If my dad gets a job, will it lower my financial aid significantly?

Paying for College
21

<p>It is terribly sad that we have come to the point where young adults would think it can be detrimental to get a job if it means losing handouts from the government.</p>

<p>Just as a matter of personal pride, I would think your father would be dying to get a job and happily pay for a bit more of your schooling if it meant he could stand on his own two feet instead of needing government help. Parental assets, etc, are somewhat protected in calculating the family contribution - it’s not like the entire earnings would suddenly be expected to be used. And, unless you plan on supporting your parents during their retirement, you should also be very supportive of your father’s return to work…he needs to be able to save for that part of life so he doesn’t come knocking on your door looking to move in one day!</p>

22

<p>^^ exactly!

</p>

<p>Why should I have to pay for your government aid if your father can pay for it himself? Sorry, but it’s attitudes like yours that really get me steaming. I would really rather see my tax dollars going to those who have no other choices.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>And what? Do you think it would be better in the long run if your dad remained UNEMPLOYED for the next SIX years? Congratulations to him…and I hope he is offered the job and takes it.</p>

<p>P.S. If your sister is in a six year program…it is likely that she will lose her undergrad status in four years anyway (e.g.Pharm students find this happening). When this happens she will lose any undergrad aid, unless she is at a school that has guaranteed her MERIT aid until she finishes her degree. I would check. </p>

<p>Also, once you are out of college…your sister’s EFC will likely double…</p>

<p>Seems to me, your dad will NEED a job to help pay the additional costs.</p>

24

<p>After reading this entire thread, and agreeing with much of what’s been posted here, I still can’t fathom how this is any of YOUR business! Are YOU the head of your household???</p>

<p>Your dad may get a job - good for him!</p>

<p>And, yes, that will most certainly impact your eligibility for financial aid. So? Deal with it. Your father’s ability to support his family is more important than you getting a free education.</p>

<p>Or were you planning to ask him to remain unemployed because it makes life easier for you?</p>

25

<p>I am hoping that the OP and family are all looking at this together. When a family has been on the edge financially for so long, and on assistance for many things, it is difficult to make the switch. The reality is that sometimes you will net out less on the assistance than for work. In some cases, in areas that are truly urgent like health care costs. Though the government has made inroads in helping those who can fall between coverages and/or lose essential benefits but not be able to pick up on one’s own, there are still gaps. If they are truly huge ones, then there is a balancing act and some decisions to make.</p>

<p>In your case, OP, your dad is being offered a nice salary. It more than trumps any loss in things like your financial aid. It is a big deal thing for him to get back in the job world, and even if you lose ALL aid, it is more important for him to do this. Weighing a $50K a year income flow vs a $50 cost truly makes this an easy choice. You and your sister can find cheaper schools It’s not the end of the world to wait a bit and take longer to get through college. It can be the end of the road jobwise for those of us getting on in the years.</p>

26

<p>It’s a shame how many people here are making baseless assumptions about our finances and our families’ condition. There are other ways we have been paying debt off and dealing with our situation that I am not going to share with the public.</p>

<p>I thank those who actually offered useful information earlier on in the topic. I got all the information I need to help my dad make his decision. No further replies are needed.</p>

27

<p>It’s not fair to blame a family for making a rational decision to turn down a job if it would end up costing them money, and making them less able to support their family. It behooves those who design social programs to make sure that the taper-offs work in such a way that no one loses money by earning money. I know that’s not always the case at all, but luckily in this poster’s case, it should not be an issue.</p>

28

<p>

</p>

<p>Welcome to the real world, Significa: you ask a question and sometimes you get answers you don’t like.</p>

29

<p>Clearly - and non-relevant replies.</p>

30

<p>Significa has a point. Not all unemployed people are living on government handouts. Most are hard working individuals who got caught up in the down turn. Many people seem to think that all the unemployed are free loaders looking for a free ride. Not until they lose their job/business do they realize that hard working people also need help sometimes. For all we know her dad could have been in a training program or trying to start a business.</p>

<p>I thought Significa was being responsible trying to determine how this was going impact her life. How else can Significa come up with a plan B?</p>

31

<p>Why would any parent capable of commanding a 50k salary enlist the help of a child in deciding whether or not to take a job? Sorry, I know you didn’t want more replies, but as noted above, such is the nature of an open forum like this one. </p>

