<p>Wow, this is awesome. I saw someone else asked but I don't think it was answered. What about those of us that claim as independents? This is my first time I filled out FAFSA as an ind. so am interested to know if this information for household income is based on that.</p>
<p>hmm i would think so, or that would be totally unfair.</p>
<p>damn grey.. you and i are in the same situation. I live with a single mother as well, work 2 jobs and i'm only 19 :( asd;lfjkdf major props for people paying for college on their own, its so hard ..</p>
<p>on the other hand, i do agree 60k is too much as well, maybe 30-40k?</p>
<p>grey_syntactics why do you think that 60k means the family has the financial resources to pay for tuition?</p>
<p>If your family makes less than 30k there are MILLIONS of dollars allocated for you in government programs and in tax breaks.</p>
<p>A family that makes 60k is screwed for paying for everyone that makes less and for paying taxes and getting NO government assistance of any kind. </p>
<p>I worked full time and went to college and supported my mom and my brother while my mom had cancer and made nothing and did not get SSI even until 2 years later after she went to court for it.
The whole time though, we lived in public housing and our rent was neglible. If you dont qualify for those programs than your life isnt that bad either, or you CHOOSE not qualify for those programs. </p>
<p>Now my husband makes 66k , we just did our taxes yesterday. We get nothing in financial aid between the two of us exept for student loans. We have a daughter but because of our "high income" the tax break we get sucks. We do not qualify for EIC or anything.
Do you think that after taxes he can afford the 27k Tuition for his grad school plus the 12k for my school?
So we should have to take out loans, while others shouldnt, even though we work harder and pay more in taxes? So what exactly does the governemtn do for the middle class. Lets not even start with the fact that we spend 8k a year for our medical coverage while poor people get medicaid. </p>
<p>So please do not start the conversation about how a family of 60k can afford for their education. We all afford it with loans, so there is no reason why a family of 30 or 40 K can not pay for those loans instead of just having the so called middle class pay for it. That is BS of the highest nature. </p>
<p>Also as an adult, you have retirement to think about, not just your kids college education. </p>
<p>Everyone SHOULD HAVE TO take out loans if anyone has to.</p>
<p>LOL it's a pity-party for poor students on CC!</p>
<p>Malishka, I'm curious. When/where did I say that a family making 60k is apt to pay for college? Judging by your statement on post #26:
[quote]
I think the income amount should be lowered to like less than 30k.
[/quote]
I would argue that if I've somehow implied what you're arguing about, then you've implied it as well.</p>
<p>And to be completely honest, for both potential heads of a household to be in graduate school is quite a luxury. Especially while raising a child on 66k/year. On the other hand, would you argue that my trying to pursue the first bachelor's degree in my family is a luxury to the same extent that I should jump headfirst into loans, like you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol it's a pity-party for poor students on cc!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lo(lolololol!!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
And to be completely honest, for both potential heads of a household to be in graduate school is quite a luxury.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not to mention choosing to attend it in one of the most expensive cities in the world.</p>
<p>Am I correct in assuming a household making 59k a year gets free college, and a household making 61k does not? I agree that college should be paramount in terms of budget priority, and that financial aid is currently a huge runaround PITA, but how, in any way, is this fair or rational if it is not tiered and allocated proportionate to your lack of income?</p>
<p>You can't throw a bona fide concept out the window because of inability to pin down an accurate quantitative versus qualitative number.</p>
<p>I suggest not throwing it out the window, but modifying it to actually be fair. A tiered income-based allocation is just as quantitative and achievable as a black-and-white cutoff. Maybe some of the money handed out to 59k families (the same which would be handed out to 30k families) would be better spent researching these qualitative properties of poverty. Because it is qualitative. Handling it in such a manner would also likely create less incentive to cheat the system.</p>
<p>I believe its intentions are good, but seems to be an awfully black-and-white answer to a complex problem.</p>
<p>Even if you use multiple tiers you're still going to have an upper bound past which no monies are awarded. What you're really arguing for is extending that upper bound past 60K.</p>
<p>Don't try and pin me as advocating money go to those who don't need it.
We can call 60k a reasonable upper bound. Except it is eased in, on very small (very, like $1000 increments). Example, say someone making 60k has tuition is unconditionally covered, but now partially (still most of the cost though). The leftover can go to a family that needs it more, say a family making 10k a year. This extra can go towards not only tuition now, but room, board, even spending money for extra college expenses. And you don't consider that more reasonable?</p>
<p>This way, those making 62k a year don't fee cheated that they receive nothing whereas someone making 2k less gets full compensation, and someone making 20k doesn't feel cheated they're treated the same as someone making 60k. Do you understand what I am getting at?</p>
<p>That makes sense. There must be a reason impeding them from assigning money in a stratified manner instead of on the basis of a tipping point.</p>
<p>I wasn't implying that you had any ulterior motives. I am saying that in trying to push the upper bound higher, you end up lowering the aid for other people just so the ones on the wrong side of the cutoff don't feel 'cheated'. A 60K upper bound is already generous. I understand, not all income levels are created equal, people live in different areas etc etc. What do you really end up accomplishing with this approach? You lower aid for people below 60K and you give the other side just enough so they don't feel bad anymore.</p>
<p>Let me just point out real quick that I don't like this plan at all. I'm not defending it. Its raining outside and I'm bored. So don't take it personal.</p>
<p>I know, no offense taken, and agreed, it sounded like I did (raining here too). I drew this to sort of illustrate what I had in mind. I think it should be an exponential growth rather than a floor function. Of course the scale is off and it would probably need to be adjusted to fit within the same budget.</p>
<p><a href="http://i40.tinypic.com/2qslyys.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://i40.tinypic.com/2qslyys.jpg</a></p>
<p>that chart illustrates my objection.. look at what you did there. You cut the 40K aid by about 20-25% the 50K aid by 70-75% the 60K aid by 90% and all you ended up with to distribute for 60K-70K was about 2-5% of their tuition costs. Of course, we cant draw too much from the graph because you haven't actually plotted any points out but the point remains. Whats the number of students in that 60K-70K income level. The middle class is greatest in numbers isn't it? And this program has no merit requirements so they would all be eligible, which means you would have to either increase your budget for this program or make your graph a lot steeper than you have it their now.</p>
<p>Yes, you're right, it would need to be steeper, and adjusted to fit budget. And I should have started it at 60k, as you make a good point about the number of the middle class category. I guess I'm just trying to express that compensation should be increasingly distributed based upon lots of small-scale financial tipping points as opposed to just a single huge tipping point. I would rather see my tax money/tuition rise go to this than just about anything else, I just wish the plan was a bit more complex than "give people making $10,000 full tuition, give people making $60,000 the exact same thing, give people making $60,001 nothing."</p>
<p>Grey, your statement to Sstory about how his family has the money and yours does not to afford the education, that was my point , that his family really does not have the money even though the numbers suggest that he may.</p>
<p>Additionally, we did not chose to pursue our educations in the most expensive city, we had no choice, this is where we work. </p>
<p>We jumped head first into loans for both undergraduate and our graduate educations to give ourselves a future. We dont come from families that made any money, we did it all ourselves.</p>
<p>So why should we jump head first into loans when we were in the EXACT same position as you during our undergraduate careers and you should not? Why should we now, having accuired all the debt that we have accuired and are in the process of acquiring more have to portion out our taxes or part of our fees and what not to pay for your education?</p>
<p>How would you like it Grey if you had to take out loans to get your education and then voila you go to grad school you make SOME money and BOOM everyone else gets free education whileyou paid your share and now are paying for that free education on top of your own that you take loans for.</p>