FAFSA - is middle-class waste time applying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my income was $300k I would have zero problems being able to pay for my kid to go to an expensive, private college. You need a dose of reality

No necessarily true! 300k sounds a lot. But after tax, medical and retirement deduction, it is lucky if could take home half of it. With other kids to support, who can afford to use 50% of take home money paying for one kid’s college expenses?

Oh poor you.

Some people can’t afford to save for retirement or to pay for so many kids. You chose to have the kids.

Please.

Choose a cheaper college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see some questions on css like, in the past 10 years have you:

Used a lawn service
Bought an appliance from the Viking/subzero family
Been a member of a country club
Leased a car for more than 600/mo


Etc etc

Paid for college counseling

Paid for personal ice skating / squash / softball / soccer coach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many likely were not taught to save.

That is not a character flaw, but it is an obstacle.

My DH and I were not taught this either, but being married and working together we have improved our financial literacy over decades and are lucky to have DCUM UMC salaries.

We are terrible savers, but if we can automate and never see the money that works for us.

I think the “pay yourself first”, meaning savings, mentality is great but hard for many people who don’t think long term to execute. This is not something taught in school or society. People do not talk about money and people don’t like feeling as if they do not make as much as their friends and neighbors. It is hard for many to say “I cannot afford that” because of shame.

It is easier to live on a salary of $150K than to have a salary of $300K and live on a salary of $150K.

Those that are better at savings appear to balance the pain of frugality with the joy of experiencing superiority.

People feel bad that private college is expensive and they cannot afford to give that to their children. College is crazy expensive. There are less expensive options.

Our children will be better off for not getting everything they want.

No, it’s easier to live off $300k and save a lot than 150k. Your poor choices are not colleges problem. It’s yours. We talk about money in our home all the time.

+1

Most seem to forget that life is all about choices. They could live off $150K easily. They just chose to spend more and save less. In fact, it would only take a few years living off $150K and they would have enough front loaded for college to increase their living up to $200K and still contribute to college and everything else.

There is so much holier than thou on this forum.

It takes resolve that many people do not have to earn $300K and live like year earn $150K.

Why don’t the people that make $150K live like they make $75K and save the difference? You could say this at any income level.

Look, I am not saying that people that make $300K should qualify for financial aid. They should not.

And there is a range of circumstances of families that have saved various amounts and will choose a variety of schools.

But all this condescension implying it is so easy ignores many of the realities of life. What is easy for one person is hard for another.

It is all about choices. If you lived on $150K when that's all you made, then you most certainly can easily continue to live like that. Do that and save your extra income for a few years and your kids will be set. However if you feel you must "keep up with the Joneses" that is your choice. But do not complain that you "cannot afford" college for your kids. That is a choice you made. You chose to get the bigger, nicer house, to take that trip to Europe (or wherever else), to get a more expensive new car (vs driving your 5 yo car a few more years or getting a new Toyota or Honda instead of a new Tesla) No, it is not hard to continue to live off of $150K. It's what responsible adults do---you chose to have kids so you could choose to direct savings towards college, since you wont be eligible for aid. Or you choose to know that your kids will attend $40K/year schools (be that state or privates with merit or OOS with merit) because you chose to spend more money on Extras, rather than saving for colleges that cost more.

So yes, some people find it hard to be a fiscally responsible adult. However, you must then live with the results of that. It's a You issue, not everyone else's and your kids are not entitled to financial aid just because you were irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many likely were not taught to save.

That is not a character flaw, but it is an obstacle.

My DH and I were not taught this either, but being married and working together we have improved our financial literacy over decades and are lucky to have DCUM UMC salaries.

We are terrible savers, but if we can automate and never see the money that works for us.

I think the “pay yourself first”, meaning savings, mentality is great but hard for many people who don’t think long term to execute. This is not something taught in school or society. People do not talk about money and people don’t like feeling as if they do not make as much as their friends and neighbors. It is hard for many to say “I cannot afford that” because of shame.

It is easier to live on a salary of $150K than to have a salary of $300K and live on a salary of $150K.

Those that are better at savings appear to balance the pain of frugality with the joy of experiencing superiority.

People feel bad that private college is expensive and they cannot afford to give that to their children. College is crazy expensive. There are less expensive options.

