<p>MoT; I can understand your frustration and by the income range you intimate (two kids at private schools with no financial aid) I can understand why my statement bothers you, but calling the poor "undeserving" and blaming them and their ancestors for not saving for college does not. What sacrifice did the poster expect them to perform? Selling organs? Buying a life insurance policy and making their death not look like suicide? Come on. My comment was no worse than the class-bating blame "mammall" put on all those who do get FA. I don't think you all are the least empathetic to the difficulty of raising kids today on less than 100k, or 50k...or less. The cost of health insurance is the same for "us" as it is for "you", but maybe "you" get it "free" with your higher-paying jobs. I've had to pay for my own health insurance for twelve years. I can't even get coverage for my spouse due to previous conditions. I've paid out of my pocket over $70k in health insurance over those years that only covered myself and my kids. I've paid nearly that much in covering my spouse's health-care costs. I paid over $5,000 out of pocket for an operation for one child this past year and that was the part not covered by my cheesy BC+BS personal insurance. And I do that all with maybe half the income of someone who doesn't qualify for FA. I pay the same for gas as they do do even though maybe I've paid less into the war-for-oil tax fund than they have. And I heat with oil. Now maybe my house is smaller than theirs but I expect my fixed costs with three kids just to feed, clothe, and keep them warm (no A/C here, can't afford it) are a far greater portion of my wealth than it is of theirs. Why? Because the wealthy have no incentive to save energy and their demand raises my costs to get to work and take my kids to the doctors. </p>
<p>Don't ask me to not defend the poor members of society or even on this list because it makes others feel uncomfortable. Ask why this country can spend an unlimited amount of money to bomb Persia into a wasteland and then pay private contractors a profit to rebuild it, yet it can't provide health care for its population like every other leading nation does. Don't expect me to sit by while someone pompously suggests the less-fortunate could have done otherwise if they'd only sacrificed. You obviously don't understand. Count your blessings and go watch Fox news. Don't tell me I'm being un-constructive and then let comments blaming middle-income families for their own problems go without comment. Just because I don't participate in the stock market that is manipulated by the government to provide a constant income for the wealthy doesn't mean I don't deserve some consideration. I didn't ask for my taxes to go toward ensuring that Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil tripled their income, but that's what's happened. Why do a disproportionate number of families from the lower income levels of society sacrifice their children to the war in Iraq? Is that the sacrifice "mammall" wants? And the "death benefit" won't even pay for a decent funeral. All the while the rich complain about the unfairness of a "death tax". That means something different to the lower income right now.</p>
<p>So if you're going to pass moral judgment, just make sure it's equitable. And don't expect me to share your moral high-ground. I can't afford to. I'm still paying $20k per year each to send my kids to private LCs. And that's my decision.</p>
<p>I'm jumping in late to the conversation but had to add my 2 cents.</p>
<p>Mother-of-two (I think) - just want to say that you don't seem to realize how much of a crap shoot life has become in these United States in the last 20 years or so. I too got a professional job with a great corporation with a great pension 30 years ago. I worked full time until my company went out of business. Our pension, which had already been decimated when they switched to a 401K was then further decimated by the Pension Benefit "Guarantee" Corporation. Basically I'm getting nothing for 15 years of work. I was also in the field which was consistently trumpeted as the #1 and #2 growth fields of the future - computer programming / systems analysis. Because of outsourcing to India this field is now almost completely dead and it's very, very difficult to get a job in it.</p>
<p>I've also lived in the midwest and the northeast. When we first moved to the midwest - that was a good move because living costs were low and people there could save to send their kids to college. Then of course there was a spectacular run-up of housing prices on the coasts and the midwest is now in the doldrums. The "smart" people who extended themselves to buy houses they couldn't afford now are the recipients of windfalls of 6 and 7 figures.</p>
<p>My point is that much of the inequality we see around us increasingly is based on luck. Did you go into medicine? Well, guess what, now business executives make big money and doctors often make shockingly little. Are they now more virtuous and intelligent than they were 20 years ago?</p>
<p>But the point of this is what does this have to do with our kids? America is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity and not equality of results. What ever we have done to deserve or not deserve our money should not affect the opportunities of our children. And to the person who said that people have no right to attend a college just because they get accepted to it. I disagree. This is not a far-fetched idea - basically this is how it works in Europe.</p>
<p>Another thing which I see. Since top universities have become increasingly upscale - they are now very overpriced because of all kinds of luxuries which don't have anything to do with "academics". Why not offer a lower priced option - cheap dorm, pay for use of gym (enough to pay for itself), pay for sports which are not big spectator sports, etc.? This could help less affluent kids get in the door. European Universities are also much more stripped-down affairs which cost a lot less.</p>
