I am the squeezed middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private college times 2 IS 90K, at least. I think Wash U is 55K per year after all is said and done.

The take home on 255K is about 125K, that is after taxes and medicare are paid. Then there is retirement savings. It would mean that the income to live on would be less than 30K if tuition is paid. It is doable, that would have to cover all the bills and so on. Unless you have been making this much for a long time, you can't save a lot. But it is only for 4 years. More taxes are coming.

The equivalent income on 40 hours would be about 120-130 K. Few jobs at that income level allow for the 40 hour work week. Once you get above 100K expectations are that you work until the job is done.

My parents sent 2 kids to private colleges on one fed salary and one part-time teacher's salary. They did it by living VERY frugally (although we never went without things we needed and had plenty of things we wanted) and investing. They NEVER had to live on a portion of their salary while we were in college, because those tuitions were paid through investments.

Yes, I realize the market has been crap. But if my parents could do it on income that now would be about equivalent to $100,000, someone ought to be able to manage on 2.5 times that. Oh, and while I mentioned the 2 kids, the third kid who went public on scholarship got his "tuition money" to buy a house. So essentially they sent 3 kids to private colleges.

I'm taking this thread way too personally, but I just can't stand the entitlement of the OP. Tons and tons and tons of people work hard, work as many hours a week, and don't make that kind of money.

I haven't read all of the posts, but this is not a fair comparison. Check out the Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren, or see her on YouTube. Though your mother did work, it was only part-time, so she wouldn't be taxed as a second full income. Warren shows how that today, Americans are paying more for: taxes, health insurance, and mortgages than ever before, so they cannot save as much money as someone could in the 70s. In the 70s people paid more (than we do today) for appliances, clothing, and other "expendable" purchases, so if they lost a job, they could easily "tighten their belt" whereas today, if you lose your job taxes, health ins, and mortgages are still a huge burden putting people over the edge. Also, colleges were more of a manageable expense than they are today. While I don't agree that the poster is truly middle class, I definitely believe that she is being "squeezed," just like everyone else who isn't uber-rich. She only mentions one salary, so she is probably saving money if that is the case (rather than have a spouse work). I understand this is simplified, but believe it is a growing problem. We'll see even greater repercussions when our kids are older unless we elect officials who have the guts to enact better policies.

[Anonymous]

The OP, he or she, never mentioned a spouse. The entire post was I. Therefore, unless otherwise stated by OP, why assume a spouse is staying home. There are single parents raising children. And, there are single parents with earnings such as OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private college times 2 IS 90K, at least. I think Wash U is 55K per year after all is said and done.

The take home on 255K is about 125K, that is after taxes and medicare are paid. Then there is retirement savings. It would mean that the income to live on would be less than 30K if tuition is paid. It is doable, that would have to cover all the bills and so on. Unless you have been making this much for a long time, you can't save a lot. But it is only for 4 years. More taxes are coming.

The equivalent income on 40 hours would be about 120-130 K. Few jobs at that income level allow for the 40 hour work week. Once you get above 100K expectations are that you work until the job is done.

My parents sent 2 kids to private colleges on one fed salary and one part-time teacher's salary. They did it by living VERY frugally (although we never went without things we needed and had plenty of things we wanted) and investing. They NEVER had to live on a portion of their salary while we were in college, because those tuitions were paid through investments.

Yes, I realize the market has been crap. But if my parents could do it on income that now would be about equivalent to $100,000, someone ought to be able to manage on 2.5 times that. Oh, and while I mentioned the 2 kids, the third kid who went public on scholarship got his "tuition money" to buy a house. So essentially they sent 3 kids to private colleges.

I'm taking this thread way too personally, but I just can't stand the entitlement of the OP. Tons and tons and tons of people work hard, work as many hours a week, and don't make that kind of money.

