Making SAHM get job to pay for private school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ‘luxury good’ is an excellent education for OP’s children. He’s not working more so he can pau for his wife to get a diamond jewelry, mcmansion, or Tesla to drive. He’s paying for his children’s education!

Especially after the sh—-show that our public schools were the past year and a half, I think it’s a worthwhile expense for the kids, don’t you?

I send my kids to private school and I think OPs wife is absolutely being ridiculous. It is unquestionably a luxury good. Come on.

Nope. There is something in between a necessity and a luxury, and private school can actually run the gamut. I know people who send their kids to private because they think it will let their kids climb the social ladder, and then I know of people like my MIL who sent her kid to private school when she wasn't even middle class because this kid was having panic attacks at school and the school had no support in place for him.

My kid is in an expensive private school because the public schools can't meet his needs (dyslexic). It's absolutely a luxury good. I can't believe people are even debating that something that is $30-50k post tax isn't a luxury good. Probably the same people who think they are middle class at 400k or more a year HHI.

Your definition of luxury makes no sense. It doesn't just mean expensive. It has to do with extravagance and comfort, not accommodating a dyslexic child who otherwise would not get his/her needs met. Yes, it is expensive, but I don't think any rational definition of luxury encompasses your situation.

You do not understand what a luxury good is. The circumstances of the purchaser don't change the objective fact of whether the purchase is a luxury good or not. Let's say someone has a bad back, and can't drive a car without extremely good lumbar support. Are you taking the position that if that person buys a BMW 5 series for the excellent seats, the BMW suddenly doesn't become a luxury consumer product? That isn't rational. Luxury goods are an objective consumer classification, not a reflection of the circumstances of the purchaser.

There is no debate that private school is a luxury good. Just because people have reasons for purchasing private education doesn't change the facts of the situation.

By your definition, a person in a wheelchair who purchases a van that is expensive because it was outfitted to accommodate the wheelchair would be buying a "luxury" good.

Sigh, no. You really have no understanding of economics, do you? It's clear you have never taken a class in economics.

Vans outfitted with wheelchair supports don't have an alternative. Therefore, not a luxury good. Let me give another example. I know a guy who is disabled and loves cars. He has two cars, both outfitted with expensive assistive driving technology. One is a Honda, the other is a Porsche. The Honda is not a luxury good even though it has expensive assistive technology. The Porsche is a luxury good, even though the cost of the assistive technology is about the same as in the Honda.

There isn't debate among rational people that private school (especially $30k+ school) is a luxury good.

But the PP said that the public school could not accommodate her child. Where was the substitute?

And vans do have substitutes, just bad ones. Do you think that every poor person in a wheelchair has a specially-outfitted van? Lol, no. They take public service vehicles that will transport them; they ride in ill equipped cars; etc.

So based on your example of the Honda and the Porsche, the Porsche is a luxury good because it is an extravagance, which is exactly the first post I made. But why is the Honda not a luxury good? He could take an Uber. Could get rides with friends or family. Have the county mobility van drive him.

Congratulations on finally getting the point.

You are hopeless. I'm not going to engage further as I don't want to waste my time trying to teach you foundational economics concepts that I'm not sure you could understand anyhow. Understand that there is no debate that private school is a luxury good. None. Your insistence otherwise is blatant ignorance on embarrassing display.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking the position that education that costs at least $60k in post-tax income annually isn't a luxury good is classic DCUM.

This. And OP said nothing about the kids having any special needs. Most kids are getting into the same college regardless of whether they go public or private. Many kids are happy, adjusted, and thriving in public school.

It is surreal that there are PPs who seem to genuinely not understand such a basic point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ‘luxury good’ is an excellent education for OP’s children. He’s not working more so he can pau for his wife to get a diamond jewelry, mcmansion, or Tesla to drive. He’s paying for his children’s education!

Especially after the sh—-show that our public schools were the past year and a half, I think it’s a worthwhile expense for the kids, don’t you?

I send my kids to private school and I think OPs wife is absolutely being ridiculous. It is unquestionably a luxury good. Come on.

Nope. There is something in between a necessity and a luxury, and private school can actually run the gamut. I know people who send their kids to private because they think it will let their kids climb the social ladder, and then I know of people like my MIL who sent her kid to private school when she wasn't even middle class because this kid was having panic attacks at school and the school had no support in place for him.

