If you grew up poor/LMC and became UMC in your own

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes to joining the local swim club, sending my kid to interesting camps - kayaking, coding, drones, cooking, etc, trying out various sports, and paying for swim and ski lessons, tutoring as needed, etc.

Also yes to lots of travel and experiences - theater, sports games, skiing, variety of dining - though I enjoy and benefit from those things too.

No to tons of toys, things like unlimited robux, excessive designer clothes and shoes.

The plethora of camps, lessons, and experiences are what breaks the bank, not unlimited robux or designer clothes (most umc kids wear knockoffs or just normal clothes). The newly umc, especially young gen x/old millennial ones, think they’re helping their kids by gorging them on mostly useless camps and experiences but they’re mostly wasteful, not enlightening, and branded commodities/stuff like any other.

They are pricey, but they are better than leaving them at home on screens or getting into trouble and worth the upgrade from the local ymca or county camps if you need a daycare solution over the summer assuming both parents work. The experiences make them more well rounded and the social sports - tennis, golf, skiing, etc are good for a lifetime.

As long as you let them choose the camp and don’t stick them in something boring like golf camp because you think that’s what rich kids do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hah, you'd laugh at us then. We pay $86 x 3 for private lessons a week. Two kids do tennis, one does gymnastics. We also paid for them to take private skiing and snowboarding lessons back when they were first learning.

However, it actually makes a huge difference in outcome. My daughter was struggling to get her back handspring with a year's worth of group lessons. Nails it in one month of 2 private lessons a week. Now is moving on to a roundoff back tuck. With the skiing - now they can all keep up on black diamond trails. Makes family ski trips more fun for everyone.

Anyway, our fixed expenses are low (no mortgage or other debt) and we make more than enough money to afford all of this so I don't see the problem with it.

It’s not the affordability, I think some parents who grew up with less income go overboard. Why couldn’t she get a basic back handspring? Did she love it or was it your idea. I bet your kids could have been successful on the black diamonds trails on their own after gradually moving up once they mastered the small trails. That’s what my kids did.

Just because you can afford private lessons doesn’t mean that should be your first thought. They’ll feel a lot more accomplished if they didn’t feel like they always needed one on one training when other kids don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hah, you'd laugh at us then. We pay $86 x 3 for private lessons a week. Two kids do tennis, one does gymnastics. We also paid for them to take private skiing and snowboarding lessons back when they were first learning.

However, it actually makes a huge difference in outcome. My daughter was struggling to get her back handspring with a year's worth of group lessons. Nails it in one month of 2 private lessons a week. Now is moving on to a roundoff back tuck. With the skiing - now they can all keep up on black diamond trails. Makes family ski trips more fun for everyone.

Anyway, our fixed expenses are low (no mortgage or other debt) and we make more than enough money to afford all of this so I don't see the problem with it.

It’s not the affordability, I think some parents who grew up with less income go overboard. Why couldn’t she get a basic back handspring? Did she love it or was it your idea. I bet your kids could have been successful on the black diamonds trails on their own after gradually moving up once they mastered the small trails. That’s what my kids did.

Just because you can afford private lessons doesn’t mean that should be your first thought. They’ll feel a lot more accomplished if they didn’t feel like they always needed one on one training when other kids don’t.

oh please honey . I grew up in Utah and we were kids that showed up with skis we got at a yard sale that were 20 years old and our Tractor Supply Overalls we used when shoveling actual horse shit. Even we had lessons. It’s beyond idiotic to hop on skis without proper training. yes i started skiing when i was very young, but i absolutely was sent to ski school each winter break. Us poor kids got special deals and often our friends and family worked as ski patrol, or instructors at the resorts, so we got most stuff for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel like you need to spend ridiculous amounts of money on your kids like all the other UMC/Rich people? My circle is mostly these types, myself included. We grew up in divorced and/or low income households often where our parents made less than 50k and we all now make 300-400k in our early 30’s. We all find it crazy how people think they need to pay for expensive tutoring, private schools, travel teams, etc when we had none of that and turned out fine. One of my friends just had a baby and said he doesn’t plan on saving for their college education.

Dumbdedumm. It’s so blue collar thinking to not value education.
Does he think his kids will just be lucky and land in fortunate circumstances like he did? 400k isn’t enough to trust fund his kid, so what’s his plan? Or is that too UMC for him to consider?

