Moral Money: our reader wants to make sure her mother has enough to live off
Dear Sam,
When I took over my mother’s financial affairs, I discovered a number of direct debits and standing orders being paid to national charities.
I know some of these causes are important to her, which is fair enough – but I don’t believe they all are. My issue is that for years I’ve been helping her financially, taking on the cost of her energy bill when I discovered she was struggling to afford it.
What I want to know is, is it fair for me to cancel these charity payments? I know she won’t want me to, but she doesn’t have a very big pension and it is clear she is donating beyond her means – and I am picking up the bill! I don’t want to upset her, perhaps there is a compromise I haven’t thought of?
– Anon
Dear reader,
This is one of those dilemmas that sits at the junction of love, money and responsibility when relationship dynamics shift as parents age.
You are not questioning whether charity is a good thing. You are questioning whether it is fair that your mother’s generosity is being quietly subsidised by you, without anyone naming that trade-off. That is a very human, very reasonable place to land.
Taking over a parent’s finances changes the relationship in subtle ways. Your son/daughter role begins to take the shape of safety net. You notice the direct debits, you see the pension stretched thin and you step in when the energy bills don’t quite get paid. Often this happens gradually, without a clear conversation, until one day you realise you are supporting not just your mother’s needs, but also choices that no longer really fit her circumstances.
Charitable giving is often deeply woven into identity, particularly for older women. Many of your mother’s donations will have been set up at moments when she felt strongly about a cause, perhaps decades ago.
Over time, those payments can become almost invisible to the giver, even though they remain very real on a bank statement. Cancelling them without discussion risks hurting her sense of autonomy and dignity. Yet continuing as things are leaves you carrying a burden you never explicitly agreed to shoulder.
Where I think clarity helps, without turning this into a cold accounting exercise, is gently distinguishing between different kinds of spending. Not as a rigid framework, but as a way of making the reality visible.
There is essential spending – the non-negotiables that keep someone safe and warm. There is lifestyle spending – the things that make life comfortable and enjoyable rather than merely survivable. And then there is discretionary spending – money given or spent by choice rather than need. Charitable donations sit firmly in that last category.
The reason this distinction matters is not to judge your mother’s priorities, but to ensure she understands the consequences of them. If her pension does not fully cover essentials, it is entirely appropriate that you help. Underwriting essentials is care, not indulgence. Many adult children do this willingly and lovingly. You might even choose, if you can afford it, to support certain lifestyle comforts as well. That too can be an expression of love.
What feels unfair is when discretionary generosity is layered on top of that, without anyone acknowledging that the money is, in effect, coming from you. Generosity is only really generous when it is freely chosen and genuinely affordable. When it relies on someone else filling the gaps, it becomes something else entirely.
Rather than framing this as “should I cancel the charities”, I would encourage you to think of it as a conversation about priorities and trade-offs.
Your mother deserves to know what her income can realistically support. Once she can see that clearly, she is then able to decide what she would be willing to give up in her own lifestyle in order to continue giving to others. That choice may surprise you.
Many parents, when faced with the reality, would rather keep the heating on without guilt than continue multiple donations they barely remember setting up. Others may choose to reduce their comforts slightly in order to keep supporting a cause they truly care about. Either outcome is valid, as long as it is conscious.
It is also reasonable for you to be honest about your own boundaries. This is where daughters, in particular, can struggle. Women are often socialised to absorb, to top up and to smooth things over. But silence breeds resentment. You are allowed to say that while you are happy to help with essentials, and perhaps some lifestyle choices, you cannot continue to underwrite discretionary spending by default. That is not unkind. It is honest.
Handled with care, this conversation does not have to be upsetting. In fact, it can be respectful and even empowering. You are not taking something away from your mother. You are inviting her back into an informed decision about how her money is used, at a stage of life where that dignity matters enormously.
If, once everything is clear, she still chooses to prioritise charitable giving and is willing to adjust her own lifestyle accordingly, that is her prerogative. If she is not, then it is reasonable for you to say that your support has limits. Boundaries are not a withdrawal of love. They are what make support sustainable.
You are not trying to make your mother less kind. You are trying to ensure that kindness is honest, affordable and does not erode your own financial wellbeing. That is not only fair, it is responsible, and in the long run it is far more respectful to you both.
All the best,
– Sam