Thanksgiving is a time for family, food, and giving thanks, right? Well, one Redditor found themself at the center of an unexpected drama when their family imposed a $100 minimum food contribution per household for their Thanksgiving dinner.
While the idea of potluck-style gatherings is typically about sharing the load, this new rule left them questioning whether it was fair or even reasonable to suddenly demand such an amount. Especially when it wasn’t agreed to beforehand.
To make matters worse, their sister’s message also included an option to help pay their father’s water bill on top of the food cost. Feeling blindsided, they joked about not showing up at all, but now their family is upset, calling them a jerk for not meeting their expectations.
Was OP wrong to refuse, or are their relatives the ones crossing a line? Let’s break down the situation and see where the real problem lies.
A person considers skipping Thanksgiving after being upset by a last-minute $100 rule
Financial pressure often brings out deep insecurities, hurts, and resentments even when everyone tries their best. What looks like a “$100 rule” for Thanksgiving may seem small, but when it’s sprung on people last-minute, it can trigger conflict, shame, and a sense of unfairness.
Research on Psychology Today shows that money is one of the leading causes of tension in families and romantic relationships.
Emotionally, it’s easy to understand why OP feels upset. For many families, holidays are supposed to be about connection and celebration, not accounting sheets and financial obligations. When someone imposes a rule without prior agreement, especially one that feels steep, it can create pressure, guilt, and even shame.
As one article puts it, financial stress often distorts how we interpret others’ actions: a partner or family member’s neutral remark can feel like judgement, a request may feel like an attack, and shared time may feel like a burden.
That tension becomes especially sharp during holidays. According to a recent discussion on family gatherings and money, the pressure to “keep up” or to “show up” with extravagant contributions can transform what should feel festive into a source of resentment even among close family.
From a psychological perspective, money isn’t just about dollars and cents. It carries meaning: identity, self-worth, respect, power, sometimes even guilt or guilt‑by‑expectation. When OP is asked to bring $100 worth of food or help pay for meat or water bills under the implied threat of guilt or shame, it’s not just a request.
It becomes a test: Can you afford to belong? Can you match everyone’s expectations? And for many, especially those with limited income or more modest financial circumstances, that’s a heavy burden.
The fact that OP’s sister even posted a picture of their salary to pressure or shame them amplifies the issue. Publicizing personal finances as a lever for guilt or compliance blurs personal boundaries and can seriously erode trust.
When financial expectations get mixed with social pressure, it may no longer feel like a family gathering; it can start to feel like performance under judgment.
That doesn’t mean that family get‑togethers or shared meals can’t have cost‑sharing. But fairness, transparency, and prior agreement matter.
According to family‑relationship research, families who survive financial disagreements healthily are those who communicate openly, negotiate expectations ahead of time, and accept that not everyone will have the same resources.
So, in this story, OP is not unreasonable for balking at a retroactive “$100 minimum” demand for Thanksgiving contributions. The way it was introduced with an ultimatum, no prior discussion, and public shaming naturally triggers hurt, resentment, and a sense that their value to the family is being measured in dollars.
If the request had been made openly, politely, and with flexibility, their reaction may have been different. But as it stands, refusing or opting out doesn’t make OP the jerk; it makes them the person standing up for fairness and their mental well‑being.
Let’s dive into the reactions from Reddit:
This group emphasized that the potluck should not be about charging family members and that the “choose wisely” comment was unreasonable
These commenters pointed out the math inconsistency, questioning the high costs and the unfairness of the last-minute expenses
This group agreed that the water bill and meat costs were excessive, and the expectations were out of line
While acknowledging the expense of feeding a large group, these users criticized the expectation of others covering unagreed costs
So, was this refusal justified, or did the poster take it too far? How would you have handled this situation? Share your thoughts below!