Our children will be better off for not getting everything they want.

No, it’s easier to live off $300k and save a lot than 150k. Your poor choices are not colleges problem. It’s yours. We talk about money in our home all the time.

+1

Most seem to forget that life is all about choices. They could live off $150K easily. They just chose to spend more and save less. In fact, it would only take a few years living off $150K and they would have enough front loaded for college to increase their living up to $200K and still contribute to college and everything else.

There is so much holier than thou on this forum.

It takes resolve that many people do not have to earn $300K and live like year earn $150K.

Why don’t the people that make $150K live like they make $75K and save the difference? You could say this at any income level.

Look, I am not saying that people that make $300K should qualify for financial aid. They should not.

And there is a range of circumstances of families that have saved various amounts and will choose a variety of schools.

But all this condescension implying it is so easy ignores many of the realities of life. What is easy for one person is hard for another.

What an idiotic post. Sure, and the people making 70k could just live like they make 35k -- your relativism may suit your justification of your wealth, but it makes no sense.

Poor poor people making 300k. Their lives are so hard. Those of us at 150k have it so easy. Good grief.

What I said was:

Families with HHIs of $300K/year or higher will not and should not be awarded financial aid.

All of the people assuming what others could have done differently are not living those people’s lives. The condescension is not necessary.

Savings and lifestyle habits are taught/learned and many people are doing their best with the knowledge and resources they have.

I am not complaining about my income. We do not apply for or receive financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to hear more from UMC people about how College is a special consumer good where family income shouldn’t matter and the net price should be essentially zero when literally everything else in the world is allocated by family wealth, including “free” public school (you have to be able to afford to live in the district).

You thought it was fair when you bought your way into everything else in your lifestyle, well now welcome to the big leagues.

I don't think UMC families are saying that they should be given aid. Just lamenting that they cannot afford it, even if some insist that they can. Many of us have 529 accounts, but those funds didn't grow that much, even putting in more than $2500 per year per account, and we have multiple kids. It's enough for in state, but not 80k per year. When we started saving college was a bit cheaper. Several years ago, when my DC was in MS, we looked at an expensive private. It was $60K/year. Now it's closer to $85k per year. Saving $240k is doable. Saving closer to $350K is much harder.

If you still have 20 working years, I could see how you think you can afford to pull back on funding retirement, and save later, but if you are 55+, you don't have that luxury.

Obviously, saving only $2500/year/kid is not going to produce enough for $80K/year schools in 18 years (which will cost way more than 80K then).

Majority of kids have to pick schools they can afford, most cannot afford 80K/year, or they could but smartly realize that saved money would be nice to have for grad school.

Read bolded.. we saved way more than $2500 per year per account. We have two accounts per child. Still not enough to cover $80K per year per child given that the 529 didn't grow that much.

So why write it that way? How much did you save per year? Why did the 529 not grow that much? If you dont have it all in the growth market, it may not. But that is on you, as there are 529s that allow you to do that. You can pick one (may not be your state's) that allows you to select the MF to invest in. American Funds in VA is an excellent example. My kid's funds earned 8-9% annual on average during the aggressive years. We didn't pull back until age 15/16 to less aggressive.

DP. Even with 8-9% growth, saving 20K year since 2007 only gets you to ~600K after you factor in expense ratios etc. Not enough to cover 2 kids at 80-90K schools (and that is not even Harvard but say Amherst/Colorado College.) And this simple calculation doesn't actually account for the real fluctuations (e.g. crash in 2008/2009 and again in 2020. Yes, there were rebounds, but plugging in actual numbers and accounting for management fees only gets you to the number I quoted above. Colllege costs are ridiculous right now. And before you jump in with state options, DC doesn't have a state university (obv) and DCTAG helps but not as much.

If you chose to live in DC and have kids, you know there is no state option. So you have 18 years to consider moving to MD/VA if you want that option. It's all about choices, but this wasn't a surprise to you.