College is only like 50k per year or less in most cases. So you can just pay for it, like other expenses, without needing to "save" for it. I think it's crazy when I read about how "blue collar" it is not to save for it. It's not a big enough expense to require saving.

It's blue collar thinking to forego straightforward, tax preferred savings vehicles for expected expenses.

There's no federal tax deduction

Growth is tax free- that is a massive benefit

and generally no state tax deduction for people in the highest tax categories.

that is just wrong

The only advantage is tax free growth.

that can be 10s of thousands of dollars worth of growth

And 529s don't tend to have great growth performance

my 529 is in the same vanguard funds as my IRA with the same fee structure

so there's opportunity cost, and the risk of overfunding.

then you roll it into a Roth IRA or keep it there and your grand kids have an extra 20 years of growth and college paid for from birth

I don't think funding a 529 is as straightforward for people earning a lot of money. Took a lump sum and funded 529s from the standpoint of risk management-- what if we lose everything type scenario. But as a matter of financial management, it can make a lot of sense for families to just pay for college each year without saving.

You sound like someone who is terrified of the market and that's fine, but compound growth is what sustains family wealth

We did fund them and we are very heavy into the market. But 529s are one of many financial products and they appear to be geared more at middle class people who need to save money to send their kids to college. Once you're at an income that you can easily just write a check for it, it's much less appealing. What I'm mainly reacting to is the concept that if you don't fund a 529, that means you have no intention to pay for your kid's college. I suspect many of not most people in the income level we are at are not overly concerned about 529s. College costs the same as private school; no one saves for over a decade to fund that.

Still do not understand the "much less appealing" aspect. Even if you are wealthy, why not take advantage of tax free growth? That's what rich/UMC people do. You take advantage of any and all tax breaks you can get (since there are not many). So since you will be paying for education anyhow, why not get some tax benefits? And if you overfund, then just leave it there for future generations. The rich look for any way to make money/save on taxes and this is a no-brainer.

It seems like such a marginal amount of tax savings to worry too much about. Like I said several times, we funded it. But I don't view it as a huge benefit for funding college, it might save like 10 or 15k, which isn't game changing.

I'm worth mid 8 figures, but part of how you get there/maintain it is to still value money. If I can save/earn an extra 10-15K, I'm all for it. That's 15K I can donate/spend elsewhere. That's a significant amount!!!

After a certain point the administrative hassles no longer make sense. It's just easier to not deal with 529s if you can pay for it all out of pocket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel like you need to spend ridiculous amounts of money on your kids like all the other UMC/Rich people? My circle is mostly these types, myself included. We grew up in divorced and/or low income households often where our parents made less than 50k and we all now make 300-400k in our early 30’s. We all find it crazy how people think they need to pay for expensive tutoring, private schools, travel teams, etc when we had none of that and turned out fine. One of my friends just had a baby and said he doesn’t plan on saving for their college education.

Dumbdedumm. It’s so blue collar thinking to not value education.
Does he think his kids will just be lucky and land in fortunate circumstances like he did? 400k isn’t enough to trust fund his kid, so what’s his plan? Or is that too UMC for him to consider?

College is only like 50k per year or less in most cases. So you can just pay for it, like other expenses, without needing to "save" for it. I think it's crazy when I read about how "blue collar" it is not to save for it. It's not a big enough expense to require saving.

It's blue collar thinking to forego straightforward, tax preferred savings vehicles for expected expenses.

There's no federal tax deduction

Growth is tax free- that is a massive benefit

and generally no state tax deduction for people in the highest tax categories.

that is just wrong

The only advantage is tax free growth.

that can be 10s of thousands of dollars worth of growth

And 529s don't tend to have great growth performance

my 529 is in the same vanguard funds as my IRA with the same fee structure

so there's opportunity cost, and the risk of overfunding.

then you roll it into a Roth IRA or keep it there and your grand kids have an extra 20 years of growth and college paid for from birth

I don't think funding a 529 is as straightforward for people earning a lot of money. Took a lump sum and funded 529s from the standpoint of risk management-- what if we lose everything type scenario. But as a matter of financial management, it can make a lot of sense for families to just pay for college each year without saving.

