Once again with YTA not seeing the point. Instead of saving the education money for retirement, they squandered it. Now they want to retire EARLY and want the son to pay for it. Not the other siblings, just him. Guy has worked hard for his life and money and is not obliged to pay for them to not work anymore out of choice. NTA. But the YTA people are.

"Dear parents, I have absorbed the lessons you carefully taught and explained to me. If you have any concerns, please do take your complaints to the policy makers. You'll find them easily accessible as they're conveniently based at your home address."

The thing is, if you're doing well enough in school to get a full scholarship and then well enough to get through an engineering program at university, you don't have time to "goof around," as his parents thought he would be doing if he didn't have a job. It takes a lot of time to be a good student, no matter how "smart" you are. And when you play favorites with your kids, you're creating conflict. This guys parents have a lot of nerve expecting anything from him.

The YTA people need a reality check.

The YTA trolls need to read more carefully. OPs siblings got spending money and a place to live. OP had to work a strenuous job summers, siblings did not. OP chose a lucrative career, siblings did not. Siblings chose to have kids, OP as yet has not. OP owes parents nothing, certainly not the gift of early retirement. Had you been in OPs position, you'd likely be singing a different tune.

We started saving for our sons' educations when they were in diapers. They used up their 429s and they also have other funds. It is their money. We are retired. They have that money to buy a house or start a business. They are the future. We are the past. Move the money forward.

I bet at their passing the parents will leave more to the two other siblings than to OP because those have "families" and burdens.

Absolutely NTA for not wanting to give away hard earned savings for parents retirement. To me that is a bizarre and audacious request. My parents (now very separated) had polar opposite views on the meaning of equality; Mum's "all children must be given the exact same things" vs Dad's "all children should be given what they need in order to get the same opportunities." I lean more to the later; in this case that would mean the parents making sure none of the children should pay for uni. This is different from "we'll give each child $XX when they leave school". If they positioned it that way though, then it would be wrong to revoke that. In this day and age it's becoming more accepted in society through workplace accommodations etc. It's about building a level playing field - everyone has different needs. In the end, it's the outcome that matters, not the means. All three were given the opportunity to go to uni for free. It wouldn't be fair if one got more.

I WISH I could give money to my Mama. She gave me life. She loved me and raised me and taught me and held me and ALL the things. If I were set financially, she wouldn't have to worry about a damn thing.

Parents should have put the money in their retirement account, and with interest, they would have a nice chunk of change.

I can't even get my head round the idea that parents would ask their children for money in anything other than desperate circumstances. The history is just a fine detail, the OP should not be expected to subsidise their early retirement even if he had received his college fund money.

OP said that his parents are both teachers, and since I'm inferring that this story takes place in the US, that means they must belong to a teacher's union, and should have a very generous retirement plan. Retiring early--even with support from OP--would be a really bad financial decision, as it could greatly reduce their retirement benefits over the long term. But it seems like these people have a history of bad financial decisions, so clearly NTA.

Not a fan of the disparagement of teacher at the end. Not sure what that was. Teaching is taxing af. There's a reason 50% quit within the first 5 years after going through gradschool to get there. #1 reason is burnout

Do you have to be strong to be a welder? I'm a software developer, and I'm really getting to hate this field. Hardly ever get to actually design and really code anything anymore.

I mean the guy said it was an emergency that he would absolutely help his parents. That to me is key because they raised him,. Understand the parents for maybe having to keep some for things that they need to use it with but then giving him the rest of the money. I would never keep the whole money from my kid at all. Fix some stuff in the house that they didn't have the money for of course use some of that money but don't keep all of it. I would never care if I got a full scholarship and my grandparents who raised me how to use the money for their house and then gave me the rest.

Way too many social workers that don't do squat for society. As an engineer you are extremely valuable. Good on you. Keep your money

NTA! You are not legally obligated to just hand them money because THEY DIDN'T SAVE ENOUGH. If it was an emergency like their house is being repossed then yes. However, just to retire early, and only ask you and not your siblings. I agree with other posters you and your wallet are NOT A RETIREMENT PLAN. Obviously you're not the a..hole, your parents are.