Yes college costs have increased drastically. But there are still plenty of excellent options for attending with no or minimal debt. Search merit at "2nd tier" schools or lower. My own 1500/3.98UW/9 AP kid got $42K/year at a T50 so instead of 80k+/year it would only be $40K. Could have gotten even more if they'd searched schools in the 60-120 range (didn't Because we don't need the merit, but point is they could find plenty of good options if needed).
So if you take off the blinders of believing you need to attend a T25 school, you can find something affordable for you.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the residential areas of DC aren't just returned to Maryland. DC is basically a Maryland city. They should be Maryland residents.

I agree. DC residents should have a "state option" for college. However, if you do that, then they would have to be paying taxes to that state. But there could be a plan to direct a portion of DC taxes towards MD for education for residents.

[Anonymous]

Or maybe a high earner doesn’t feel any college is worth $90k per year so plans for their DC to attend a state U.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many likely were not taught to save.

That is not a character flaw, but it is an obstacle.

My DH and I were not taught this either, but being married and working together we have improved our financial literacy over decades and are lucky to have DCUM UMC salaries.

We are terrible savers, but if we can automate and never see the money that works for us.

I think the “pay yourself first”, meaning savings, mentality is great but hard for many people who don’t think long term to execute. This is not something taught in school or society. People do not talk about money and people don’t like feeling as if they do not make as much as their friends and neighbors. It is hard for many to say “I cannot afford that” because of shame.

It is easier to live on a salary of $150K than to have a salary of $300K and live on a salary of $150K.

Those that are better at savings appear to balance the pain of frugality with the joy of experiencing superiority.

People feel bad that private college is expensive and they cannot afford to give that to their children. College is crazy expensive. There are less expensive options.

Our children will be better off for not getting everything they want.

No, it’s easier to live off $300k and save a lot than 150k. Your poor choices are not colleges problem. It’s yours. We talk about money in our home all the time.

+1

Most seem to forget that life is all about choices. They could live off $150K easily. They just chose to spend more and save less. In fact, it would only take a few years living off $150K and they would have enough front loaded for college to increase their living up to $200K and still contribute to college and everything else.

There is so much holier than thou on this forum.

It takes resolve that many people do not have to earn $300K and live like year earn $150K.

Why don’t the people that make $150K live like they make $75K and save the difference? You could say this at any income level.

Look, I am not saying that people that make $300K should qualify for financial aid. They should not.

And there is a range of circumstances of families that have saved various amounts and will choose a variety of schools.

But all this condescension implying it is so easy ignores many of the realities of life. What is easy for one person is hard for another.

What an idiotic post. Sure, and the people making 70k could just live like they make 35k -- your relativism may suit your justification of your wealth, but it makes no sense.

Poor poor people making 300k. Their lives are so hard. Those of us at 150k have it so easy. Good grief.

What I said was:

Families with HHIs of $300K/year or higher will not and should not be awarded financial aid.

All of the people assuming what others could have done differently are not living those people’s lives. The condescension is not necessary.

Savings and lifestyle habits are taught/learned and many people are doing their best with the knowledge and resources they have.

I am not complaining about my income. We do not apply for or receive financial aid.

If you are capable of earning $300K, I sure as hell hope you're capable of understanding/self teaching yourself to understand that you can continue to live on "the $150K you previously were living on" and not spend every extra dollar you are earning. If you are dumb enough to let lifestyle creep happen and not focus on saving your new income towards retirement and college (if you have kids), then that is a YOU issue.

We grew up poor (both me and my spouse). We came out of college with $60K+ debt over 30 years ago. We spent our first 3-4 years intensely focused on paying off that debt. We drove old cars (mine had no AC in an area that we needed it), we didn't take vacations, we packed our lunches most days and took snacks/sodas to the office to save money. We went out to eat maybe 2 times per month with friends and maybe 2-3 lunches at work over the month (once again with groups of coworkers). We lived in an okay apartment, but could have "afforded a much nicer one". Instead, we worked to live on one income and save the other for debt repayment. If we got a bonus, it went directly to debt. Once we paid that debt off we saved for downpayment. Sure, most of the coworkers are age were living differently and it would have been nice to do that. But owning a home at age 28 and having no other debt was worth it. And even then we bought a decent house but did not stretch. That way we could continue to save.