I haven't read all of the posts, but this is not a fair comparison. Check out the Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren, or see her on YouTube. Though your mother did work, it was only part-time, so she wouldn't be taxed as a second full income. Warren shows how that today, Americans are paying more for: taxes, health insurance, and mortgages than ever before, so they cannot save as much money as someone could in the 70s. In the 70s people paid more (than we do today) for appliances, clothing, and other "expendable" purchases, so if they lost a job, they could easily "tighten their belt" whereas today, if you lose your job taxes, health ins, and mortgages are still a huge burden putting people over the edge. Also, colleges were more of a manageable expense than they are today. While I don't agree that the poster is truly middle class, I definitely believe that she is being "squeezed," just like everyone else who isn't uber-rich. She only mentions one salary, so she is probably saving money if that is the case (rather than have a spouse work). I understand this is simplified, but believe it is a growing problem. We'll see even greater repercussions when our kids are older unless we elect officials who have the guts to enact better policies.

I'm the PP that you quoted, and you missed my point. My parents lived frugally so that they could save enough to send 3 kids to college, and they did it with a lot less income (even for the time) than the OP has now. They lived below their means so that they could do this. They went without a LOT of things for themselves in order to save for our education. It wasn't until I was out of college that I witnessed my mom, for the first time, buy an item of clothing for herself that was not on sale.

I think that the OP is being utterly ridiculous if she thinks she has to live on $30,000 a year while her kids are in college. If she hasn't been saving money, then she's been living too far above her means, because her means should have included savings, not just expecting to pay a full tuition bill out of her current income when the time comes.

Oh, and I've read the Two Income Trap. Excellent book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What private school costs $45K per kid? I have two kids in private and pay $60K. I don't like it, but it's my choice, and I don't whine about it.

COLLEGE, COLLEGE, COLLEGE

Even still, the OP is making a choice to pay for an expensive private school education for her children. Her kids could:

a) Pay for part of their schooling themselves by getting a job
b) Pay for all of their schooling themselves by getting a job
c) Think about how perhaps they should have been more brilliant so they would have earned scholarships

Oh, I forgot option D-

GO TO A LESS EXPENSIVE SCHOOL!

Oh yea!
My dad made a great deal with his 3 kids....if we chose to go to an in-state VA school (great ones to choose from--UVA, WilliamMary, etc.) he would pay 4 years of tuition so we would have no student loans.
If we took longer to graduate than 4 years (we paid from then on). If we chose private--we paid the difference;got loans, etc.. Graduate school or anything thereafter was on us.
If we chose not to go to college we would not be living under their roof at 18.
It was a perfect situation for the family.
I got a great college education at a public in-state University. Went on to work for 1-year post-college before getting accepted into grad school with a full stipend (science major/worked as TA) that covered all of my grad school tuition.
I had no loans.
I now have a better career than many friends that have massive student loans from private institutions with "fluff" degrees, e.g., not lucrative, etc..many worked retail or restaurant jobs after college.
However, if I got accepted to Harvard----I am sure he would have made an exception to this formula.
I love his concept though...beat the 'deadbeat' out of your kids.

Are you a long lost siblilng???

I had a similar deal, with a caveat. Any grade below a "B", and I had to pay for the equal number of credit hours myself the next semester. I got 4 yrs, and only 4. When I chose a 5 yr program (Double Engineering degrees and a Math minor), my father shrugged and told me to figure it out. I went 3 summers in a row, and finished in 4. (yes, I'm cheap.)

Now, as an employer, I prefer college students who worked in college. Real jobs, not some cushy "internship" that was arranged for them by their parents. McDonald's. Car wash. Landscaping. Whatever, real life, a boss who might hate you, colleagues you can't relate to. They tend to assimilate better, be less spoiled. But I'm digressing, sorry....

[Anonymous]

What is the practical use of having two engineering degrees along with a math minor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private college times 2 IS 90K, at least. I think Wash U is 55K per year after all is said and done.

The take home on 255K is about 125K, that is after taxes and medicare are paid. Then there is retirement savings. It would mean that the income to live on would be less than 30K if tuition is paid. It is doable, that would have to cover all the bills and so on. Unless you have been making this much for a long time, you can't save a lot. But it is only for 4 years. More taxes are coming.

The equivalent income on 40 hours would be about 120-130 K. Few jobs at that income level allow for the 40 hour work week. Once you get above 100K expectations are that you work until the job is done.

My parents sent 2 kids to private colleges on one fed salary and one part-time teacher's salary. They did it by living VERY frugally (although we never went without things we needed and had plenty of things we wanted) and investing. They NEVER had to live on a portion of their salary while we were in college, because those tuitions were paid through investments.

