MONEY MANNERS

DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD:

My parents and my spouse’s parents each want to host the christening party for our first child at their homes. The thing is, we’ve always held events like this at my in-laws’. That’s because my father-in-law, “Ian,” is a very successful lawyer, and he and “Rebecca” live in a beautiful home that can accommodate lots of guests. Also, they can afford to have their parties catered. A party at my parents’ place would have to be much smaller, and also would mean a lot of work for Mom and Dad. Unfortunately, my parents are insisting it’s their turn to host a family gathering. Would I be wrong to tell them that, since parties work so much better at Ian and Rebecca’s, we’d prefer to hold events like the christening there? I don’t want to hurt my parents’ feelings, especially when I know they’re uncomfortable about having less money than my in-laws. But it’s so much more practical to hold parties at Ian and Rebecca’s place.

— Chris

DEAR CHRIS: And so much more fun for you to run with the big dogs, right?

Look, it may be that your motives in wanting to hold the party at your in-laws’ are as pure as the driven snow. But it sounds suspiciously like you feel embarrassed by your parents’ home and their style of entertaining. If so, shame on you. But to stop the finger-wagging and answer your question: Yes, it would be wrong to tell your mother and father that, as far as you’re concerned, their home is inadequate to hold a party celebrating the christening of their grandchild. That would be insulting. Plus, have you considered what Ian and Rebecca will think when they realize you’ve designated them as your permanent hosts? Even if they don’t resent the presumption, they’ll almost certainly think less of you for rejecting the home you came from.

P.S.: Are you sure it’s your parents who are uncomfortable about the income gap between them and your in-laws … or could it be you?

DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD:

When I went online to buy tickets for a show at a funky little nontraditional theater called “The Swamp,” this is what it said on the website: “All tickets are on a pay-what-you can sliding scale and are general admission.” Suggested ticket prices ranged from $20 to $35. My first reaction was surprise — before, they’d always had just one price — and my second reaction was exasperation. What do you think of a theater that has a pay-what-you-can ticket price policy?

— Prix Fixe Gal

DEAR GAL: We prefer theaters that have a pay-what it’s-worth ticket policy. Kidding aside, it sounds as if the folks at The Swamp know that the most they can reasonably charge for a ticket is 20 bucks, but they’d like to get more. So rather than, say, producing shows whose appeal would support a higher price, they’re counting on guilt to drive some customers to pay more. There’s nothing about being an arts organization that makes this kind of manipulation OK. It’s one thing to ask all ticket buyers if they’d like to make an additional contribution to the theater. It’s another to, in essence, suggest that people with more money have a moral obligation to subsidize other theatergoers every time they buy a ticket. As the Bay Area’s Gertrude Stein might have said, a price is a price is a price. The Swamp should pick one and stick to it.

DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD: Regarding your readers irked by kids who don’t send thank you notes: I have a friend whose children are in their teens. Whenever one of them receives a gift from a relative, my friend holds it until the child has sent a thank-you note. Brilliant, I think. Do you agree?

— M.H.

DEAR M.H.: You bet. We wish we’d thought of it.

Jeanne Fleming and Leonard Schwarz are the authors of Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check? Dealing With All of the Trickiest Money Problems Between Family and Friends (Free Press, 2008). Email them at

[email protected]