My kid is in an expensive private school because the public schools can't meet his needs (dyslexic). It's absolutely a luxury good. I can't believe people are even debating that something that is $30-50k post tax isn't a luxury good. Probably the same people who think they are middle class at 400k or more a year HHI.

Your definition of luxury makes no sense. It doesn't just mean expensive. It has to do with extravagance and comfort, not accommodating a dyslexic child who otherwise would not get his/her needs met. Yes, it is expensive, but I don't think any rational definition of luxury encompasses your situation.

You do not understand what a luxury good is. The circumstances of the purchaser don't change the objective fact of whether the purchase is a luxury good or not. Let's say someone has a bad back, and can't drive a car without extremely good lumbar support. Are you taking the position that if that person buys a BMW 5 series for the excellent seats, the BMW suddenly doesn't become a luxury consumer product? That isn't rational. Luxury goods are an objective consumer classification, not a reflection of the circumstances of the purchaser.

There is no debate that private school is a luxury good. Just because people have reasons for purchasing private education doesn't change the facts of the situation.

By your definition, a person in a wheelchair who purchases a van that is expensive because it was outfitted to accommodate the wheelchair would be buying a "luxury" good.

Sigh, no. You really have no understanding of economics, do you? It's clear you have never taken a class in economics.

Vans outfitted with wheelchair supports don't have an alternative. Therefore, not a luxury good. Let me give another example. I know a guy who is disabled and loves cars. He has two cars, both outfitted with expensive assistive driving technology. One is a Honda, the other is a Porsche. The Honda is not a luxury good even though it has expensive assistive technology. The Porsche is a luxury good, even though the cost of the assistive technology is about the same as in the Honda.

There isn't debate among rational people that private school (especially $30k+ school) is a luxury good.

But the PP said that the public school could not accommodate her child. Where was the substitute?

And vans do have substitutes, just bad ones. Do you think that every poor person in a wheelchair has a specially-outfitted van? Lol, no. They take public service vehicles that will transport them; they ride in ill equipped cars; etc.

So based on your example of the Honda and the Porsche, the Porsche is a luxury good because it is an extravagance, which is exactly the first post I made. But why is the Honda not a luxury good? He could take an Uber. Could get rides with friends or family. Have the county mobility van drive him.

Congratulations on finally getting the point.

You are hopeless. I'm not going to engage further as I don't want to waste my time trying to teach you foundational economics concepts that I'm not sure you could understand anyhow. Understand that there is no debate that private school is a luxury good. None. Your insistence otherwise is blatant ignorance on embarrassing display.

Ah, yes, the foundational economic concept of "it is a luxury if I say it is."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking the position that education that costs at least $60k in post-tax income annually isn't a luxury good is classic DCUM.

This. And OP said nothing about the kids having any special needs. Most kids are getting into the same college regardless of whether they go public or private. Many kids are happy, adjusted, and thriving in public school.

It is surreal that there are PPs who seem to genuinely not understand such a basic point.

The debate about private school as a luxury good was in response to a PP who said that she used private school because the school couldn't accommodate her kid who is dyslexic. And then some PP who won the Nobel Prize in Econ 101 has spent a bunch of time weighing in to educate us all about luxury goods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ‘luxury good’ is an excellent education for OP’s children. He’s not working more so he can pau for his wife to get a diamond jewelry, mcmansion, or Tesla to drive. He’s paying for his children’s education!

Especially after the sh—-show that our public schools were the past year and a half, I think it’s a worthwhile expense for the kids, don’t you?

I send my kids to private school and I think OPs wife is absolutely being ridiculous. It is unquestionably a luxury good. Come on.

Nope. There is something in between a necessity and a luxury, and private school can actually run the gamut. I know people who send their kids to private because they think it will let their kids climb the social ladder, and then I know of people like my MIL who sent her kid to private school when she wasn't even middle class because this kid was having panic attacks at school and the school had no support in place for him.

My kid is in an expensive private school because the public schools can't meet his needs (dyslexic). It's absolutely a luxury good. I can't believe people are even debating that something that is $30-50k post tax isn't a luxury good. Probably the same people who think they are middle class at 400k or more a year HHI.

Your definition of luxury makes no sense. It doesn't just mean expensive. It has to do with extravagance and comfort, not accommodating a dyslexic child who otherwise would not get his/her needs met. Yes, it is expensive, but I don't think any rational definition of luxury encompasses your situation.