Sure I would have loved to spend the extra $40-60K/year for those years on myself rather than saving. But it was the responsible thing to do to save and get rid of debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFSA should be tiered based on geography. DMV people are getting nothing because we are all fabulously wealthy here despite living in small 2800 square foot houses with mortgages (that cost 1.3M)

I am the poster who said that 300k is not rich for this area (and i stand by that, given high cost of living here, mainly housing and child care). 300k is decent but not extravagant for this area.

That being said, hell no, someone making 300k should not be eligible for FAFSA. Those funds should go to people who truly actually need them, not a family that makes 300k and chooses to live in a 1.3m place (which frankly if at low interest rate of 2020/2021 is only like 5-6k a month anyway, which leaves like 10k for everything else).

Also lol 2800sq feet is small? Not sure if serious or not but if serious, you really need a reality check.

Yes, it is rich. Your complaints are lifestyle choices. Having a 5-6K mortgage is a lot of money. Our mortgage was $2K.

I was not the one that said I have a 1.3m place, nor complaining about not being eligible for fafsa (frankly if you make 300k you should not be eligible for it). I was simply stating that, assuming they bought that place (or refinanced) when rates were low, they should still have money leftover to put away towards their kids college. Ie the poster should not be complaining.

That being said, in today's environment (house price and mortgage rates) 5k does not go as far as it used to. If you are not lucky enough to have been in a position to buy when rates were low (like we were, were not married yet so were not thinking about buying) then it's impossible to get a place with a 2k mortgage now. Anything decent is 800k plus (I defined decent as 1600-200sq ft in a neighborhood with decent-good schools). On an 800k place with 20% down, and 6.5 rate, you are looking at paying 5k per month.

And that is one other crux of the matter, if you make 300k and have a house with a sub 3% rate, then yeah you are fine. But say you are a "young" couple (30-32) looking to buy or bought when rates were high, and are planning on having kids or just had your first one. 300k won't take you far once you take into account mortgage and the cost of daycare/nanny (unless you are single income household making 300k).

You don't buy an $800K place, you buy a $400-500K place, that is much smaller, as in 1000-1400 square feet. You are making as many excuses as the others are.

Many of us are doing well on 1/2 that. Having a nanny is a luxury. Having multiple kids is a luxury. Having a $800K house is a luxury.

Our house isn't decent, our college fund is decent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFSA should be tiered based on geography. DMV people are getting nothing because we are all fabulously wealthy here despite living in small 2800 square foot houses with mortgages (that cost 1.3M)

I am the poster who said that 300k is not rich for this area (and i stand by that, given high cost of living here, mainly housing and child care). 300k is decent but not extravagant for this area.

That being said, hell no, someone making 300k should not be eligible for FAFSA. Those funds should go to people who truly actually need them, not a family that makes 300k and chooses to live in a 1.3m place (which frankly if at low interest rate of 2020/2021 is only like 5-6k a month anyway, which leaves like 10k for everything else).

Also lol 2800sq feet is small? Not sure if serious or not but if serious, you really need a reality check.

Yes, it is rich. Your complaints are lifestyle choices. Having a 5-6K mortgage is a lot of money. Our mortgage was $2K.

I was not the one that said I have a 1.3m place, nor complaining about not being eligible for fafsa (frankly if you make 300k you should not be eligible for it). I was simply stating that, assuming they bought that place (or refinanced) when rates were low, they should still have money leftover to put away towards their kids college. Ie the poster should not be complaining.

That being said, in today's environment (house price and mortgage rates) 5k does not go as far as it used to. If you are not lucky enough to have been in a position to buy when rates were low (like we were, were not married yet so were not thinking about buying) then it's impossible to get a place with a 2k mortgage now. Anything decent is 800k plus (I defined decent as 1600-200sq ft in a neighborhood with decent-good schools). On an 800k place with 20% down, and 6.5 rate, you are looking at paying 5k per month.

And that is one other crux of the matter, if you make 300k and have a house with a sub 3% rate, then yeah you are fine. But say you are a "young" couple (30-32) looking to buy or bought when rates were high, and are planning on having kids or just had your first one. 300k won't take you far once you take into account mortgage and the cost of daycare/nanny (unless you are single income household making 300k).

You don't buy an $800K place, you buy a $400-500K place, that is much smaller, as in 1000-1400 square feet. You are making as many excuses as the others are.

