
What's the going rate for kids' allowances in 2025?
What's the going rate for kids' allowances in 2025?
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Trump vowed economic relief, but Americans say they're struggling
President Donald Trump promised to end inflation and bring down food costs right away after he took office. Here's what Americans think 100 days in.
Despite inflation, most parents haven't increased their children's allowances.
The average weekly allowance for children aged 5-17 is $37.19, but the median is $20.
Digital payment methods like Venmo and direct deposit are increasingly used for allowance.
Inflation may be on most Americans' minds while they're at the grocery store and gas pump, but not when they're doling out their kid's allowance.
While 29% of parents have increased their kids' allowances over the last year to keep up with inflation, 65% have not, and 6% have decreased the amount they give their children, according to a new Wells Fargo survey.
'Whether or not the allowance has changed, the stark reality is that what kids are spending their money on has definitely increased,' said Louann Millar, head of student banking at Wells Fargo. 'That Starbucks that used to cost $3 is now $5.'
The survey found that 71% of American parents give their children an allowance, but the amount and way they transfer funds largely depend on their children's age.
Here's what to know:
What is the average allowance by age?
The average weekly allowance for children ages 5 to 17 is $37.19 in 2025, according to the survey. However, that number is affected by some parents who give high allowances. The median weekly allowance is $20.
Allowances generally rise as kids age. For those ages 5 to 8, the average is $31.50, and the median is $15. Those ages 9 to 11 get a little more, receiving a weekly average of $34.32 and a median of $20.
For those 12 to 14, the average is $36.05, and the median is $20. The oldest kids, or those ages 15 to 17, receive the most – a weekly average of $44.88 and a median of $25.
More: Groceries, phone bills, rent? Where parents still help adult kids financially
When do parents give kids an allowance?
Of parents who give their children allowances, a third regularly give and a quarter occasionally give their kids ages 5 to 8 one.
Millar said allowances are a good way for parents to teach their children about positive money habits, such as budgeting and saving up for a big purchase. She said starting young isn't a bad idea.
'Parents know and think it's a good idea to talk to children about money early on,' Millar said. 'Almost all of them think it's important to let kids make those small choices early on, because there are guardrails for them.'
The most common age for kids to receive an allowance is between the ages of 9 and 11. Half of parents regularly give, and 29% occasionally give children an allowance during that time.
Allowances are also common as children become teenagers. More than 70% of parents said they regularly or occasionally give their kids allowances when they are between the ages of 12 and 17.
Allowance and the tooth fairy have gone (somewhat) digital
Cash remains king when it comes to allowance, but digital payments are increasingly common.
At 73%, many parents give cash for allowance – and half give it exclusively, the survey found.
However, nearly a quarter of parents are also using peer-to-peer payment apps like Venmo to send allowance to their children, and 20% are using direct deposit to their kids' bank accounts. Some 14% use prepaid debit cards for the transaction.
Older kids are less likely to get cash than younger kids, but even 18% of children ages 5 to 8 are receiving allowance via direct deposit.
Millar said she's seen parents open debit cards for children that young. It's a sign of the times.
'I don't use cash at all,' Millar said. 'If anybody gives my kids cash, they will immediately turn around, give it to me and say, 'Can you send this to me electronically to my bank account?''
What about the tooth fairy?
The pivot to digital payment is even affecting the tooth fairy.
While she still most often leaves cash, in 2025, she'll use peer-to-peer payment methods 11% of the time. The survey found that some 7% of tooth fairy payments come in the form of gift cards.
'Maybe when you forget to get cash to leave in the tooth fairy pillow, the digital options are a really nice way to be able to make sure your kiddo wakes up with something,' Millar said.
Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@usatoday.com and follow her on X @rachelbarber_

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


New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: U.S. to Examine Social Media Posts of Student Visa Applicants
A Norwegian naval commando hoisted himself onto the deck of a ship during a NATO exercise in March. Beyond projecting military strength and pledging unity, a more pressing theme has emerged for next week's NATO summit: Keep President Trump happy. As leaders prepare to meet for the annual forum starting on Tuesday, U.S. allies have watered down their public support for Ukrainian membership and drafted a policy communiqué as short as five paragraphs to keep the American leader on board. The meeting itself, in The Hague, will open and close in under two days — a timeline designed to keep it devoid of drama. 'No one wants to say no to Trump,' said Mujtaba Rahman, who analyzes Europe for the Eurasia Group. Asked on Wednesday whether the Iran-Israel war would prompt him to skip the meeting, Mr. Trump told reporters that he still planned to attend. In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. It has already driven an effort by NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Mr. Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Mr. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of G.D.P. on core defense spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Mr. Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Mr. Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Mr. Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Image President Trump, at the White House on Wednesday, has demanded an increase in military spending by NATO's members. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times A NATO Numbers Game Mr. Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matthew G. Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Mr. Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Mr. Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the P.R. move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' Image Ukrainian soldiers last month in the Donetsk region. Credit... Tyler Hicks/The New York Times Counting Aid to Ukraine The proposal may have helped Mr. Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. And not until recently was it clear — even among some NATO defense ministers — that countries could include a small fraction of their military contributions to the war in Ukraine as part of their defense spending. But the rules for what qualifies are complex and decided at NATO headquarters on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that countries don't double-count what they give to Ukraine as a part of domestic military investment. 'Supporting Ukraine is really an investment into our own security,' said Sweden's defense minister, Pal Jonson. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Image Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, during a visit to the White House in April. Mr. Rutte is the architect of a plan that would allow for some spending on what the alliance calls 'military-adjacent' projects. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times A Matter of Time There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Mr. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' Britain, for example, has committed to spending only 3 percent by 2034, long after Mr. Trump is scheduled to leave office. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain will reach 2 percent, a decade-old goal, only this year. And the United States itself currently spends about 3.4 percent of its G.D.P. on defense, even though in sheer dollars it accounts for nearly half of NATO spending. The amount that Washington spends just on Europe is a much smaller percentage of the Pentagon's $997 billion budget. Like Mr. Rutte, other world leaders have sought ways to get the most out of their dealings with Mr. Trump and avoid unpredictable problems. At this week's Group of 7 summit, the newly elected prime minister of Canada and host of the event, Mark Carney, deployed a mix of flattery and discipline. Yet the president still disrupted the gathering, departing early to address the Iran-Israel war. Mr. Rutte hopes to avoid such an outcome. 'Trump is making a fake demand for more spending, and they're giving him a fake response,' Mr. Shapiro said. He called the Rutte plan 'clever, because it lets Trump get what he wants and he can brag about it.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dow Jones Futures Fall As Trump Mulls Iran Attack; U.S. Markets Shut
Dow Jones futures: U.S. stock markets are closed Thursday as President Trump mulls an Iran attack. Fed chief Jerome Powell is in no rush.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Economics Professor's X-Rated Take On Trump Trade Move Stuns Nicolle Wallace
An economics professor's X-rated analogy for Donald Trump's latest trade maneuver left MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace temporarily at a loss for words on Wednesday. Trump last week said he'll soon write to foreign countries to set unilateral tariff rates. It comes as the U.S. has so far signed just one of the 90 trade deals that was promised within 90 days of Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day,' when he announced plans to hike tariffs on imports from countries worldwide. University of Michigan's Justin Wolfers told Wallace: 'So, Nicolle, I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on television, but sending a letter is to making a trade deal as masturbation is to sex. You're not really involving the other party at all, and you're not really figuring out the ways to exploit the gains from trade.' 'We didn't need this whole mess,' the economist added. Trump 'didn't need to impose high import taxes on Americans. If all he wanted to do was send people letters, we could have done this 90 days ago.' Wallace appeared momentarily stunned at the NSFW analogy, replying: 'Well, you've left me a little speechless.' She then pointed out that Trump's 'brand' is built on making deals, but that's something he's largely failed at with the current lack of potential trade deals for the U.S. Wolfers agreed. 'I don't like to do 'Trumpology' because I don't know what's going on inside the White House,' he said. 'But what I do know is that if you always made the bet that moving forward on any particular economic agenda would require a little bit of hard work, they repeatedly fail to do it.' The 'real world' concern, he concluded, is the ongoing uncertainty that Trump's chaotic trade policies are creating for businesses nationwide. Watch the interview here: Trump Spells Out A Chilling 'Big Difference' He Sees In Himself Since First Term Trump Rages At Reporter Who Refuses To Stick To 'Positive' Questions Economics Professor Utterly Shreds Trump's Trade Chaos In 5 Seconds Flat