<p>Amazon - I totally agree with everything you say about life being a crapshoot and that there should be equality of opportunity for our kids. I think it is mamall's opinions on how financial aid should be awarded (post #135) you are disagreeing with, not mine. I am sorry that several people have interpreted my posts otherwise.</p>
<p>The only statement on this thread with which I was disagreeing was Proud Dad's saying that two-wage earner families are to blame for the problems kids have today (post #136), which has absolutely nothing to do with financial aid or college costs.</p>
<p>I agree with blossom. People choose how they spend or invest their money. Our family has chosen to save for college and make sacrifices regarding material goods so that we do not have to rely on financial aid. Live simply, save, and make wise choices.</p>
<p>Sorry. I don't rely on financial aid. I pay state taxes which would allow my kids to attend two great state U's that are top-twenty-five schools according to almost all ranking systems...at in-state prices. I am honored that private LACs find my kids worthy of their spending their endowment to have my kids attend their schools to add to their student-body diversity when I could not have otherwise afforded it. And I take advantage of it, and still pay what it would cost to send them to attend (expensive) in-state public schools. </p>
<p>I also did not say that two-income families are to blame for kids' problems today, I simply suggested that posters had not read any such research. I don't doubt that parents actively participating in their children's formative years can help kids develop better. Does anyone disagree? Then why, which was my point, do we offer tax benefits to parents who pay for child care so they can themselves work and yet we offer no tax benefit to those who choose to stay home and take care of kids? The sacrifice stay-at-homes make is in future employability, future income, retirement plan contributions, as well as simple loss of income. I just find it appalling that working moms would so demean the value of an intelligent woman or man who makes a bigger sacrifice to ensure their children have the best upbringing they can give them. So, why not tax advantages to stay-at-homes at least equal to child-care deductions? That's the simple question you keep obfuscating by chastising me for mentioning studies that cite both-parents-working as a potential cause of childhood problems.</p>
<p>Thank you, collegeparent, for that short, simple and wise post. All kids should be able to go to any college regardless of their parents' financial resources. Not questioning that. I do question why the students who can't pay can't just make do with loans. Families of kids who can pay sometimes have come by their money through sheer luck or inheritence. But many by sacrifice, saving, planning. It is unconscionable that these families must sacrifice substantive hard-earned wealth for the kids' education, while others go scott free.</p>
<p>My D has been in school since first grade with a boy who is smart, relatively hard working and has really nice parents who never seem to hold a job for very long. A wealthy grandpa bought their house for them and they just sort of make do somehow between job gigs. Their son has the extraordinary luxury right now (our kids are both seniors) of looking at any school he wants without any regard to price. He can even apply ED anywhere he wants without regard to price. His mom is quite matter-of-fact. He will go free. As I said, nice people, good church goers, but never seemed to take college costs seriously. I guess they were the smart ones.</p>
<p>And regarding tax credits for stay-at-home moms. Sorry, I find that a preposterous notion. Stay-at-home moms already get a tax break by not earning income that gets taxed, as working moms do. The idea of isssuing a credit for non-wage earning is simply ludicrous. Even the earned income credit is crediting for wage earning. I understand how feels to be a stay-at-home mom for the sake of the kids. I've done it for long stretches. It was a personal decision that involved sacrifice of our living standard. I would do it again. I would not expect a subsidy from the government.</p>
<p>Mammall,
I understand what you are saying but I still don't think there is anything to be proud about that family. My D talked with her friends and came away with the impression that somehow there is a discount for private schools. I had to set her straight. I told her we will be paying full price and glad that we are in a position to do so. We're not hedge fund family either.</p>
<p>Proud Dad, because childcare for working moms is a work expense. These moms earn a taxable income. Thus they are entitled (in my view) to a tax break on the child chare that enables them to earn that taxed income.</p>
<p>I honor moms (and dads) who make the decision to leave the workforce to care for kids. It pays many dividends, I believe.</p>
<p>For those who think it's such a great deal to be poor, it's not hard, just stop working so much, and give away your assets, and your EFC will drop. Easy peasy.</p>
<p>The notion that poor people are poor because they don't work as hard as rich people is insulting. My husband lost his tech job to outsourcing and has only been able to find temp jobs at 20% of his former salary, with no benefits. It's been hard, trust me he wants to work. Many low-income people work long hours, it's just that their wages are low with limited room for advancement. If you have been fortunate enough to accumulate the kind of wealth which permits you to just write a check for your student's tuition maybe you should just feel very fortunate and leave it at that. Your kid gets to apply ED somewhere, your kid knows they'll get in somewhere you'll be able to pay for, your kid's financial safety isn't the local community college.</p>