Many of us are doing well on 1/2 that. Having a nanny is a luxury. Having multiple kids is a luxury. Having a $800K house is a luxury.

Our house isn't decent, our college fund is decent.

Define decent. Is it sufficient to cover 4 years at a 90k/year college? Just curious. To accumulate that kind of funds in a 529 would require setting aside 8-12% of net earnings over 15 years and hoping that either your choice of investment vehicles has been sound or you are lucky. Yes, one can compromise (e.g. state school etc.) but just wanted to be clear what the parameters are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many likely were not taught to save.

That is not a character flaw, but it is an obstacle.

My DH and I were not taught this either, but being married and working together we have improved our financial literacy over decades and are lucky to have DCUM UMC salaries.

We are terrible savers, but if we can automate and never see the money that works for us.

I think the “pay yourself first”, meaning savings, mentality is great but hard for many people who don’t think long term to execute. This is not something taught in school or society. People do not talk about money and people don’t like feeling as if they do not make as much as their friends and neighbors. It is hard for many to say “I cannot afford that” because of shame.

It is easier to live on a salary of $150K than to have a salary of $300K and live on a salary of $150K.

Those that are better at savings appear to balance the pain of frugality with the joy of experiencing superiority.

People feel bad that private college is expensive and they cannot afford to give that to their children. College is crazy expensive. There are less expensive options.

Our children will be better off for not getting everything they want.

No, it’s easier to live off $300k and save a lot than 150k. Your poor choices are not colleges problem. It’s yours. We talk about money in our home all the time.

+1

Most seem to forget that life is all about choices. They could live off $150K easily. They just chose to spend more and save less. In fact, it would only take a few years living off $150K and they would have enough front loaded for college to increase their living up to $200K and still contribute to college and everything else.

There is so much holier than thou on this forum.

It takes resolve that many people do not have to earn $300K and live like year earn $150K.

Why don’t the people that make $150K live like they make $75K and save the difference? You could say this at any income level.

Look, I am not saying that people that make $300K should qualify for financial aid. They should not.

And there is a range of circumstances of families that have saved various amounts and will choose a variety of schools.

But all this condescension implying it is so easy ignores many of the realities of life. What is easy for one person is hard for another.

What an idiotic post. Sure, and the people making 70k could just live like they make 35k -- your relativism may suit your justification of your wealth, but it makes no sense.

Poor poor people making 300k. Their lives are so hard. Those of us at 150k have it so easy. Good grief.

What I said was:

Families with HHIs of $300K/year or higher will not and should not be awarded financial aid.

All of the people assuming what others could have done differently are not living those people’s lives. The condescension is not necessary.

Savings and lifestyle habits are taught/learned and many people are doing their best with the knowledge and resources they have.

I am not complaining about my income. We do not apply for or receive financial aid.

If you are capable of earning $300K, I sure as hell hope you're capable of understanding/self teaching yourself to understand that you can continue to live on "the $150K you previously were living on" and not spend every extra dollar you are earning. If you are dumb enough to let lifestyle creep happen and not focus on saving your new income towards retirement and college (if you have kids), then that is a YOU issue.

We grew up poor (both me and my spouse). We came out of college with $60K+ debt over 30 years ago. We spent our first 3-4 years intensely focused on paying off that debt. We drove old cars (mine had no AC in an area that we needed it), we didn't take vacations, we packed our lunches most days and took snacks/sodas to the office to save money. We went out to eat maybe 2 times per month with friends and maybe 2-3 lunches at work over the month (once again with groups of coworkers). We lived in an okay apartment, but could have "afforded a much nicer one". Instead, we worked to live on one income and save the other for debt repayment. If we got a bonus, it went directly to debt. Once we paid that debt off we saved for downpayment. Sure, most of the coworkers are age were living differently and it would have been nice to do that. But owning a home at age 28 and having no other debt was worth it. And even then we bought a decent house but did not stretch. That way we could continue to save.

Sure I would have loved to spend the extra $40-60K/year for those years on myself rather than saving. But it was the responsible thing to do to save and get rid of debt.

Good for you. You made choices that made sense to you. No one is asking you to feel sorry for anyone with a $300K HHI. I was simply suggesting that you have not walked in everyone’s shoes and there are other options than feeling of superiority and expressions of condescension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many likely were not taught to save.