You sound like someone who is terrified of the market and that's fine, but compound growth is what sustains family wealth

We did fund them and we are very heavy into the market. But 529s are one of many financial products and they appear to be geared more at middle class people who need to save money to send their kids to college. Once you're at an income that you can easily just write a check for it, it's much less appealing. What I'm mainly reacting to is the concept that if you don't fund a 529, that means you have no intention to pay for your kid's college. I suspect many of not most people in the income level we are at are not overly concerned about 529s. College costs the same as private school; no one saves for over a decade to fund that.

Still do not understand the "much less appealing" aspect. Even if you are wealthy, why not take advantage of tax free growth? That's what rich/UMC people do. You take advantage of any and all tax breaks you can get (since there are not many). So since you will be paying for education anyhow, why not get some tax benefits? And if you overfund, then just leave it there for future generations. The rich look for any way to make money/save on taxes and this is a no-brainer.

It seems like such a marginal amount of tax savings to worry too much about. Like I said several times, we funded it. But I don't view it as a huge benefit for funding college, it might save like 10 or 15k, which isn't game changing.

I'm worth mid 8 figures, but part of how you get there/maintain it is to still value money. If I can save/earn an extra 10-15K, I'm all for it. That's 15K I can donate/spend elsewhere. That's a significant amount!!!

After a certain point the administrative hassles no longer make sense. It's just easier to not deal with 529s if you can pay for it all out of pocket.

PP is right and you clearly grew up poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel like you need to spend ridiculous amounts of money on your kids like all the other UMC/Rich people? My circle is mostly these types, myself included. We grew up in divorced and/or low income households often where our parents made less than 50k and we all now make 300-400k in our early 30’s. We all find it crazy how people think they need to pay for expensive tutoring, private schools, travel teams, etc when we had none of that and turned out fine. One of my friends just had a baby and said he doesn’t plan on saving for their college education.

Dumbdedumm. It’s so blue collar thinking to not value education.
Does he think his kids will just be lucky and land in fortunate circumstances like he did? 400k isn’t enough to trust fund his kid, so what’s his plan? Or is that too UMC for him to consider?

College is only like 50k per year or less in most cases. So you can just pay for it, like other expenses, without needing to "save" for it. I think it's crazy when I read about how "blue collar" it is not to save for it. It's not a big enough expense to require saving.

It's blue collar thinking to forego straightforward, tax preferred savings vehicles for expected expenses.

There's no federal tax deduction

Growth is tax free- that is a massive benefit

and generally no state tax deduction for people in the highest tax categories.

that is just wrong

The only advantage is tax free growth.

that can be 10s of thousands of dollars worth of growth

And 529s don't tend to have great growth performance

my 529 is in the same vanguard funds as my IRA with the same fee structure

so there's opportunity cost, and the risk of overfunding.

then you roll it into a Roth IRA or keep it there and your grand kids have an extra 20 years of growth and college paid for from birth

I don't think funding a 529 is as straightforward for people earning a lot of money. Took a lump sum and funded 529s from the standpoint of risk management-- what if we lose everything type scenario. But as a matter of financial management, it can make a lot of sense for families to just pay for college each year without saving.

You sound like someone who is terrified of the market and that's fine, but compound growth is what sustains family wealth

We did fund them and we are very heavy into the market. But 529s are one of many financial products and they appear to be geared more at middle class people who need to save money to send their kids to college. Once you're at an income that you can easily just write a check for it, it's much less appealing. What I'm mainly reacting to is the concept that if you don't fund a 529, that means you have no intention to pay for your kid's college. I suspect many of not most people in the income level we are at are not overly concerned about 529s. College costs the same as private school; no one saves for over a decade to fund that.

Still do not understand the "much less appealing" aspect. Even if you are wealthy, why not take advantage of tax free growth? That's what rich/UMC people do. You take advantage of any and all tax breaks you can get (since there are not many). So since you will be paying for education anyhow, why not get some tax benefits? And if you overfund, then just leave it there for future generations. The rich look for any way to make money/save on taxes and this is a no-brainer.

It seems like such a marginal amount of tax savings to worry too much about. Like I said several times, we funded it. But I don't view it as a huge benefit for funding college, it might save like 10 or 15k, which isn't game changing.

