different picture of the actual cost of a product than the shelf price that many companies are happy to shout about. Although in fairness, many adults could do with learning this lesson too.
One other very important lesson a child should learn as early as possible is the difference between window shopping and actual shopping.
Window-shopping vs Actual shopping
They need to learn that just because they walk past the Disney store on Dublin's Grafton Street, does not mean they are going to walk through its doors and buy some eye-wateringly expensive cuddly toy every single time.
The way to explain this is to highlight the difference between buying days and looking days. And before they go anywhere near the shops they need to know that 'today is a looking day'. Once they accept that it makes temptation easier to resist.
How should I handle pocket money?
Another tool in a parents armoury is pocket money.
Not along ago, this
writer took part in a debate on these pages about the merits of pocket money
and for the sake of the argument sided against it, However, it can have value but it does need to be policed somewhat carefully.
It should be handed over once a child hits seven – how much depends on individual circumstances and parental values.
With pocket money a child can be taught the value of setting aside a percentage – even if it is only 10 per cent for future spending.
An important point to remember is that when children are given control over what they buy, they are going to sometimes (always?) make the wrong decisions.
That will leave them feeling sad and pleading for a do-over. This can be tricky because a parent might have seen the mistake coming and stopped themselves intervening – a little like David Attenborough filming a lion creeping up on an antelope in the wild.
The parent might also want to stop the child being sad. But making mistakes is part of life just as lions eating antelope is and children can learn a lot from making them.
Cash for chores?
An alternative to pocket money is a chore-based system.
By getting kids to do little jobs around the house for cash you can teach them some of the simple concepts of earning and income early on. And get them to do things like vacuum the livingroom. They will not, however, grasp the concept of wages and the financial significance of the money as it isn't really understood until early adolescence, according to researchers.
That takes us to ages.
What to teach them about money from toddlers to teens
There are many thousands of books and websites the offer advice on how children can be taught the art of money.
We were impressed with the US-based Money as You Grow website from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). which has an age- based guide to that many might find useful.
It suggests a few things parents can say to teach their children about the value of money.
For the youngest cohort aged between three and five it suggests the following:
'Say: You need money to buy things, and you earn money by working.
'Say: You may have to wait and save up money before you can buy something you want.
'Say: For big events – and for everyday activities – you need to think ahead about what you will need
'Say: Every time you spend money, you make a choice. There's a difference between things you need and things you want.'
Any parent who can impart these four nuggets to children by the time they are five will have done very well indeed.
Children aged between six and 12 can learn they need to make spending choices and that it's good to shop around and compare prices before buying (another skill many Irish adults could do well to learn, if our experience is anything to go by).
This age bracket should also be taught it can be costly and dangerous to share information online and that putting money in a savings account will protect it and pay interest.
Again, the US site has things parents might say to these young ones.
'Say: You can earn money through an allowance or by doing jobs for the family or others.
'Say: You can start a habit of putting money aside for things you want.
'Say: You need to make choices about how to spend your money.
'Say: Try shopping around and comparing prices and features before you buy.
'Say: Taking out a loan means you pay back what you borrow, plus more – because of charges called interest.
'Say: You need to keep important personal information private.
From 14 to 18, lessons can include the importance of looking at cost when choosing colleges, the need to avoid using credit cards to buy things which otherwise would be unaffordable, the nature of tax and saving for retirement.
Although, we have to be honest, teaching a 16-year-old about the value of pensions or the difference between the
Universal Social Charge
and the top rate of tax does seem like a stretch to us.
Home Economics
Speaking of teaching and teens, another thing that might be encouraged is choosing
Home Economics as a Leaving Cert subject
.
While certain core subjects are mandatory right through the curriculum and others are mandatory until the Junior Cert, the Department of Education has no policy on the one subject which would do most to improve our young people's levels of financial literacy.
One of the questions on this year's higher level Home Economics paper went like this
In relation to household budgeting, differentiate between essential expenditure and discretionary expenditure. Give one example of each type of expenditure.
How would you get on with that?
Making money visibile in a contactless world
Another modern day reality is the invisibility of cash.
Contactless payments
were introduced in Ireland in 2012 with Apple and Google Pay following a few years later.
The net effect means cash is increasingly invisible. By making it more visible and taking children to cash machines and using notes and coins more frequently, a useful visual lesson can be shared.
It is also worth remembering that whilst learning about money is essential, learning about money anxieties is not. How conversations are framed is key in this regard..
Saying 'We don't have enough money' or 'We can't afford that' can lead to anxiety about money, and a lack of control the family's financial situation. By contrast saying 'That is not good value for money' or 'I can think of a better way to spend my money' imparts a sense of control and priorities.
And finally, it is of value to teach children what added costs mean. If you buy a bike you will also need to spend money on a helmet and a lock and lights and more.
