AITA for refusing to provide more than my obligation threshold to my parents?

A 36-year-old man and his brother cap financial support for their parents at bare essentials—bills and groceries—despite thriving careers. Their father, who immigrated the family from Asia, poured every extra dollar into land and ventures back home instead of education or comfort for his five kids. What makes the story more complicated is the cultural norm: children as retirement plans.

Dad’s peers sacrificed for private schools and allowances; their sons now fund lavish retirements. Dad’s sons refuse to match that generosity. He cries abandonment to relatives; the brothers counter with truth: he gave the minimum, so they return it. Properties in the old country sit idle—no income, no fallback. They can afford more but choose not to.

‘AITA for refusing to provide more than my obligation threshold to my parents?’

Immigrant dreams diverge when a father gambles on land instead of his children’s futures.

Poverty in America funds properties abroad while peers’ kids get private schools and allowances.

Success arrives without parental investment; dad now demands the cultural payoff he skipped.

Mirroring minimal investment with minimal support isn’t vengeance—it’s equity. The father opted out of the cultural contract by prioritizing speculative assets over education and presence. His peers modeled the expected sacrifice; he chose a different gamble and lost. Expecting sons to subsidize a lifestyle he never provided them breaks the reciprocity at the heart of filial duty.

Some defend cultural obligation as absolute, regardless of parenting quality. Yet norms evolve—modern immigrant families increasingly reject indentured support when parents fail upward mobility promises. The brothers’ baseline aid exceeds legal duty in the U.S.; anything beyond is gift, not debt.

Anthropologist Dr. Xiang Biao, via The Atlantic, notes, “Filial piety tied to financial return collapses when parents treat children as ATMs rather than heirs; reciprocal care requires mutual investment.” Here, the ledger balances at subsistence.

Here’s the feedback from the Reddit community:

Nearly everyone backs the brothers, citing “reap what you sow” and rejecting cultural guilt.

A few suggest cutting support entirely if dad keeps spreading lies.

One lone voice challenges the system itself, not the sons’ response.

The sons deliver exactly what their father modeled: subsistence, no extras. His land-rich, cash-poor retirement stems from choices, not betrayal. Cultural expectation meets American reality—upward mobility without the promised investment yields proportional gratitude. Support flows, but luxury does not.

When immigrant parents skip the “invest in kids” step of the cultural pact, should children still honor the “retirement fund” clause? Where’s the line between duty and enabling?