Yes, I realize the market has been crap. But if my parents could do it on income that now would be about equivalent to $100,000, someone ought to be able to manage on 2.5 times that. Oh, and while I mentioned the 2 kids, the third kid who went public on scholarship got his "tuition money" to buy a house. So essentially they sent 3 kids to private colleges.

I'm taking this thread way too personally, but I just can't stand the entitlement of the OP. Tons and tons and tons of people work hard, work as many hours a week, and don't make that kind of money.

I haven't read all of the posts, but this is not a fair comparison. Check out the Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren, or see her on YouTube. Though your mother did work, it was only part-time, so she wouldn't be taxed as a second full income. Warren shows how that today, Americans are paying more for: taxes, health insurance, and mortgages than ever before, so they cannot save as much money as someone could in the 70s. In the 70s people paid more (than we do today) for appliances, clothing, and other "expendable" purchases, so if they lost a job, they could easily "tighten their belt" whereas today, if you lose your job taxes, health ins, and mortgages are still a huge burden putting people over the edge. Also, colleges were more of a manageable expense than they are today. While I don't agree that the poster is truly middle class, I definitely believe that she is being "squeezed," just like everyone else who isn't uber-rich. She only mentions one salary, so she is probably saving money if that is the case (rather than have a spouse work). I understand this is simplified, but believe it is a growing problem. We'll see even greater repercussions when our kids are older unless we elect officials who have the guts to enact better policies.

I'm the PP that you quoted, and you missed my point. My parents lived frugally so that they could save enough to send 3 kids to college, and they did it with a lot less income (even for the time) than the OP has now. They lived below their means so that they could do this. They went without a LOT of things for themselves in order to save for our education. It wasn't until I was out of college that I witnessed my mom, for the first time, buy an item of clothing for herself that was not on sale.

I think that the OP is being utterly ridiculous if she thinks she has to live on $30,000 a year while her kids are in college. If she hasn't been saving money, then she's been living too far above her means, because her means should have included savings, not just expecting to pay a full tuition bill out of her current income when the time comes.

Oh, and I've read the Two Income Trap. Excellent book.

The OP stated that they were frustrated b/c they had to pay the entire cost of private college for two, a whine yes, but OP didn't mention anything about wild spending, or living above means, you just inferred it. In fact, she said she hadn't taken a vacation, so no spending there. Another poster mentioned the $30K, not the OP. It's great that your parents were frugal and had the foresight to save for college; mine were frugal, but I grew up with a single mom, and I went to a state school on my father's GI bill; not an option to go to private, so didn't apply. But, since you've read TIT, you know that your parents paid less in taxes, health insurance, and mortgage than you are today, so it will cost YOU more than your parents to save money for YOUR kids to go to school (just the same as the OP). Also, both state and private colleges tuition is rising dramatically, so it's hard to know how much to save, and as you know from the book, wages for men have not increased in 30 years, so it doesn't match the rise in tuition.

I worked at a private university and have seen how many needy, smart kids are out there, so I've been saving as much as I can for college because I'm in a much higher income bracket than my parents (and my own parents passed on their frugal ways). But to deny that there is a problem with this equation is detrimental. Again, the OP may have been whining, but that doesn't negate the fact that private university for two is $120K/year (up from only $80K seven years ago, when I worked on campus). My own state college has tripled, as have my insurance premiums in the last nearly 20 years. It's incredible that my parents lived the way they lived, considering the circumstances. They bought a house in CA when they married at 23 and my brother who has out-earned my dad his entire career (neither went to college), couldn't do that until much later in life in the same area! I feel like whining about that myself too sometimes. But, I think we'd be better off coming up with a solution rather than tearing down each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What private school costs $45K per kid? I have two kids in private and pay $60K. I don't like it, but it's my choice, and I don't whine about it.

COLLEGE, COLLEGE, COLLEGE

Even still, the OP is making a choice to pay for an expensive private school education for her children. Her kids could:

a) Pay for part of their schooling themselves by getting a job
b) Pay for all of their schooling themselves by getting a job
c) Think about how perhaps they should have been more brilliant so they would have earned scholarships

Oh, I forgot option D-

GO TO A LESS EXPENSIVE SCHOOL!