<p>50k per year x number of years works is probably a lot more money than a few years of fin aid. Since sis is probably going to need cosigners for big loans if she stays on the current path, parents will need a healthier income than they’ve got now.</p>

32

<p>"My question is whether the extra salary outweighs the change in FA and other stuff. Basically - how much realistically can my sister and I expect to lose in financial aid?</p>

<p>Moreover, the extra salary means we’ll be losing a lot of government aid which we will now have to pay for. "</p>

<p>You posted this yourself, Significa. So, we, the readers, take this to mean that you are questioning whether a job would then cost your family because you would lose government aid, aside from financial aid. We, the readers, were not making assumptions. You stated such.
If you don’t want the scrutiny and feedback, don’t post the question.</p>

33

<p>Unfortunately, the initial question comes across as very self-centered, and it reminds me of some of my neighbors, who live in subsidized housing. Initially, one spouse worked and the other stayed home with younger children, they pay a percentage of household income for rent. As the children grow older, if the second spouse works, household income increases, and as a result rent increases. Because of this, some choose not to return to work - why work when it just means the rent will be increased?</p>

<p>For a small number this seems like a sensible decision, because there are costs associated with working. You earn $300 per week, 20% goes to income taxes, 20% goes to rent, leaving$1800 per week. It costs $30 week to get to and from work on the bus dropping you to $150 per week. You have more laundry, and it costs more to pack lunch than if you just stayed home, so you end up taking home $100 extra per week. But wait, your new income reduces the Earning income credit on your tax return, and your kids no longer qualify for free lunch… and so on</p>

<p>What the OP has to understand is that there are many other factors at work, beyond just what she will get in aid - whether in the short term her father’s salary outweighs the drop in aid or not. He will be working, and will be earning credits toward social security, which will increase his “retirement” income, which in itself will probably outweigh any loss in aid.</p>

<p>I am obviously not the only one here who believes the OP has blinders on. She had zero EFC right now. That doesn’t mean that her education doesn’t cost anything, it just means that her family isn’t paying for it, someone else is (I’ll give you a hint - it’s the rest of us here). The premise behind need-based aid is that the family does what they can to support the student. That means if the parents are able to work, they do.</p>

<p>I doubt the OP will be back to see this, but the suggestion that her father should turn down a job because she might lost aid, or it might shift more to loans is insulting to those of us who don’t qualify for zero EFC. Should I quit my job, to lower our household income and increase my kids’ financial aid?</p>

34

<p>*It’s not fair to blame a family for making a rational decision to turn down a job if it would end up costing them money, and making them less able to support their family. It behooves those who design social programs to make sure that the taper-offs work in such a way that no one loses money by earning money. I know that’s not always the case at all, but luckily in this poster’s case, it should not be an issue.
*</p>

<p>Mathmom…I kind of doubt that “the family” is considering having the dad turn down the job. The dad is probably thrilled that he finally can start properly support his family after 10 years of likely feeling very badly. He probably would flip out if he knew his child was thinking that he shouldn’t take the job. </p>

<p>It’s likely the OP (and maybe her sister) that were thinking that maybe getting the job is a bad idea. Maybe if we had told her that she would lose a bunch of aid, she’d have started asking her dad not to take the job. ???</p>

<p>Thankfully, her aid will not be affected much at all. </p>

<p>There’s hardly a scenario where a family earning $75k per year is worse off than a family earning $25k per year. After all, how many here have posted that those who complain about the middle class not getting aid, that they should quit their jobs and live like the underclass???</p>

35

<p>Frankly, OP is a college kid and I assumed she worded the question to express her curiosity and need to understand. No one can assume she is either over-involved or would push him not to take the job. </p>

<p>If you stand back, in itself, it’s a fair question (whether or not it’s worded less than perfectly.) What happens to aid when a long-time unemployed parent gets a job? How might it change? How do I assess our financial position now that we pay additional living expenses? Adult posters have asked the same FA portion of the question, on other threads. In fact, my very ethical, unemployed friend asked her kid’s college the same thing.</p>

<p>She got a job better than the one she had lost, much better. Her kid’s aid did not change. I suspect this generosity is unusual, but it underscores the need to speak with your college’s FA folks.</p>

