<p>how long do you think Orlando Bloom studied?
Now it is a cornerstone of his resume'!</p>
<p>Certainly many people like to stay where they have roots. Many are also up for adventures! The differential in salaries for teachers and nurses and many other professions is not 50% as a poster noted.</p>
<p>I have seen many families leave CA and wonder why the heck they stayed so long. Friends who are a doctor and a stay at home mom recently moved to Vancouver Washington, bought a lake home in Idaho and still have much more pocket money than ever! Another couple we know, an engineer and nurse left for North CA and are living a much better life!</p>
<p>Emeralkity wrote
[quote]
ya know if that is what I was facing in CA- I would get the heck out of Dodge- there are jobs in other areas
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That makes no sense for those of us who already own homes in California. We didn't buy in at this cost - we've just seen a big boom in prices. We didn't buy our homes to get rich, we bought in order to get secure housing - the fact that my mortgage payment is significantly less than the market rate for rentals demonstrates the wisdom of that decision. </p>
<p>The point I was making is that I don't own a spendable commodity: I bought the home for the purpose of having a place to live in, not to make money. If the market crashes in a year and real estate values fall significantly - I still have a place to live, at a fixed rate of payment. And unless there is specific damage to the house (earthquake, flood, fire, etc.) - the value of this house is going to fluctuate consistently with the rest of the market - so whatever this house is worth in the year 2010, it will have a roughly equivalent exchange value in California to what it is now. </p>
<p>So basically - the last thing I would want to do is leave -- other than housing, the cost of living is not significantly higher here than in other parts of the country. Yeah, I pay a little bit more in gas --- but then my heating bill is probably a lot less than in places with snow. Selling a house at these prices in order to get the benefit of the cash is just a big fat gift to the IRS.</p>
<p>The point I am making is that it is a mistake to count the unrealized equity on a house as an "asset" in the same way that liquid assets in a bank account are an "asset". It should be discounted in some way to reflect the fact that people are living in it -- unless private colleges really expect families to give up their homes and relocate to different areas when their kids go off to college. I realize that it is a different case entirely if someone is living in a mansion -- which is why I suggested tying a discount factor to local median prices.I didn't even suggest allowing 100% of median values as a write off - just some factor that would act as something of an equalizer to yield a more realistic picture of the REAL gain that could be taken from a house, if you factor in the assumption that at least some of the proceeds of sale would need to be used to aquire alternate housing.</p>
<p>calmom, I completely understand the point you were trying to make earlier and have just restated. I'm with you 100%.</p>
<p>"The point I was making is that I don't own a spendable commodity:"</p>
<p>But you DO own a "spendable" commodity; a fixed form of savings that has accrued in value over time, much the same way a passbook account would have, or money put in the stock market. Except that for the most part it has accrued faster, has provided you with a substantial tax deduction (which you could have been saving for college costs); provides backing for home equity loans, or reverse mortgages; AND gave you a place to live. (AND, if you chose, it can be sold in many cases without the IRS getting ANY of it.) And, if it isn't spent on college education, it will likely be eventually passed off to the kiddies anyway (without the IRS getting any part of it.)</p>
<p>Most folks in San Francisco living at the median income ($49k per household) should be so lucky. I can't for the life of me see why there should be a discount factor tied to local median prices; if anything, there should be a discount factor tied to rents, for the vast majority of folks in this area who will never own a home.</p>
<p>Aaaack! We're really burning up a lot of energy here on something we're not likely to change. Home equity will not be included on Fafsa ,it will be on Profile. Nobody, I think, planned their life around college admissions much less hoped for FA results. I think if we had, we would have all done a better job or at least a more creative one. LOL.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To read threads about people who earn in the top percentage of incomes in the country let alone the world, complain that they can't send their kids to college at their top choice school- and how six figures isn't what it used to be- sounds ludicrous to those who are living in those same areas who aren't earning that sort of money- or even people who live in areas without the amenities that some have come to expect, but they are able to manage and raise their families.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Emeraldkity, I live in California. My earned annual income is usually under $50K gross. I don't have a 6 figure income, never had. I'm 51 years old.</p>
<p>I have said repeatedly in my posts that I earn pretty much median income. My house is valued at 3 times of what I paid for it -- that's not my fault. That's just what happened in the market. The first 5 years after we bought the house, the market went DOWN - and it probably will go down again. </p>
<p>The point that you don't seem to get is that there are a lot of moderate-income Californians who are living in highly valued homes that they either purchased years ago or acquired through inheritance or an inter-family transaction. My next-door neighbors have had 3 generations living in their house -- I think it cost around $18,000 when they bought it in the 50's. The owner is a minister. It doesn't matter what our home values are on paper, because our monthly housing costs are based on what our purchase prices were. It would be a net economic loss to sell out for anyone who needs to continue to live in the area, because we would be trading lower-mortgage + lower taxes for smaller home + higher monthly costs + higher taxes. In my case, my income wouldn't sustain it - yeah, I could cash out to pay for my kid's college, but the money would be gone by the time the kid graduated - and my kid would then have to support me because I'd have no home and an insufficient income to pay for the basics needed to support myself.</p>
<p>Emeraldkity4 - I wish I could open the site you posted but cannot. The scholarship I was told about is in the Pacific Northwest - Washington State somewhere. I can call the person tomorrow and find out if you like. Then again, we can all start sleuthing...</p>
<p>By the way, I totally agree with you about "people having choices." There are any number of good schools out there in the $20,000 range or less (St. Mary's College of Md. comes instantly to mind...) We encouraged our S to go ahead and try for the expensive private schools that he wanted but to also keep in mind that we could only contribute $6,000 tops so he needed too include more affordable state schools, too....but this is where the niche idea comes in so Blumini - I'll start the thread now - I can contribute a bit of info about our own experience with Trinity and am happy to research more. I hope you all will contribute, too. So here I go....</p>