And if you are going to see a film, then it is no harm to tell your children how much the tickets cost but also how much you are spending on snacks and drinks.
But you don't want to be a bore about it. Your children already have plenty of reasons to think you are boring and you really don't want to give them another one.
You can contact us at
OnTheMoney@irishtimes.com
with personal finance questions you would like to see us address. If you missed last week's newsletter by Joanne Hunt on your rights if your holiday flight goes wrong you can read it
here
.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Are prize bonds still a good investment?
I have been a steady holder of prize bonds over the last number of years, and, together with winnings, have built up a fair amount. A few months ago, State Savings changed their policy by introducing larger prizes each week. (€50,000 each Friday, with €500,000 on the last Friday of the month). This has reduced dramatically the number of winners, and it has become like a lottery, except you do not lose your money! This has probably been further influenced by interest reductions. State Savings also started to notify winners by email, as well as sending winnings by mail the following Tuesday/ Wednesday. I am disturbed to see emails used to be sent at 2.40pm on the Friday, but now have become totally irregular, sometimes taking a few days. READ MORE As this prize-winning has become a lottery, are there independent observers as for the National Lottery, and previously with the Irish Sweepstakes? In addition, has the holding of brize bonds, lost its attractiveness? Mr M.T. Are prize bonds a good investment? That seems to be the kernel of your query. To be fair, your personal experience, at least until recently, appears to suggest they have been for you. I'm not sure that's a universal view. Certainly, in recent years, prize bond investors have been voting with their feet and walking away. Figures released a couple of weeks ago show that just shy of €351 million of new prize bonds were sold last year. That's a sharp 28 per cent fall on the previous year. That 2023 figure was itself down 20 per cent year-on-year and annual sales are now less than half the €735.7 million sold at the company's peak during Covid in 2020. An even bigger number came from people selling their investments. Requests for repayment came to €538.2 million last year. That is up just over 1 per cent year-on-year but 90 per cent up over the past five years. Having fallen for the first time in a decade in 2023, the overall prize fund fell for a second successive year. For all the company's guff about the figures 'reinforcing the product's long-standing appeal as a unique and secure savings choice', they're clearly worried. The number of prizes awarded last year was up more than 53 per cent and that followed a 31 per cent rise the previous year. There was an even bigger jump in the value of those prizes – 89 per cent last year on top of a 51 per cent rise in 2023 – bringing them to a level not seen since 2012. You talk about changes in the prize structure but those are not that recent. They date back to October 2023 and in fact the number of prizes on offer has increased sharply in recent years as you can see above. The key factor affecting the number of prizes is not the headline figure for prizes at each level but the interest rate that determines the size of the prize fund. This is currently 1 per cent – hardly over generous but almost three times the 0.35 per cent rate that applied immediately before October 2023. The other factor, obviously, is the size of the fund and that, as the figures show, is falling in recent years. Essentially, 1 per cent of the fund is given in prizes each year. As the top prizes – €500 and above – are set, the real difference is in the number of €75 prizes drawn each week. So, what are your odds? With 713.6 million prize bonds in issue at the end of last year, your chances of winning a prize in any draw is comfortably more than 20,000/1 – on the basis of the minimum investment in bonds of €25 for four €6.25 bonds. Winning the weekly jackpot is a 178.4 million-to-one shot. For comparison, the chances of winning the jackpot in the Lotto since 2015 when it was expanded to 47 numbers is one in 10.74 million – although, in fairness, as least you do not lose your stake with the prize bonds. Clearly, the more bonds you hold, the better the odds, though they are still fairly daunting. If you don't win, you do have the right to get your investment back at full face value but it will be worth less than when you bought those bonds due to inflation. Inflation over the past five years in Ireland means that the €25 you choose to withdraw this year by redeeming that minimum level of prize bond investment is worth just €20.20 in buying power – barely 80 per cent of what it was if you bought those bonds back in 2020. If you bought the bonds back in 2000, your €25 is worth just under €15 in terms of 2025 prices. So for the hundreds of thousands of bondholders who do not win a prize, this is a poor investment. If that gives the impression that I'm not a massive fan, you'd be right. Unless you are averse to taking any level of risk at all, you'd be better looking elsewhere. Even the risk-averse can get a better return on their cash with other State Savings options – unless they're lucky, and then we're back to the Lotto analogy. Oversight As to oversight, the Prize Bond Company is apparently a joint venture between An Post and Fexco to run the scheme on behalf of the State – or more precisely the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) , which is the State agency charged with managing the State's debt. An official from the NTMA oversees each weekly draw, which is done electronically – with the numbers generated randomly – and the results of those draws are apparently then analysed by another company that specialises in statistical and data validation, according to the Prize Bond Company. At the time of writing, the most recent draw was the last weekly draw in June when there were a total of 8,823 prize-winners who shared almost €1.24 