That is not a character flaw, but it is an obstacle.

My DH and I were not taught this either, but being married and working together we have improved our financial literacy over decades and are lucky to have DCUM UMC salaries.

We are terrible savers, but if we can automate and never see the money that works for us.

I think the “pay yourself first”, meaning savings, mentality is great but hard for many people who don’t think long term to execute. This is not something taught in school or society. People do not talk about money and people don’t like feeling as if they do not make as much as their friends and neighbors. It is hard for many to say “I cannot afford that” because of shame.

It is easier to live on a salary of $150K than to have a salary of $300K and live on a salary of $150K.

Those that are better at savings appear to balance the pain of frugality with the joy of experiencing superiority.

People feel bad that private college is expensive and they cannot afford to give that to their children. College is crazy expensive. There are less expensive options.

Our children will be better off for not getting everything they want.

No, it’s easier to live off $300k and save a lot than 150k. Your poor choices are not colleges problem. It’s yours. We talk about money in our home all the time.

+1

Most seem to forget that life is all about choices. They could live off $150K easily. They just chose to spend more and save less. In fact, it would only take a few years living off $150K and they would have enough front loaded for college to increase their living up to $200K and still contribute to college and everything else.

There is so much holier than thou on this forum.

It takes resolve that many people do not have to earn $300K and live like year earn $150K.

Why don’t the people that make $150K live like they make $75K and save the difference? You could say this at any income level.

Look, I am not saying that people that make $300K should qualify for financial aid. They should not.

And there is a range of circumstances of families that have saved various amounts and will choose a variety of schools.

But all this condescension implying it is so easy ignores many of the realities of life. What is easy for one person is hard for another.

What an idiotic post. Sure, and the people making 70k could just live like they make 35k -- your relativism may suit your justification of your wealth, but it makes no sense.

Poor poor people making 300k. Their lives are so hard. Those of us at 150k have it so easy. Good grief.

What I said was:

Families with HHIs of $300K/year or higher will not and should not be awarded financial aid.

All of the people assuming what others could have done differently are not living those people’s lives. The condescension is not necessary.

Savings and lifestyle habits are taught/learned and many people are doing their best with the knowledge and resources they have.

I am not complaining about my income. We do not apply for or receive financial aid.

Yeah, that is definitely NOT what you said overall A little of that was sandwiched in between things like: people at 300k just don't have the resolve to live on less and "why don't people at $150 live at $75?" And, the notion that being frustrated with the entitled is somehow condescension. Yeesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many likely were not taught to save.

That is not a character flaw, but it is an obstacle.

My DH and I were not taught this either, but being married and working together we have improved our financial literacy over decades and are lucky to have DCUM UMC salaries.

We are terrible savers, but if we can automate and never see the money that works for us.

I think the “pay yourself first”, meaning savings, mentality is great but hard for many people who don’t think long term to execute. This is not something taught in school or society. People do not talk about money and people don’t like feeling as if they do not make as much as their friends and neighbors. It is hard for many to say “I cannot afford that” because of shame.

It is easier to live on a salary of $150K than to have a salary of $300K and live on a salary of $150K.

Those that are better at savings appear to balance the pain of frugality with the joy of experiencing superiority.

People feel bad that private college is expensive and they cannot afford to give that to their children. College is crazy expensive. There are less expensive options.

Our children will be better off for not getting everything they want.

No, it’s easier to live off $300k and save a lot than 150k. Your poor choices are not colleges problem. It’s yours. We talk about money in our home all the time.

+1

Most seem to forget that life is all about choices. They could live off $150K easily. They just chose to spend more and save less. In fact, it would only take a few years living off $150K and they would have enough front loaded for college to increase their living up to $200K and still contribute to college and everything else.

There is so much holier than thou on this forum.

It takes resolve that many people do not have to earn $300K and live like year earn $150K.

Why don’t the people that make $150K live like they make $75K and save the difference? You could say this at any income level.

Look, I am not saying that people that make $300K should qualify for financial aid. They should not.

And there is a range of circumstances of families that have saved various amounts and will choose a variety of schools.

But all this condescension implying it is so easy ignores many of the realities of life. What is easy for one person is hard for another.

