<p>I think dt123 has figured out the likely cause. think about how fearful politicians are of changing anything that might make them seem neutral on pre-marital sex, marriage issues etc. Given the endless beltway scandals I don't too many care about what they claim but they know where the votes come from.
Calmom - ok so no documents needed except the chart. Anyone think ACLU would touch it?
how many of us here who are married would accept our fafsa going up a few bucks in order for the fafsa of single parents to do down? most I hope!</p>
<p>Calmom, just a point of fact going back to earlier exchange: according to finaid.org, the institutional method calculates 12% of assets, not 5.6%. Not a big deal in the case described, but I do want to set the record straight.</p>
<p>It is truly a ridiculous situation. For instance someone my age, 53, a 2 parent family has asset protection of $53,000 while a 1 parent family has only $21,000. Absolutely ludicrouse difference. I could understand if it was $26,500 - at least there is some sort of logic in 50%. If the 'moral' police make it this way based on family value issues etc (which I am not saying is ok - just pointing there is more than one way a single parent family comes into existance) do they fail to take into account widows, widowers. We are a 2 parent family but this really shocks me.</p>
<p>garland - You are right. Strange though - I have heard the 5.6% figure bandied around a lot and just assumed it was correct (mathematical evidence to the contrary when I have run the EFC calculators). Did it change?</p>
<p>I believe 5.6% is the maximum rate assessed against parental assets by FAFSA, i.e., the federal method.</p>
<p>I had always heard that to but if you look at the finaid FAFSA EFC calculator it does calculate at 12% of parent assets. And the EFC formula guide for 2007/2008 also shows it as 12%.</p>
<p>page 9</p>
<p>ACLU won't touch it because marital status is not an unconstitutional basis of discrimination. Congress or the DOE could make changes if they could be convinced the policy is wrong.</p>
<p>The thing about the these policy considerations in FAFSA is that they are so ineffective. A young couple considering marriage or divorce is not likely to be aware that there will be financial aid considerations for their children up to 18 years later. Similarly, when deciding how to finance one's retirement, the fact that IRA assets are shielded from FAFSA is not, I expect, widely known. The immediate tax breaks are known, but the impact on FAFSA?</p>
<p>So what you get are surprise windfalls for those that just happen to have taken certain paths over others.</p>
<p>I sure didn't understand that people with kids close together pay far less for college than those of us whose kids are far apart in age.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had always heard that to but if you look at the finaid FAFSA EFC calculator it does calculate at 12% of parent assets. And the EFC formula guide for 2007/2008 also shows it as 12%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You missed a step. After the assets are multiplied by .12, that number is reduced again by a percentage from Table A6, which varies but can be as high as 47%. .12 times .47 = .0564 or 5.6%.</p>
<p>dt123 - ah I get it now. Thank you. Good lord could they make it any more complicated.</p>
<p>WEll, actually, according to that chart, the AAI you refer to is 47% plus $7334. Which would still make it higher.</p>
<p>And of course, this is the fed not the institutional number. Finaid.org uses 12% on all assets after asset protection when demonstrating IM.</p>
<p>The ironic thing is that it could be a lot more fair and effective if it were more complicated. The current formula is a compromise between fairness and simplicity, with screwball policy initiatives thrown in to irritate everybody.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which would still make it higher.
[/quote]
You want to rethink that, Garland?</p>
<p>7334 makes it higher, but I did miss the "over 27,000" for the 47%. Good call.</p>
<p>Oldinjersey, your post #114 made me chuckle. $300,000 in savings with better uses for it = cc and state U. Yes, there are many folks who think this way and try to devise schemes to wring a few extra dollars of finaid out of the FAFSA fromulae.</p>
<p>As with any standardized formulae one size does not fit all and those with valid situations can always prostrate themselves at the feet of the finaid office.</p>
<p>And yes, I should probably not be so sarcastic because I have done well enough to make FAFSA/CSS irrelevant. But I equate my investing philosophy to those trying to maneuver a few addition finaid bucks their way. I always looked at the big long term picture and paid no attention to short term issues like tax consequences. So what if I had to pay a few more sheckels in taxes to Uncle Sam. That pesky fact would only get in the way of my long term goals.</p>
<p>Now a family has ever right to make choices which will result in fairly minimizing their FAFSA efc. And rule one would be to minimize money saved in the student's name and maximizing savings in retirement accounts. But beyond that, any legal manuvering seems to be more trouble than it is worth. And illegally hiding assets or transferring assets is just wrong. I know a family who allowed their son to buy a $5000 car in order to reduce college savings in his name. But in 4 years the value of that depreciating asset would be what, $2000? And now they have $5000 less in college savings. Our son paid $1800 for his 1996 Dodge Neon in 2003, the ultimate chick repeller, its still ticking, has lost maybe $900 in depreciated value but has $3200 left over to pay for college expenses.</p>
<p>My advice is to play smart and play fair. The big picture is your child's education and the life lessons you teach by your actions.</p>
<p>I guess it actually makes it lower than 5.6% of total assets unless maybe you have really high assets (not a problem in my case sadly). The 7334 works out at around 3.2% (because it is 27% of 12% of the original asset amount). I think that popping sound was my brain just exploding. Think I'll stop thinking and try and find something mindless to do for a couple of hours.</p>
<p>And yes I agree that the difference in sheltered assest in a 2 parent family vs a single parent family seems very unfair. </p>
<p>And how about a child in a household with two same sex parents? Because the federal government does not recognize gay marrigage or civil unions can only one person be used on the FAFSA calc. So what if one parent earns $400,000/yr while the natural parent(yes, there are many gay couples like this) earns $5000/yr. Does their child get a free ride because the efc is 0? I am pro-civil union, but this scenario would not be fair because the household income would be $405,000.</p>
<p>some states allow second-parent adoptions by same-sex couples based on either state statutes or a court decision: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont. (lots of couples in our area)
Do they end up treated as a couple for FAFSA, since both are parents? I would assume so. I've know straight couples to not marry, often widowed or divorced mom with h.s. and college kids, so that the FAFSA would be lower. However either group is a drop in the bucket compared to most people filing.</p>
<p>Entitlement-was it always this bad? I jumped of here to go read a cruise board thread for the disabled. (have scooter will travel, thanks to the union vacation fund and the amazing low cost of cruising!)
I mostly do not read about this cause it gets so meanspirited and upsetting. The biggest issue is getting a handicapped room. You can find hundreds of past posts online where able bodied adults (AB) endlessly explain their RIGHT to book a handicapped (HC) room on a ship. (they are bigger so you can move your wheelchair or travel scooter around) Travel agents happily book AB folks into the rooms. AB folks BRAG that they've done this. Cruise lines could care less. When did it become ok to cheat? Like CC the folks who are angry that (fill in the ethnic or gender group) are somehow getting things that the poster feels entitled to without cause?
Ok I blame Ronald Reagan, but I would guess this isn't new?</p>
<p>"Ok I blame Ronald Reagan, "
I NEVER would have guessed that about you!</p>