36

<p>Unfortunately, most of you are wrong in assuming this is my own question. The question came from my parents and I came here for more information. They were worried as to whether where our family would be worse off with an additional job. Our family makes decisions that affect everyone together (since I pay for my education completely on my own) as every other family should. I have already been told our family would be better off with the job – so thank you, again, to those who provided useful information.</p>

<p>Oh, and for those, who are quarreling with that fact that they are paying for my education. Please stop. My mom and I still work and pay taxes. My dad has also worked for twenty plus years paying full taxes to the government. Furthermore, my dad has other ways of aiding our family despite being unemployed (which I will not discuss here). Moreover, a very small portion of my aid comes from the government. The majority actually comes from my school and scholarships that I have worked hard to attain. There are other conditions that go into play such as my dad’s health that I am not going to share with the public.</p>

<p>ut If you have an issue with the way government favors the poor and the rich, contact the government – don’t bring your frustration with the system to the forum and littering it with non-relevant information.</p>

<p>Now - please stop littering this topic with useless information. This information can be quite useful for other students who may have the question in the future. If anyone has useful information pertaining to the topic, please continue to post them. However, my family has already reached a decision on what we are doing if he is even offered the job.</p>

<p>One last thing – Not sure how I was classified as a female but I am, in fact, a male.</p>

<p>If you have an issue with what I said - PM me.</p>

37

<p>Those of us who posted here were not “littering.”</p>

<p>If this question did in fact come from your parents, it shows just where we are that people feel entitled to financial aid. There should be no question whether you are better off with a job - you are! The fact that you work and pay taxes has no bearing on the fact that your financial aid is coming from someone else (whether it is taxpayers, or donor to your school). It is not a question of whether the government aids the rich or the poor, but of how someone in a position to benefit from that aid manipulates the system. </p>

<p>To those of us who are working and supporting our families (and I’m not implying your family has done done so), it is insulting to suggest that someone should turn down a job offer in order to maintain student aid. Even if working only results in financial break even, but not working you take money from the pool of available aid, and reduce what is available for others in need. Obviously that did not factor into your calculations, but perhaps it should for you or anyone else in a similar position.</p>

38

<p>CTScoutmom, what if the family didn’t even break even? What if they ended up financially worse off by taking the job. I’m sure you understand that this can happen. Would you still consider it selfish for them not to take the job? There are people who literally can’t afford to work because of the benefits they’d lose that cost more than their net income would be, not to mention the direct and indirect costs of working (work clothes, transportation, less time to bargain hunt and cook from scratch). That’s a failure of the system to support those transitioning off aid, rather than a failure of character of those who just want to be able to continue supporting their families.</p>

<p>I think all this family wanted was to make sure that they’d at least break even and not end up net worse off by taking the job. 50K is a substantial income and sufficient to make up for the lost benefits with money left over, so they’ll be fine. But it’s a fair question to ask, IMO.</p>

39

<p>Even if a family does not break even, I would argue that they have a moral obligation to do everything possible to be a productive member of society. Perhaps the OP’s father is currently volunteering and providing other help to his community - Bravo! However, if he is consuming public resources then he is taking money from someone who has worked, even sacrificed, to contribute to society as well as preventing someone who cannot work from receiving more help.</p>

<p>Suppose an executive embezzles $1 million dollars from his company because he knows that as a first-time offender he will only receive a sentence of probation. His management skill allows him to cover up the money so that it cannot be traced and will never be repaid. Is this executive a criminal for taking the money, or simply someone who has evaluated “the system” and made a rational choice. If you answer that he is a criminal, please realize that you are deciding that he should be $1M poorer in order to adhere to your relativistic moral code.</p>

40

<p>I think there’s more than a slight difference between criminal activity and taking advantage of social programs.</p>

<p>If a person barely makes ends meet using social programs, and CANNOT make ends meet if they work and lose access to the social programs, I would say it is NOT their moral obligation to take that job. Yes, it would be best if they could work AND make ends meet, but they still have an obligation to support their family, and can’t just decide to work at a loss and not feed the kids this month. I would say that if a society provides social safety nets, it should prioritize ensuring that that kind of paradoxical situation where a person is worse off by working can never happen. Because surely the system would be better off helping someone a little while they work.</p>