I'm worth mid 8 figures, but part of how you get there/maintain it is to still value money. If I can save/earn an extra 10-15K, I'm all for it. That's 15K I can donate/spend elsewhere. That's a significant amount!!!

After a certain point the administrative hassles no longer make sense. It's just easier to not deal with 529s if you can pay for it all out of pocket.

Administrative hassle? Maybe 1 or 2 hours of work for a 5 figure return. If you're not a troll, you're sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hah, you'd laugh at us then. We pay $86 x 3 for private lessons a week. Two kids do tennis, one does gymnastics. We also paid for them to take private skiing and snowboarding lessons back when they were first learning.

However, it actually makes a huge difference in outcome. My daughter was struggling to get her back handspring with a year's worth of group lessons. Nails it in one month of 2 private lessons a week. Now is moving on to a roundoff back tuck. With the skiing - now they can all keep up on black diamond trails. Makes family ski trips more fun for everyone.

Anyway, our fixed expenses are low (no mortgage or other debt) and we make more than enough money to afford all of this so I don't see the problem with it.

It’s not the affordability, I think some parents who grew up with less income go overboard. Why couldn’t she get a basic back handspring? Did she love it or was it your idea. I bet your kids could have been successful on the black diamonds trails on their own after gradually moving up once they mastered the small trails. That’s what my kids did.

Just because you can afford private lessons doesn’t mean that should be your first thought. They’ll feel a lot more accomplished if they didn’t feel like they always needed one on one training when other kids don’t.

I agree--it really depends if the kid is interested/wants the extra help. However, for some things, it is definately worth it. If you can afford it, when your kid starts a musical instrument (strings or brass/woodwind) in school, get them 3 months of private lessons. Why? Because instruments are so much more fun/enjoyable once you sound "decent" and get past the "it's grating on my nerves sounds". Also, your kid will learn the proper techniques and not have to unlearn bad habits.

One kid started on clarinet with lessons immediately---there was only 2-3 weeks where the dog hid and everyone wanted earplugs, after that they were sounding fairly decent. That is a huge boost to them and meant they actually wanted to practice and enjoyed it.

Fact is band directors are amazing, but they can only teach an instrument so well in a large group setting. The band director may be a trumpet player, so teaching clarinet or flute is relying on their 10-12 week single class for "woodwinds" for knowledge.

Only disadvantage to that is your kids will be a bit bored in band class for the first year.
Did this with all of my kids. Last one had 2 years in DCUM on their instrument, then we moved somewhere that band started in 6th grade. My kid could have been first chair in the 8th grade band in 6th grade, but we put them into 7th for social reasons. they did 7th during 6th and then 8th during 7 and 8th. They were easily first chair all 3 years (and they did not take lessons anymore during this time). But the foundation of 2 years of excellent lessons gave them the knowledge base to be first or 2nd chair all the way thru HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes to joining the local swim club, sending my kid to interesting camps - kayaking, coding, drones, cooking, etc, trying out various sports, and paying for swim and ski lessons, tutoring as needed, etc.

Also yes to lots of travel and experiences - theater, sports games, skiing, variety of dining - though I enjoy and benefit from those things too.

No to tons of toys, things like unlimited robux, excessive designer clothes and shoes.

The plethora of camps, lessons, and experiences are what breaks the bank, not unlimited robux or designer clothes (most umc kids wear knockoffs or just normal clothes). The newly umc, especially young gen x/old millennial ones, think they’re helping their kids by gorging them on mostly useless camps and experiences but they’re mostly wasteful, not enlightening, and branded commodities/stuff like any other.

They are pricey, but they are better than leaving them at home on screens or getting into trouble and worth the upgrade from the local ymca or county camps if you need a daycare solution over the summer assuming both parents work. The experiences make them more well rounded and the social sports - tennis, golf, skiing, etc are good for a lifetime.

As long as you let them choose the camp and don’t stick them in something boring like golf camp because you think that’s what rich kids do.

PP clearly learned everything she knows about rich people from movies and dumb chick lit and is attempting to emulate the lifestyle for her kids. “The social sports are good for a lifetime??” Seriously hilarious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hah, you'd laugh at us then. We pay $86 x 3 for private lessons a week. Two kids do tennis, one does gymnastics. We also paid for them to take private skiing and snowboarding lessons back when they were first learning.