Oh yea!
My dad made a great deal with his 3 kids....if we chose to go to an in-state VA school (great ones to choose from--UVA, WilliamMary, etc.) he would pay 4 years of tuition so we would have no student loans.
If we took longer to graduate than 4 years (we paid from then on). If we chose private--we paid the difference;got loans, etc.. Graduate school or anything thereafter was on us.
If we chose not to go to college we would not be living under their roof at 18.
It was a perfect situation for the family.
I got a great college education at a public in-state University. Went on to work for 1-year post-college before getting accepted into grad school with a full stipend (science major/worked as TA) that covered all of my grad school tuition.
I had no loans.
I now have a better career than many friends that have massive student loans from private institutions with "fluff" degrees, e.g., not lucrative, etc..many worked retail or restaurant jobs after college.
However, if I got accepted to Harvard----I am sure he would have made an exception to this formula.
I love his concept though...beat the 'deadbeat' out of your kids.

Are you a long lost siblilng???

I had a similar deal, with a caveat. Any grade below a "B", and I had to pay for the equal number of credit hours myself the next semester. I got 4 yrs, and only 4. When I chose a 5 yr program (Double Engineering degrees and a Math minor), my father shrugged and told me to figure it out. I went 3 summers in a row, and finished in 4. (yes, I'm cheap.)

Now, as an employer, I prefer college students who worked in college. Real jobs, not some cushy "internship" that was arranged for them by their parents. McDonald's. Car wash. Landscaping. Whatever, real life, a boss who might hate you, colleagues you can't relate to. They tend to assimilate better, be less spoiled. But I'm digressing, sorry....

ha---must be us science freaks. My dad was an organic chemist. I am a biochemist undergrad/molecular biologist grad degree. Different frame of mind than some of the 'soft' majors.

[Anonymous]

Most of the money in the "fat financial aid packages" at private colleges comes from alumni/endowments, not government taxpayer money. No one is getting a free ride at Bennington courtesy of Uncle Sam.

[Anonymous]

Are you a long lost siblilng???

I had a similar deal, with a caveat. Any grade below a "B", and I had to pay for the equal number of credit hours myself the next semester. I got 4 yrs, and only 4. When I chose a 5 yr program (Double Engineering degrees and a Math minor), my father shrugged and told me to figure it out. I went 3 summers in a row, and finished in 4. (yes, I'm cheap.)

Now, as an employer, I prefer college students who worked in college. Real jobs, not some cushy "internship" that was arranged for them by their parents. McDonald's. Car wash. Landscaping. Whatever, real life, a boss who might hate you, colleagues you can't relate to. They tend to assimilate better, be less spoiled. But I'm digressing, sorry....


I completely agree with the college students who worked in college. Some of the best work ethics ever that I have worked with have come from this.

[Anonymous]

I read "TIT" (love the new ackronym) and thought it really focused more on the face that we are now using two incomes to maintain a lifestyle, as opposed to using two incomes to have the first maintain the lifestyle, and the second to buy extras.

I also thought TIT was a little short on personal responsibility.

I do still think 255k is A LOT of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am considered to be middle class since my income is $255K. I work 70-85 hour weeks ( hard hours, no breaks, quick runs to the bathroom).
I am taxed heavily, my kids do not qualify for any financial aid, so college tuition is my problem. For two kids, a private school would be about 90 K per year. The schools really expect us to come up with that money.

I hear my brother in law who works for Dept of Agriculture complaining about how the rich (that would be me), need to pay more in taxes to fund social programs for the poor. He puts in his 40 hours (no more, many times less), and calls in when he is sick. Little education, no motivation. His oldest (smart kid) will probably get a nice fat financial aid packet, since his income is about 75K. They enjoy EVERY single weekend off, and all major holidays. I lost track of the holidays years ago since they don't apply to me. My vacations are almost always low key since there is a big risk of cancellation, due to work related issues.

Something seems off to me. How much more can the middle class give?
Do you have to be rich or poor to afford the private colleges?

Yes it must have been so glamorous living on a government salary all those years.