I get it. I have siblings and one was always treated better or differently. I know what inequality feels like. I think OP should have received his college fund, regardless. If he got a full ride scholarship, he deserved it! He would have used that money for a different purpose. Like a down payment on a home. It sounds to me like the OP was a hard working, responsible person. His parents used money set aside for him, they now have to wait to retire. Boo hoo. OP was certainly NTA.

If HannaMashida believes that if someone has a full ride then they don't need the money then they should also believe the parents don't *NEED* to retire *EARLY* and the family didn't *NEED* a trip to Disney. If he sees the college money as a *want* because he had scholarships then Disney and early retirement are even bigger *WANTS*

Hm I disagree with most points, here. The parents saved money for their child's future. They assumed it would be college, but it could have been any number of things. The child asked if the money could be used for other expenses. My impression was that they wanted to use it for housing, and general life expenses. They worked hard so they could get a full ride. Their parents instead said ,"no it was never yours to use, unless it was for classes." I guess that's a stance you can take but to then use it on personal frivolity instead of a trust, or for that coveted early retirement... That kind of rubs salt in the wound. It would feel like the child is being punished for working hard to earn their education. Also, regardless of the reason behind OP's stance, there's no emergency here. It's OP's parents wanting to take money that was never theirs for a personal frivolity. This is wildly different from OP thinking that they were working hard for education AND going to have extra money for

Gotta be smart enough to save for retirement. That being said, they got what they gave. NTA

Leaving aside the whole college fund debacle, why would the parents ask the kid to jeopardize their own savings for family, retirement, or whatever else life might bring so that the parents can retire early?

Forget the college fund. I can understand THAT. But expecting their children to pay for their EARLY retirement? And one ONE of three children at that! No no no! And what would they have done, if child no 3 went the same route as the other two? Would they expect all children to pay? Or none?

Doesn't matter of he had a full ride. The money was for his education. Parents gave money for education to siblings... now parents don't want to take money from the siblings? Parents put nothing towards posters education. Not the posters fault Parents haven't got enough to retire.

"beasxonly" What?

NTA for not giving the money nor for being upset that his parents treated him unfairly compared to siblings. To say he isn't holding a grudge though is a lie based on his wording.

Nobody is TA here the parents aren't obligated to pay for the children's education and children are not obligated to pay for the parents retirement.

All are TAH. Parents had a right to spend it, since the money wasn't for other things. They sacrificed a lot during the time they saved it and went withouts. His his costs were covered. His parents remained generous. He should have embraced the extra luxury of a fancy vacation and memories with his family.They were TAH for asking for support when they were still capable of handling their own. They should have planned better. Don't ask your kid to support you, while you're still working. And OP is TAH for still looking at it from the childhood trauma point, as an adult. Not all kids have equal needs. Who told him everything had to be perfectly 1/3 between every sibling?

I was born and raised in America, but my parents are from a different culture, and I spent years in their country too. I find it more than a little unsettling how the OP, and everyone else here, seem to be arguing that parents and children are nothing more than contractual parties. That's quite an American attitude, while the rest of the world is more interdependent. Families help each other out when they can, not just in emergencies, not out of obligation, but out of, well, love for one, but also because families are genetically related and we are programmed to work together. In America, in particular, there is little government safety net. Remove the family safety net, and what's left?

OP is perfectly within his rights to refuse funding his parents retirement. He is however an AH for thinking his parents should have given him their hard earned money to play on. They saved for his education meaning they made sacrifices for YEARS to make sure he had a good opportunity to set up his life. By putting a chunk of money into their home, they likely increased their homes value, and did in fact solidify their own space for retirement as well as increase their children's inheritance. OP is grossly entitled.

NAH, he didn't need the money his parents saved, they don't need the money he's making. Why is this even a question?