You do not understand what a luxury good is. The circumstances of the purchaser don't change the objective fact of whether the purchase is a luxury good or not. Let's say someone has a bad back, and can't drive a car without extremely good lumbar support. Are you taking the position that if that person buys a BMW 5 series for the excellent seats, the BMW suddenly doesn't become a luxury consumer product? That isn't rational. Luxury goods are an objective consumer classification, not a reflection of the circumstances of the purchaser.

There is no debate that private school is a luxury good. Just because people have reasons for purchasing private education doesn't change the facts of the situation.

By your definition, a person in a wheelchair who purchases a van that is expensive because it was outfitted to accommodate the wheelchair would be buying a "luxury" good.

Sigh, no. You really have no understanding of economics, do you? It's clear you have never taken a class in economics.

Vans outfitted with wheelchair supports don't have an alternative. Therefore, not a luxury good. Let me give another example. I know a guy who is disabled and loves cars. He has two cars, both outfitted with expensive assistive driving technology. One is a Honda, the other is a Porsche. The Honda is not a luxury good even though it has expensive assistive technology. The Porsche is a luxury good, even though the cost of the assistive technology is about the same as in the Honda.

There isn't debate among rational people that private school (especially $30k+ school) is a luxury good.

But the PP said that the public school could not accommodate her child. Where was the substitute?

And vans do have substitutes, just bad ones. Do you think that every poor person in a wheelchair has a specially-outfitted van? Lol, no. They take public service vehicles that will transport them; they ride in ill equipped cars; etc.

So based on your example of the Honda and the Porsche, the Porsche is a luxury good because it is an extravagance, which is exactly the first post I made. But why is the Honda not a luxury good? He could take an Uber. Could get rides with friends or family. Have the county mobility van drive him.

Congratulations on finally getting the point.

You are hopeless. I'm not going to engage further as I don't want to waste my time trying to teach you foundational economics concepts that I'm not sure you could understand anyhow. Understand that there is no debate that private school is a luxury good. None. Your insistence otherwise is blatant ignorance on embarrassing display.

Hey guys, she is a tenured professor of Karenomics. Please respect her authority.

[Anonymous]

You obviously agreed to spouse being a SAHM, so I find it disgusting you want to punish your wife because she wants to give your kids a step up, which you absolutely can afford. You know her earning potential and job choices would suck. But, you make the money, so…….
You sound like an a$$.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t read everything but I would be kissed if DH rates his need to retire 2-3 years early with the option for a better for for DC’s education. Your salary affords you and your family many things. Why would you not see education at the most important.

We make you salary combined but we agree 100% that DC education is the best $ spent.

I can understand some things but wanting to play golf full time for a year or two earlier or some such seems so incredibly selfish.

[Anonymous]

New poster. My kid is in public but if I could afford private I would absolutely send him. Public schools are different now, and most importantly the level of kids your kids will compete with is much higher than when I was in HS in the 90s.
One has to either supplement heavily which leaves little time after school or go to a high level of education school during the day. America has succeeded in bringing the best and brightest here as well as motivated so it’s a tough competition for our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking the position that education that costs at least $60k in post-tax income annually isn't a luxury good is classic DCUM.

This. And OP said nothing about the kids having any special needs. Most kids are getting into the same college regardless of whether they go public or private. Many kids are happy, adjusted, and thriving in public school.

It is surreal that there are PPs who seem to genuinely not understand such a basic point.

The debate about private school as a luxury good was in response to a PP who said that she used private school because the school couldn't accommodate her kid who is dyslexic. And then some PP who won the Nobel Prize in Econ 101 has spent a bunch of time weighing in to educate us all about luxury goods.

I'm the PP who has a dyslexic kid and of course private school is a luxury good. It is bizarre that you are arguing otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking the position that education that costs at least $60k in post-tax income annually isn't a luxury good is classic DCUM.

This. And OP said nothing about the kids having any special needs. Most kids are getting into the same college regardless of whether they go public or private. Many kids are happy, adjusted, and thriving in public school.

It is surreal that there are PPs who seem to genuinely not understand such a basic point.

The debate about private school as a luxury good was in response to a PP who said that she used private school because the school couldn't accommodate her kid who is dyslexic. And then some PP who won the Nobel Prize in Econ 101 has spent a bunch of time weighing in to educate us all about luxury goods.

I'm the PP who has a dyslexic kid and of course private school is a luxury good. It is bizarre that you are arguing otherwise.

