<p>should be starting at birth, but I realize many do not, including myself. I started when my kids were 8 and 6. We sock away $25k a year, and it will take less than 15 years to save enough to send 2 kids to college full pay. That’s even with the market crash last year. People saying they can’t afford it on income of $200k and up must be doing something wrong. That’s $140k after taxes…they can’t put away $25k? Come on…we are doing it on $120k. Where is the $140k going? $24k for mortgage, say $12k for health insurance, $6k car payment, $8k food…that’s $50k…$90k still left…where is it going? Throw in $30k for retirement, there is $60k still left. Utilities, vacation, insurance, gas…still plenty left over to be able to save $25k a year…at least.</p>
<p>The problem is the more people make the more people want to spend, bigger house, better autos, higher priced vacations, ect Have to keep up with the Jones’…right? I would suggest those making $200k and not being able to save should take a good hard look where the money is going exactly. I bet in most situations, it’s not that they can’t save enough for the kids college education, but its just not a top priority and the money is going elsewhere.</p>
<p>There is no way you could take home 140k with 200k gross, unless you have a very creative accountant. $2000 mortgage? You can’t rent an apartment around NYC(metro area, not in NYC) for a family of 4. I think your math is a bit off.</p>
<p>EFC is given with the responsibility of pay. A student from a 0 EFC family has an income so low that he or she is not expected to give up anything above and beyond the normal. There is no disposable income in that family. A family with an EFC of $25,000 has, mathematically and objectively speaking, $25,000 of disposable income which should be dedicated toward college. If the higher EFC family has saved, lived a frugal lifestyle, and considered college a priority, they should be able to contribute $25,000 - or at least the majority of that amount. Higher EFC students are often given loans outside of the EFC, as well - as part of the FA package. This is because small loans for those students don’t mean catastrophe. For the higher EFC student, if the student cannot make one payment, the parents can often help at least once or twice. For a low or no EFC student, there is no safety net - plus, there is often not a creditworthy parent who can cosign loans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a beautiful example of idealism. Let’s see. The first two years of community college are often covered by the Pell Grant (where I am there are, at other schools, they are far more expensive). Then, to transfer to the state flagship or satellite, it’s $20,000 a year (we’re too far to commute, as are most students).</p>
<p>And already, the student is $30,000 in debt. I consider that too much, especially for students without safety nets. So, that option is out of the question. Here’s another. I received a full tuition scholarship to the University of Pittsburgh. So all that was left was $10,000 for room and board.</p>
<p>($10,000 - $5,000 Pell) x 4 = $20,000</p>
<p>However, that does not include an room and board increase of around 4%. If we assess the increase at 4%, the total debt comes to $25,000 - and none of this includes the “fees” portion of the COA. These total another $810 a year - bringing the debt total, again, to almost $30,000. I don’t see that as “little or no debt.”</p>
<p>And those scholarships are only for very high-achieving students. Low-income students are far less likely than high or middle income students to be high-achieving, given the obstacles they often have that high and middle income students don’t have (working long hours, poor schools, few EC opportunities, no test prep, first generation parents, non-English speaking parents, etc.).</p>
<p>What options do you think low-income students have - especially given that low-income students are rarely high-achieving?</p>
<p>Oldfort - Geeps is a kid - I think he is 16 or 17</p>
<p>Geeps - One thing you might not know in your tax calculations of Oldforts finances is that when you income level goes up, you lose just about every deduction except mortgage interest.</p>
<p>This is my favorite question of the thread and I have not seen it answered: </p>
<p>Kajon…my calculations where using basic deductions…the standard deduction for married couples is $11,400…anyone with a mortgage, property taxes, gifts, and state taxes will itemize and have higher deductions. …I used $170k after deductions on a $200k income…conservative. For the self employed, even lower AGI</p>
<p>Quote:
'mid all of the name calling, I haven’t read anyone’s answer to the question of why a kid whose family has a low efc should be able to leave college with no loans, while chances are a kid with, say a $25,000 efc will leave $100,000 in debt. "</p>
<p>This is a fair question. Is the answer in at least some cases (1) that the kid with 0 EFC will actually get some of their aid in the form of loans that are actually debt and
(2) that the kid with 25K EFC will actually get some of their aid in the form of grants, rather than loans, so they are less than 100k in debt?</p>
<p>I just looked at one of my employee’s W2 with 200,000 base. After federal, state, fica, health, life, ADD, 401K(4%) his net shows around 4500 for every 2 weeks, so that’s $117k. I can’t see how many deductions he takes. By looking at few others, I don’t see many taking home more than 60% of their gross.</p>
<p>Debrockman, Since you have made many posts I agree with on other threads, although we disagree here, the following question is not meant to bait you:
I agree that a $150-200k income is not as great after taxes, etc as sometimes perceived. In the presidential election, Obama favored the tax rates set by Reagan, rather than the lower ones passed under Bush, for those above $250K. What is the number where you think, generally (obviously state taxes, dependents etc factor in), colleges should view parents as not needing aid?</p>
<p>If the answer is as simple as, “these are all choices people make” then why does anyone need aid? After all, everyone should choose a home and transportation that gives them enough left over for college.</p>
<p>Our EFC is was calculated by FAFSA as 60% of our net salary. I guess I shouldn’t have bought a house, a car, or eaten over these past few years.</p>
<p>401k, health, life are not taxes and were not used to get my $140 after tax figure. I took those out later.