million in prizes. Obviously this was skewed by the monthly €500,000 win. The prize fund in other weekly draws is just shy of €740,000. Once a month (the final draw of the month), there is one winner of €500,000, as you say. Otherwise, there is a weekly winner of €50,000, 20 winners of €1,000 each, and another 20 who get €500. After that there is a much larger number of winners of €75. How many precisely is based on the size of the price bond fund. As of now, it is 8,781 winners each week. Prizes are paid into your bank account if that is the option you have chosen or, as a default, used to purchase more prize bonds. Part of the issue, especially for people with small holdings of prize bonds, is that they are passive investments, rarely looked at. The Prize Bond Company does notify winners by post and, more recently, by email but if you have not updated your details with the Prize Bond Company – and especially if the bonds were acquired before email details were relevant – any information about winnings may have gone to a long-irrelevant address and the bin. This is especially true, I'm guessing, for people who were not active buyers of bonds but who received them instead as gifts from family. Clearly, that group does not include you but, for other readers, that is why it is important if you own prize bonds to make sure the operators have your correct details. You can find and download a change of address/change of name form here . What happens any unclaimed prizes? After six months, they are put in a special fund of unclaimed prizes. A winning bondholder can still claim that prize at any time. At the end of last year, there was €3.4 million in unclaimed prizes. That might sound like a lot but when you consider that €45.6 million was issued in prizes last year alone and that the unclaimed prize fund dates back to 1957, it's clear the vast majority of prizes do find their way to the bond owners. You can check with the Prize Bond Company by phone or online and the site also has a Check My Numbers feature although this can be a little more finicky. So is it worth the investment? The bottom line is that the State is paying just 1 per cent 'interest' for 'borrowing' the money you pay for the prize bonds. And unless you're a winner, you're not even getting the benefit of any part of that 1 per cent. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by email to , with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice


Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Expect plenty of cribbin' and moanin' as the budget games begin
The budget games are under way, right enough. Impending decisions about spending priorities for next year and into the future are now the unavoidable context of every political exchange – especially those within Government , some of which you'll see, most of which you won't. They are the subtext of every interview, news story and speech between now and October. As ever, the management of expectations at the centre is essential at this stage. At the recent National Economic Dialogue Paschal Donohoe solemnly warned of deep uncertainty about the future and that (inconveniently) positive headline economic figures so far this year mask 'considerable vulnerabilities'. 'The mood music is changing,' Donohoe warned. His party leader saw 'dark clouds on the horizon'. For the Taoiseach , 'challenging,' was the mot juste. In the Dáil this week, Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers returned to the theme. READ MORE 'We face significant economic uncertainty,' he said. 'Everyone in this House needs to realise the level and degree of ... corporate risks that exists right now.' As the Bert used to say during the late stage hubris of the Celtic Tiger, sure this is all cribbin' and moanin' and talkin' down the country. Still, you can see what they're at. The country and its political system have become accustomed to massive giveaway budgets, and cannot contemplate restraint. Well, let me qualify that thought: everyone can contemplate restraint, just not for themselves. Everyone has a demand for extra spending, sourced from the public purse. Some have a good case; all believe they deserve priority. Much of our media – especially RTÉ – is in the habit of promoting the causes of all comers relentlessly and uncritically. Of course, RTÉ might feel a special affinity with bodies looking for money from the Government. But still. Some context would not go amiss – how much would this cost? What is the existing budget? Where might the money come from? What should not be done in order to pay for this? What taxes should be increased? The list of supplicants for greater public funding is literally unending. A casual glance at a political correspondent's inbox gives a flavour of the requests bombarding the budget ministers: extra provision for education for people with disabilities; extra funding for school capitation; VAT cuts for the embattled hospitality industry; a €25 per week increase in welfare rates; this week's cause celebre – retaining the €1,000 discount on fees for third level students; and so on, and so on. [ The Irish Times view on college fees: Government has a choice to make Opens in new window ] Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan played a more subtle hand. Speaking at the Free Legal Advice Centre in Dublin, he said it was clear that Ireland has 'a big problem' with domestic violence. He would like to provide more resources for Flac and for civil legal aid – but 'I'm limited in terms of budget'. He is getting to the heart of the entire question of budgeting: it's all a question of priorities. Few people would quibble with increasing the budget for legal aid to ensure that people can have access to justice and to the protection of the law, when that question is taken in isolation. But governments cannot take any of these questions in isolation – they must weigh it all up as part of a coherent and credible whole of Government budgetary plan. Within the justice budget, for example, how does that measure up as a priority against recruiting more gardaí? Or fixing the problem of prison overcrowding? Or supporting