What an idiotic post. Sure, and the people making 70k could just live like they make 35k -- your relativism may suit your justification of your wealth, but it makes no sense.

Poor poor people making 300k. Their lives are so hard. Those of us at 150k have it so easy. Good grief.

What I said was:

Families with HHIs of $300K/year or higher will not and should not be awarded financial aid.

All of the people assuming what others could have done differently are not living those people’s lives. The condescension is not necessary.

Savings and lifestyle habits are taught/learned and many people are doing their best with the knowledge and resources they have.

I am not complaining about my income. We do not apply for or receive financial aid.

If you are capable of earning $300K, I sure as hell hope you're capable of understanding/self teaching yourself to understand that you can continue to live on "the $150K you previously were living on" and not spend every extra dollar you are earning. If you are dumb enough to let lifestyle creep happen and not focus on saving your new income towards retirement and college (if you have kids), then that is a YOU issue.

We grew up poor (both me and my spouse). We came out of college with $60K+ debt over 30 years ago. We spent our first 3-4 years intensely focused on paying off that debt. We drove old cars (mine had no AC in an area that we needed it), we didn't take vacations, we packed our lunches most days and took snacks/sodas to the office to save money. We went out to eat maybe 2 times per month with friends and maybe 2-3 lunches at work over the month (once again with groups of coworkers). We lived in an okay apartment, but could have "afforded a much nicer one". Instead, we worked to live on one income and save the other for debt repayment. If we got a bonus, it went directly to debt. Once we paid that debt off we saved for downpayment. Sure, most of the coworkers are age were living differently and it would have been nice to do that. But owning a home at age 28 and having no other debt was worth it. And even then we bought a decent house but did not stretch. That way we could continue to save.

Sure I would have loved to spend the extra $40-60K/year for those years on myself rather than saving. But it was the responsible thing to do to save and get rid of debt.

Good for you. You made choices that made sense to you. No one is asking you to feel sorry for anyone with a $300K HHI. I was simply suggesting that you have not walked in everyone’s shoes and there are other options than feeling of superiority and expressions of condescension.

DP. Other posters were asking exactly that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFSA should be tiered based on geography. DMV people are getting nothing because we are all fabulously wealthy here despite living in small 2800 square foot houses with mortgages (that cost 1.3M)

I am the poster who said that 300k is not rich for this area (and i stand by that, given high cost of living here, mainly housing and child care). 300k is decent but not extravagant for this area.

That being said, hell no, someone making 300k should not be eligible for FAFSA. Those funds should go to people who truly actually need them, not a family that makes 300k and chooses to live in a 1.3m place (which frankly if at low interest rate of 2020/2021 is only like 5-6k a month anyway, which leaves like 10k for everything else).

Also lol 2800sq feet is small? Not sure if serious or not but if serious, you really need a reality check.

Yes, it is rich. Your complaints are lifestyle choices. Having a 5-6K mortgage is a lot of money. Our mortgage was $2K.

I was not the one that said I have a 1.3m place, nor complaining about not being eligible for fafsa (frankly if you make 300k you should not be eligible for it). I was simply stating that, assuming they bought that place (or refinanced) when rates were low, they should still have money leftover to put away towards their kids college. Ie the poster should not be complaining.

That being said, in today's environment (house price and mortgage rates) 5k does not go as far as it used to. If you are not lucky enough to have been in a position to buy when rates were low (like we were, were not married yet so were not thinking about buying) then it's impossible to get a place with a 2k mortgage now. Anything decent is 800k plus (I defined decent as 1600-200sq ft in a neighborhood with decent-good schools). On an 800k place with 20% down, and 6.5 rate, you are looking at paying 5k per month.

And that is one other crux of the matter, if you make 300k and have a house with a sub 3% rate, then yeah you are fine. But say you are a "young" couple (30-32) looking to buy or bought when rates were high, and are planning on having kids or just had your first one. 300k won't take you far once you take into account mortgage and the cost of daycare/nanny (unless you are single income household making 300k).

You don't buy an $800K place, you buy a $400-500K place, that is much smaller, as in 1000-1400 square feet. You are making as many excuses as the others are.

Many of us are doing well on 1/2 that. Having a nanny is a luxury. Having multiple kids is a luxury. Having a $800K house is a luxury.