However, it actually makes a huge difference in outcome. My daughter was struggling to get her back handspring with a year's worth of group lessons. Nails it in one month of 2 private lessons a week. Now is moving on to a roundoff back tuck. With the skiing - now they can all keep up on black diamond trails. Makes family ski trips more fun for everyone.

Anyway, our fixed expenses are low (no mortgage or other debt) and we make more than enough money to afford all of this so I don't see the problem with it.

It’s not the affordability, I think some parents who grew up with less income go overboard. Why couldn’t she get a basic back handspring? Did she love it or was it your idea. I bet your kids could have been successful on the black diamonds trails on their own after gradually moving up once they mastered the small trails. That’s what my kids did.

Just because you can afford private lessons doesn’t mean that should be your first thought. They’ll feel a lot more accomplished if they didn’t feel like they always needed one on one training when other kids don’t.

I agree--it really depends if the kid is interested/wants the extra help. However, for some things, it is definately worth it. If you can afford it, when your kid starts a musical instrument (strings or brass/woodwind) in school, get them 3 months of private lessons. Why? Because instruments are so much more fun/enjoyable once you sound "decent" and get past the "it's grating on my nerves sounds". Also, your kid will learn the proper techniques and not have to unlearn bad habits.

One kid started on clarinet with lessons immediately---there was only 2-3 weeks where the dog hid and everyone wanted earplugs, after that they were sounding fairly decent. That is a huge boost to them and meant they actually wanted to practice and enjoyed it.

Fact is band directors are amazing, but they can only teach an instrument so well in a large group setting. The band director may be a trumpet player, so teaching clarinet or flute is relying on their 10-12 week single class for "woodwinds" for knowledge.

Only disadvantage to that is your kids will be a bit bored in band class for the first year.
Did this with all of my kids. Last one had 2 years in DCUM on their instrument, then we moved somewhere that band started in 6th grade. My kid could have been first chair in the 8th grade band in 6th grade, but we put them into 7th for social reasons. they did 7th during 6th and then 8th during 7 and 8th. They were easily first chair all 3 years (and they did not take lessons anymore during this time). But the foundation of 2 years of excellent lessons gave them the knowledge base to be first or 2nd chair all the way thru HS.

My kid did a pre-band summer camp (cheaply through the school district) where they had daily intensive small group lessons--it was amazing! DS had never played his instrument before and grew so much. (It also helped that he had already had piano lessons so could read music--though it was in a different clef, some of the basics translate). The real issue though was that no one else in his school did the camp so elementary school band was excruciatingly boring--they never even got 1/3 of the way to where he got to in camp and he quit his instrument after the first year. Ok by me, because piano + another instrument is a bit much for a kid whose main passions are in areas other than music. But if you can't afford private lessons, look to see if your district offers a band camp--the students who opt to go usually have more knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel like you need to spend ridiculous amounts of money on your kids like all the other UMC/Rich people? My circle is mostly these types, myself included. We grew up in divorced and/or low income households often where our parents made less than 50k and we all now make 300-400k in our early 30’s. We all find it crazy how people think they need to pay for expensive tutoring, private schools, travel teams, etc when we had none of that and turned out fine. One of my friends just had a baby and said he doesn’t plan on saving for their college education.

Dumbdedumm. It’s so blue collar thinking to not value education.
Does he think his kids will just be lucky and land in fortunate circumstances like he did? 400k isn’t enough to trust fund his kid, so what’s his plan? Or is that too UMC for him to consider?

College is only like 50k per year or less in most cases. So you can just pay for it, like other expenses, without needing to "save" for it. I think it's crazy when I read about how "blue collar" it is not to save for it. It's not a big enough expense to require saving.

It's blue collar thinking to forego straightforward, tax preferred savings vehicles for expected expenses.

There's no federal tax deduction

Growth is tax free- that is a massive benefit

and generally no state tax deduction for people in the highest tax categories.

that is just wrong

The only advantage is tax free growth.

that can be 10s of thousands of dollars worth of growth

And 529s don't tend to have great growth performance

my 529 is in the same vanguard funds as my IRA with the same fee structure

so there's opportunity cost, and the risk of overfunding.

then you roll it into a Roth IRA or keep it there and your grand kids have an extra 20 years of growth and college paid for from birth

I don't think funding a 529 is as straightforward for people earning a lot of money. Took a lump sum and funded 529s from the standpoint of risk management-- what if we lose everything type scenario. But as a matter of financial management, it can make a lot of sense for families to just pay for college each year without saving.