You have probably out-earned him to the tune of $30-50K after taxes for 18 straight years. If you just put that in the bank instead of spending it (you big dummy) you would have saved $720,000 by now. If you invested that money each year at a conservative 6%, you would have made another $590K. Even if you did a phenomenally bad job of tax planning and lost half of that gain to the IRS, you would still have nearly $300K in after-tax earnings on top of the $720K you put in.

In other words, if you just lived on the budget of your brother who you feel has it so easy now, you would have another $1 million in the bank than he does.

So where did all that money go? It seems like you have no one to blame for your troubles but yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read "TIT" (love the new ackronym) and thought it really focused more on the face that we are now using two incomes to maintain a lifestyle, as opposed to using two incomes to have the first maintain the lifestyle, and the second to buy extras.

I also thought TIT was a little short on personal responsibility.

I do still think 255k is A LOT of money.

I read TIT and thought it focused on how famiies are using their two incomes to engage in bidding wars for houses in so-called "good" school districts, driving up the cost of houses and mortgages in those areas to sky high rates, thus requiring two excellent incomes to maintain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am considered to be middle class since my income is $255K. I work 70-85 hour weeks ( hard hours, no breaks, quick runs to the bathroom).
I am taxed heavily, my kids do not qualify for any financial aid, so college tuition is my problem. For two kids, a private school would be about 90 K per year. The schools really expect us to come up with that money.

I hear my brother in law who works for Dept of Agriculture complaining about how the rich (that would be me), need to pay more in taxes to fund social programs for the poor. He puts in his 40 hours (no more, many times less), and calls in when he is sick. Little education, no motivation. His oldest (smart kid) will probably get a nice fat financial aid packet, since his income is about 75K. They enjoy EVERY single weekend off, and all major holidays. I lost track of the holidays years ago since they don't apply to me. My vacations are almost always low key since there is a big risk of cancellation, due to work related issues.

Something seems off to me. How much more can the middle class give?
Do you have to be rich or poor to afford the private colleges?

If the OP worked only 40 hours a week, she'd be making about 125k. More than me; more than most. I bring home about $110k or $120k

I am paying $25k a year for daycare, I am a single parent. I am dreading college and the loans my kids will have to get. But, why shouldn't they have to pay to get their education? And then pay it back later? Doesn't that help teach them personal responsibility?

I pay PLENTY in state, local, medicare, and ss taxes. And I STILL don't think I am overtaxed.

I enjoy a very nice life and am grateful to live in a country that affords me that opportunity - a country that is run and defended with TAXES. My God, especially as a woman, do you have ANY idea how much better off we are here than almost any place else in the world? I am grateful that I will be allowed to send my daughters to an outrageously expensive college.

Quit yer whining and count your blessings, OP.

[Anonymous]

OP, I hear you. We are in same
boat, except I don't agree on education as there are great public options or your kids take out student loans for college. That said, our country's tax policy does not invent you or your business to get richer andore successful. Taxes just don't increase at the rate of 120 to 160. They get exponentially higher, and yet the rich or upper MI are the ones mostly buying the most and hiring the most. We need a fairer tax policy, especially for businesses, that is more propertional. I doubt that will ever happen. But I hear you OP. Why would you take a job that is not growing and developing you? Those comments are ridiculous. Everyone I know puts in work time at night and weekends and never leaves when the day is over. It's the way the most jobs work in DC except fed govt employees and service/retail sector. Although I do feel for teachers that make nothing and pull in similar hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even in DC this is not "common income." This is only common in your circle. You chose the career you have. You can choose to do something less demanding and have those holidays and weekends to yourself, but you can not blame other people who choose not to work as demanding a schedule. I imagine you still live a far grander lifestyle than most people, even if private school is such a stretch for you.

Oh piss off. We make about what the OP does and we are squeezed also. Everything costs so damn much here: food, daycare, taxes, commuting,etc. That's the price you pay and we like it here. But, I can assure you, also, we do not live "grand" in any sense of the word. You'd have a hard time withdrawing your foot from your mouth if you see the house we live in and cars we drive. Nothing fancy. We get by with a little to spare. That doesn't make us rich. I'm sorry your own financial situation clouds your judgment so much and doesn't allow you to understand that.