Our house isn't decent, our college fund is decent.

Define decent. Is it sufficient to cover 4 years at a 90k/year college? Just curious. To accumulate that kind of funds in a 529 would require setting aside 8-12% of net earnings over 15 years and hoping that either your choice of investment vehicles has been sound or you are lucky. Yes, one can compromise (e.g. state school etc.) but just wanted to be clear what the parameters are.

We have enough for a state school for college, possibly grad school and we stopped saving as one parent will be retirement age so we can pull from retirement accounts or pay cash flow. I doubt mine would choose a $90K school, so it's a non-issue and right now they want the state school. We'll apply and see. But, we can cover another $30-40K comfortably out of income, maybe more.

We aren't lucky and very conservative with investing. We did the prepaid at birth. We just don't live very nicely compared to many here on the same income.

I don't see it a compromise going to a state school. Our goal is no debt and a masters degree. Reality is what you major in is more important than the school except a few majors like business, medicine or big law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many likely were not taught to save.

That is not a character flaw, but it is an obstacle.

My DH and I were not taught this either, but being married and working together we have improved our financial literacy over decades and are lucky to have DCUM UMC salaries.

We are terrible savers, but if we can automate and never see the money that works for us.

I think the “pay yourself first”, meaning savings, mentality is great but hard for many people who don’t think long term to execute. This is not something taught in school or society. People do not talk about money and people don’t like feeling as if they do not make as much as their friends and neighbors. It is hard for many to say “I cannot afford that” because of shame.

It is easier to live on a salary of $150K than to have a salary of $300K and live on a salary of $150K.

Those that are better at savings appear to balance the pain of frugality with the joy of experiencing superiority.

People feel bad that private college is expensive and they cannot afford to give that to their children. College is crazy expensive. There are less expensive options.

Our children will be better off for not getting everything they want.

No, it’s easier to live off $300k and save a lot than 150k. Your poor choices are not colleges problem. It’s yours. We talk about money in our home all the time.

+1

Most seem to forget that life is all about choices. They could live off $150K easily. They just chose to spend more and save less. In fact, it would only take a few years living off $150K and they would have enough front loaded for college to increase their living up to $200K and still contribute to college and everything else.

There is so much holier than thou on this forum.

It takes resolve that many people do not have to earn $300K and live like year earn $150K.

Why don’t the people that make $150K live like they make $75K and save the difference? You could say this at any income level.

Look, I am not saying that people that make $300K should qualify for financial aid. They should not.

And there is a range of circumstances of families that have saved various amounts and will choose a variety of schools.

But all this condescension implying it is so easy ignores many of the realities of life. What is easy for one person is hard for another.

What an idiotic post. Sure, and the people making 70k could just live like they make 35k -- your relativism may suit your justification of your wealth, but it makes no sense.

Poor poor people making 300k. Their lives are so hard. Those of us at 150k have it so easy. Good grief.

What I said was:

Families with HHIs of $300K/year or higher will not and should not be awarded financial aid.

All of the people assuming what others could have done differently are not living those people’s lives. The condescension is not necessary.

Savings and lifestyle habits are taught/learned and many people are doing their best with the knowledge and resources they have.

I am not complaining about my income. We do not apply for or receive financial aid.

Yeah, that is definitely NOT what you said overall A little of that was sandwiched in between things like: people at 300k just don't have the resolve to live on less and "why don't people at $150 live at $75?" And, the notion that being frustrated with the entitled is somehow condescension. Yeesh.

Those of us saving for college and retirement on the lower income basically are living at 1/2 so we can save.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe a high earner doesn’t feel any college is worth $90k per year so plans for their DC to attend a state U.

And that is everyone's choice! I would agree, if you don't easily have the 90k/year saved or ability to cash flow, then yes, it can be a smart choice to go to state U or chase merit and not take on debt.

We pay 80k for one kid because we can afford it. We saved and have 100% in the 529. We also could cash flow it if needed. Kid picked their favorite School, got in and chose to attend. We even allowed them to turn down a "similar ranked school" that would only be 40K/year due to excellent merit. Kid knows 99% of kids would be at the other school and not had a choice. But if you have the money you can choose to allow your kids attend their top choice