<p>The FAFSA takes into account the age of only the OLDEST parent... presumably because that person's earning horizon (retirement age) is germane to college funding. However, what if the "oldest" parent is not the major income earner? What if the younger parent is the major income earner but faces a mandated retirement age, as is the case in many safety related occupations, i.e. airline pilot, law enforcement, etc, etc. Why isn't the younger parent's age and presumed earning horizon considered?</p>
<p>Is considering only the older parents age based on a possible sexist and outdated generalization that the older parent is generally male and that male parent tends to earn more? As society's dynamic changes why doesn't the government formula for determining financial need change? Just curious.</p>
<p>Good question, Nightingale. I don’t have an answer…sorry!
But, as a parents who hopes H and I are only “Middle Aged”* this issue is of interest. Much of my savings is also my intended retirement and it isn’t all in a 401K. Older parents subsidizing kids’ college may end up working long past typical retirement age, although I no longer believe that retirement means not working. Retirement is more likely to mean an alternative/part-time job. </p>
<p>*If I am middle aged, I will live to be Very old. lol</p>
<p>same issue here. My dad is older than my mom, but mom makes the most money…
both of them are super young though, so it’s not really a difference in asset protection</p>
<p>It seems like a non issue to me. If they use the younger parent then the EFC would be higher, though probably not much. The age is used to determine only one thing, asset protection amounts. If the age of the younger parent is used to determine the asset protection then you will get less asset protection, making your EFC higher. One parent families getting less than 40% of the asset protection that 2 parent families get, now that’s an issue I can get behind (and I am from a 2 parent family).</p>
<p>Perhaps because those that are employees “at will” can be fired at anytime as long as they are not tenured, or perhaps in a union? Nobody has a crystal ball. Additionally, if I am not covered by a union like someone perhaps in law enforcement (one of your examples), I need to provide for my retirement because I would not be getting a pension. Anything that I put into a retirement plan is considered available for tuition regradless of my age. If I am in law enforcement with a mandatory retirement age, I can work longer if I am younger, AND I can look forward to a pension hopefully.</p>