<p>Proud Dad, as you well know, income taxes are designed to provide various incentives. The powers that be have simply decided not to provide tax credits for people who do not work (who forgo income). As was stated during some of the debates on the "mommy wars" and "welfare mothers" during the past decades - there is no excuse good enough for a middle-income mother to work, and for a poor mother not to.</p>
<p>The tax code rarely "rewards" with tax credits or deductions expenses that are not "out of pocket". Forgone income is not an out of pocket expense. How would you calculate your "child care deduction"? Deduct the amount of money your spouse would have earned? Prove her salary. Prove that she would have had a job over a certain period of time - even those of us who are employed don't have guaranteed jobs. But your spouse does more than child care expenses - she cares for the house, does laundry, runs errands, etc. Those of us who work cannot deduct housekeeping expenses. Why should you? Do you see the ridiculous level of detail that would be needed to administer your "suggestion"? You think the Code is complicated now! </p>
<p>And the Code calls for "expenses". Forgone income is not, by any definition, an "expense". Just as attending a community college, thereby forgoing high tuition, does not make the forgone tuition "income" to the student.</p>
<p>MomOfFour - I was too shrill with my post back there. My bad. I shouldn't have bashed all people unable to pay full freight. Actually, I just don't think anyone should have to pay full freight if these colleges really have such extraordinary endowments. Anyway, luck is definitely a big factor in this economy. My husband and I have had a bit of luck. It's good to get reminded of that. Peace.</p>
<p>Chedva, it's not that simple. The implication is being made here that those with less income should just work harder, like mammall and her spouse. My point is that some might not make any more than they would have to pay in child-care expenses and some decide no matter how much they could make, it's not worth it to hand the care of their kids over to others. I'm not looking for handouts for stay-at-home mothers but just for those who choose to workand have such apparent deep disdain for those who earn so little they qualify for FAto have a little common sense, if not some compassion. They make more maybe because of where they live. They get tax credit for child care so they can work at jobs that pay enough to afford college for their kids. Not everyone else has access to those jobs and to suggest that some ancestor should have sacrificed at some point along that family tree so they'd not have to rely on FA for college is just asinine. </p>
<p>I learned this weekend that companies who contract food services for college campuses don't pay their workers the same in rural areas as they do in cities. Does that come as a shock? Of course not. But kids who don't understand the economics of running a school were asking why school B didn't pay their cafeteria workers as much as school Y, completely not getting the fact that the workers work for the contractor, not the school. Not everyone has access to jobs that pay well. Some areas are losing all industry to overseas sweatshops and have no more manufacturing base. McDonald's doesn't pay that well and maybe some of these families' parents never went to college. The comments here are elitist and insensitive as they relate to bootstrap theory of economics. Banfield based his upper class on future-orientation, not assets. Investing in the minds of those who weren't handed the world on a silver platter is just one small noble thing society can do. Making a buck these days isn't always as easy as you think. And we're not creating jobs at the rate GW would want you to believe. And inflation hurts the poorer worse than the wealthy. But then I can tell this is just beating a dead horse as most of you have your mind made up that the upper-middle-class is the victim here. I see my kids' schools struggle to provide scholarships but they're committed to it for good reason, and I appreciate that. Not all schools are rolling in it.</p>
<p>I am in sympathy with Proud Dad.
I would be in favor of eliminating the child care credit. I can't support growing the GNP via more people in the workforce vs. the less quantifiable value of having children raised by those who love them. What sort of public policy is that? But then I don't understand taxing money earned from financial assets at a lower rate than money earned from work, either.
I am also stunned that half or more of families of kids at the elites are able to spend $45,000-$50,000 a year for the education of each kid. There seems to be a large upper crust made up of people who don't feel they are upper crust.
On the other hand, I have a recent graduate and a current student who have benefited from the donations people who have assets to spare have made to their respective colleges.
One odd advantage of attending college with the well-to-do. My daughter has spent less than $150 on books her first semester. She checked the rest out for the term from the university library, which apparently no one else felt motivated to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't support growing the GNP via more people in the workforce vs. the less quantifiable value of having children raised by those who love them. What sort of public policy is that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I remember Bush 41 got voted out of office because he refused to sign for the Medical Leave Act while Bill Clinton did. He misread the public. Seems like a lot of people want to work.</p>