so $117k, plus $8k(401k) brings you to $125k…add in health, life and my $140k after tax figure seems about right…and does this employees get a refund at tax time?..maybe withholding is too high as well.</p>
<p>yabeyabe, I don’t know exactly what I think. I think what I REALLY think is that the most prestigious colleges should price all students the same. That would DECREASE the price for everyone. And if the school is really WORTH 50,000 a year, or 30 or 40 or whatever…it should be worth it to take the loans. But the truth is, the school that actually is worth 30,000 per year costs the more affluent kid 50,000 a year, making it no longer WORTH the sticker cost. Once again, we have screwed markets up dreadfully. The truth is, I think the BEST students should be going to these schools. Schools like Harvard should have only 4.0/1600 SAT students if it is REALLY the best. And they don’t. So they have the PRESTIGE of being the best, when in reality, they just are not.
Because they are FREE for some students and overpriced for others, they are some odd bastardization of “quality” that is essentially some kind of weird attempt to level the playing field. And a lot of the nation’s smartest kids know that they have been arbitrarily priced out of the system because they had the misfortune of having affluent, but not affluent ENOUGH parents. And truthfully, and everyone knows it, a lot of these kids are the highest performing kids in the country.</p>
<p>And Geeps, stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about. The affluent have all kinds of hidden taxes. For one, YOU get to write off your kid’s college expenses. The family with 250,000/yr in income does not. That alone, is an additional tax…on the kid who already has a higher tuition by virtue of their parent’s higher income.</p>
<p>^
good answer.
Even if a school meets 100% of need ( which most do not- most gap EFC & COA), the package will be a combination of grants- loans- work study.</p>
<p>Say we have two students- both are in the top 10% of their class:</p>
<p>One has the support of a two earner family, two teachers, who earn a combination of $125,000. Their EFC is $25K. They live in an area with pretty good schools and have made sure their child was prepared for college.
If their child was admitted to schools that met 100% of need ( often the most competitive in the country), there would still be extra expenses- not to mention some of that aid package would be administered with loans.
However, merit aid is often available at schools that want to encourage more top students to attend,and their state universities are also good choices for students who are focused and like having the broad selection of activities on campus.</p>
<p>Their child chooses to attend the flagship U instate, using some of their AP test scores from high school to enable them to take more higher level classes in their major, even though they opt to stay the full four years. Since $25K is higher than their state univ costs, the parents are not paying out more than they would have anywhere else, ( unless merit aid), and they still required their child to take out Stafford loans. ( although unsubsidized)</p>
<p>Another child is from a blue collar family, and is first generation college. They attend an inner city high school and have struggled to remain focused through high school graduation. Their EFC is $12,000 and their parents income is $55,000. </p>
<p>Many colleges are interested in a diverse student body, and in assisting students to be the first ones in their family to complete a degree, bringing more people into the middle class. Students with less advantaged backgrounds, but who are able to achieve in high school, are likely to be able to achieve even more at a well supported college.</p>
<p>Several private schools that met 100% of need were interested and granted the student a package weighted with grants, a small work study stipend, and subsidized Perkins and Stafford loans. While the instate public school did offer a small merit award along with the state educational grant, the student decided to attend the out of state LAC.</p>
<p>I suppose some could take the attitude that the first student was screwed. However- how so? They received a good preparation for college, and their parents were available to help them discern best options.</p>
<p>Given the two students had equal achievement thus far viewed from the outside, with unequal support and advantages- it isn’t a huge leap to realize the lower income student may be able to take advantage of all the bells and whistles of the top school more so than a student who is likely to continue on the same trajectory they have followed in high school.</p>
<p>And the first student also performed as well in a tougher high school program, making their top 10% performance more difficult to attain…tougher classes, harder teachers, more competitive peers. It’s become a joke. The “top” schools are no longer really have the top students. Admit that it is what it is. Why don’t we do the same thing in the Olympics if this is such a “fair” way to go about choosing the “best”.</p>
<p>So should we dictate to the private schools what students to admit?
Or should we use our resources to help our child find the best fit for them, and not worry about what Johnny down the street might do?</p>
<p>If the " top" colleges, are not * really the top colleges* why get your panties in bunch when you can’t afford to send your child there?</p>
<p>what the heck are you talking about? I simply stated that most making $200k and up should be able to save for 2 kids going to college…full pay. </p>
<p>Your point about the more affluent getting more tax breaks has nothing to do with my argument…jeez</p>