But you said that the public school couldn't accommodate your child. If that's true, then private school is not a "luxury" any more than an outfitted van for a wheel chair is a "luxury." Words have meanings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t read everything but I would be kissed if DH rates his need to retire 2-3 years early with the option for a better for for DC’s education. Your salary affords you and your family many things. Why would you not see education at the most important.

We make you salary combined but we agree 100% that DC education is the best $ spent.

I can understand some things but wanting to play golf full time for a year or two earlier or some such seems so incredibly selfish.

Agree completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking the position that education that costs at least $60k in post-tax income annually isn't a luxury good is classic DCUM.

This. And OP said nothing about the kids having any special needs. Most kids are getting into the same college regardless of whether they go public or private. Many kids are happy, adjusted, and thriving in public school.

It is surreal that there are PPs who seem to genuinely not understand such a basic point.

The debate about private school as a luxury good was in response to a PP who said that she used private school because the school couldn't accommodate her kid who is dyslexic. And then some PP who won the Nobel Prize in Econ 101 has spent a bunch of time weighing in to educate us all about luxury goods.

I'm the PP who has a dyslexic kid and of course private school is a luxury good. It is bizarre that you are arguing otherwise.

But you said that the public school couldn't accommodate your child. If that's true, then private school is not a "luxury" any more than an outfitted van for a wheel chair is a "luxury." Words have meanings.

I'm going with the meaning used by economists. The phrase "luxury good" is a term out of economics. It's a luxury good. I honestly do not understand how you can think otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking the position that education that costs at least $60k in post-tax income annually isn't a luxury good is classic DCUM.

This. And OP said nothing about the kids having any special needs. Most kids are getting into the same college regardless of whether they go public or private. Many kids are happy, adjusted, and thriving in public school.

It is surreal that there are PPs who seem to genuinely not understand such a basic point.

The debate about private school as a luxury good was in response to a PP who said that she used private school because the school couldn't accommodate her kid who is dyslexic. And then some PP who won the Nobel Prize in Econ 101 has spent a bunch of time weighing in to educate us all about luxury goods.

I'm the PP who has a dyslexic kid and of course private school is a luxury good. It is bizarre that you are arguing otherwise.

But you said that the public school couldn't accommodate your child. If that's true, then private school is not a "luxury" any more than an outfitted van for a wheel chair is a "luxury." Words have meanings.

I'm going with the meaning used by economists. The phrase "luxury good" is a term out of economics. It's a luxury good. I honestly do not understand how you can think otherwise.

Are you an economist? I find that hard to believe. Nor would an economist define an accommodation for a disability as a luxury. I mean, no economist other than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Start 529s; you have two kids so you will make four in total, you and your wife can make pretax contributions to those 529‘s, take the income deduction and then write the tuition checks from the 529s; this is how you write off private school.

VR,
Mossack/Fonseca

And 1-3 years of compounding gets you peanuts. The tuition build are now, not in 30 years like retirement could compound it.

529s should be set up by 22 yos w a job, then switch the recipient name to your own kid if/when you get married and have kids. Otherwise we’ll it on the secondary market in a negotiated agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking the position that education that costs at least $60k in post-tax income annually isn't a luxury good is classic DCUM.

This. And OP said nothing about the kids having any special needs. Most kids are getting into the same college regardless of whether they go public or private. Many kids are happy, adjusted, and thriving in public school.

It is surreal that there are PPs who seem to genuinely not understand such a basic point.

The debate about private school as a luxury good was in response to a PP who said that she used private school because the school couldn't accommodate her kid who is dyslexic. And then some PP who won the Nobel Prize in Econ 101 has spent a bunch of time weighing in to educate us all about luxury goods.

I'm the PP who has a dyslexic kid and of course private school is a luxury good. It is bizarre that you are arguing otherwise.

But you said that the public school couldn't accommodate your child. If that's true, then private school is not a "luxury" any more than an outfitted van for a wheel chair is a "luxury." Words have meanings.

I'm going with the meaning used by economists. The phrase "luxury good" is a term out of economics. It's a luxury good. I honestly do not understand how you can think otherwise.

Are you an economist? I find that hard to believe. Nor would an economist define an accommodation for a disability as a luxury. I mean, no economist other than you.

Maybe she thinks education is a luxury, which might explain her lack of ability to read critically or use reason.