the victims of crime? Or rehabilitating young people who have fallen into criminality? And how should the justice allocation be compared to the other budgets within Government? Should justice be constrained so that we can spend more money on health? On disabilities? On child poverty? Not so simple now, is it? And, yes, you might want to do all these things. But you can't. Anyone who pretends you can isn't being straight. You have to choose. Now let's not feel too bad for Messers Donohoe and Chambers. It may be hard being in charge of budgets during a time of plenty, but it's better than being Rachel Reeves . As the tears rolled down Reeves' cheeks in the House of Commons on Wednesday, both sterling and the UK's standing in the bond markets were headed in the same direction. Whatever the problems of prosperity that Jack and Paschal have to manage, they are far, far preferable to the other kind of problem, now facing Reeves and her prime minister. Better to have surpluses than deficits. So you might think that an overriding national priority would be to maintain steady and stable public finances. To do that, the budget ministers and the leaders of the Government parties have decided, they must eliminate the once-off giveaways of the last three budgets. 'We can't and we won't' continue with them, Donohoe told Ivan Yates on Newstalk on Thursday. But how firm is that determination? My sense is that Donohoe's is rock solid. He is not, however, in charge of the Government. Both Simon Harris and Micheál Martin, while ruling out another goody basket of one-off giveaways, have insisted that they will also seek to help people with rising costs in the budget. Does this signal a middle ground will be found? This week's controversy over student fees shows just how hard it is to withdraw benefits to which voters have become accustomed. Does the Government have the political will and the capacity to restrain itself and take politically difficult but necessary decisions to position the country for future growth and to protect it against future adversity – or will we cross our fingers, plough on and hope for the best? We'll see. But I know one thing: the politics of no hard choices never, ever ends well.

Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
Power struggle in corporate watchdog led to garda roles not being filled
The Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA), which is responsible for enforcing company law, refused to fill vacant garda roles in the body in a dispute over the powers of its chief executive, Ian Drennan. Mr Drennan also sought the outward transfer of four gardaí previously seconded to the authority. He said 'fresh ideas, perspectives and experience' were needed and that replacement gardaí will be assigned in due course. The chief executive provided details of the dispute in the CEA's annual report which was published this week. It is the first time he has publicly commented on tensions within the CEA which have led to allegations of a toxic work environment in the organisation. Mr Drennan said, during 2024, the CEA experienced 'an unprecedented unwillingness to accept decisions, as well as difficulty in obtaining information, explanations, and clarifications sought in respect of criminal enforcement activity.' READ MORE He did not specify to whom he was referring, but referenced disputes over the CEA's entitlement to oversee officers' work and arguments regarding the 'true nature' of secondments of gardaí. One of the key areas in dispute was whether seconded gardaí are subject to CEA supervision and oversight, he said. Dealing with these arguments, which Mr Drennan called a significant distraction, led to financial expense and absorbed 'considerable senior management time' during the year, he said. The chief executive said if arguments over the CEA's power were advanced to their logical conclusion, it might have to 'completely cease its criminal enforcement activity pending, potentially very significant, legislative amendment'. As a result, the CEA decided to 'temporarily defer' the filling of vacant garda roles in the authority in October 2024. There are normally 16 gardaí seconded to the CEA, but this number has been depleted recently due to retirements and transfers. Mr Drennan said it was later determined these arguments did not reflect the statutory regime underpinning the CEA. In early 2025, it recommenced engagement with the Garda regarding vacancies. Regarding gardaí assigned to the CEA whose secondments were rescinded, Mr Drennan said as a growing organisation, the authority must 'renew its criminal investigative capabilities'. 'In particular, it is important that the organisation's criminal investigative complement periodically benefit from fresh ideas, perspectives and experience.' He said in this context, he requested Garda Commissioner Drew Harris 'to rescind the secondments of four secondees'. New gardaí will be assigned in due course, 'through a combination of both temporary transfer and through competitive processes', he said. The four seconded gardaí objected to the move and were represented in talks with management by the Garda Representative Association (GRA), it is understood. A least one civilian staff member has also this year lodged a case with the Workplace Relations Commission over their work conditions. In a meeting with Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke last March, Mr Drennan said a cultural audit of the organisation was to take place as part of a new strategy. The audit will be carried out by an outside body. The ODCE was rebranded as the CEA in 2022 following significant public criticism over its handling of the prosecution of former Anglo Irish Bank chief executive and chairman Seán FitzPatrick. The late banker was accused of misleading Anglo's auditors about millions of euro worth of loans during the banking crisis. In 2017, following a 126-day trial, all charges were dropped on the direction of the court. The judge criticised the ODCE's handling of the case and said its inquiries had fallen short of the unbiased, impartial, balanced investigation to which the accused was entitled.