You sound like someone who is terrified of the market and that's fine, but compound growth is what sustains family wealth

We did fund them and we are very heavy into the market. But 529s are one of many financial products and they appear to be geared more at middle class people who need to save money to send their kids to college. Once you're at an income that you can easily just write a check for it, it's much less appealing. What I'm mainly reacting to is the concept that if you don't fund a 529, that means you have no intention to pay for your kid's college. I suspect many of not most people in the income level we are at are not overly concerned about 529s. College costs the same as private school; no one saves for over a decade to fund that.

Still do not understand the "much less appealing" aspect. Even if you are wealthy, why not take advantage of tax free growth? That's what rich/UMC people do. You take advantage of any and all tax breaks you can get (since there are not many). So since you will be paying for education anyhow, why not get some tax benefits? And if you overfund, then just leave it there for future generations. The rich look for any way to make money/save on taxes and this is a no-brainer.

It seems like such a marginal amount of tax savings to worry too much about. Like I said several times, we funded it. But I don't view it as a huge benefit for funding college, it might save like 10 or 15k, which isn't game changing.

I'm worth mid 8 figures, but part of how you get there/maintain it is to still value money. If I can save/earn an extra 10-15K, I'm all for it. That's 15K I can donate/spend elsewhere. That's a significant amount!!!

After a certain point the administrative hassles no longer make sense. It's just easier to not deal with 529s if you can pay for it all out of pocket.

Administrative hassle? Maybe 1 or 2 hours of work for a 5 figure return. If you're not a troll, you're sad.

Less! It's exactly the same amount of work as investing that money and then withdrawing it from anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

So LMC to UMC here. Research bears out that class bias exists (see below). I can feel how current peers who grew up UMC struggle to relate to me. I can mask really well when engaging in small talk, but at the end of the day I’m still different. I actually don’t have any deep friendships outside of those I grew up with. I try to give my kid UMC things/experiences so they don’t grow up with this gap. It sucks, but it’s my job as a parent to give my kid the best shot I can.

https://www.fuqua.duke.edu/duke-fuqua-insights/research-finds-social-class-bias-can-lead-hiring-discrimination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hah, you'd laugh at us then. We pay $86 x 3 for private lessons a week. Two kids do tennis, one does gymnastics. We also paid for them to take private skiing and snowboarding lessons back when they were first learning.

However, it actually makes a huge difference in outcome. My daughter was struggling to get her back handspring with a year's worth of group lessons. Nails it in one month of 2 private lessons a week. Now is moving on to a roundoff back tuck. With the skiing - now they can all keep up on black diamond trails. Makes family ski trips more fun for everyone.

Anyway, our fixed expenses are low (no mortgage or other debt) and we make more than enough money to afford all of this so I don't see the problem with it.

It’s not the affordability, I think some parents who grew up with less income go overboard. Why couldn’t she get a basic back handspring? Did she love it or was it your idea. I bet your kids could have been successful on the black diamonds trails on their own after gradually moving up once they mastered the small trails. That’s what my kids did.

Just because you can afford private lessons doesn’t mean that should be your first thought. They’ll feel a lot more accomplished if they didn’t feel like they always needed one on one training when other kids don’t.

oh please honey . I grew up in Utah and we were kids that showed up with skis we got at a yard sale that were 20 years old and our Tractor Supply Overalls we used when shoveling actual horse shit. Even we had lessons. It’s beyond idiotic to hop on skis without proper training. yes i started skiing when i was very young, but i absolutely was sent to ski school each winter break. Us poor kids got special deals and often our friends and family worked as ski patrol, or instructors at the resorts, so we got most stuff for free.

We did it without instruction and were fine. I can’t think of one thing that we would have needed training for. My SIL and her father loved skiing and went all the time. I could take it or leave it. But they didn’t take lessons and they were always at some mountain every weekend and winter vacation. Maybe Utah is more dangerous than Maine ? We were recreational skiers and weren’t going to take it any further.

[Anonymous]

I bootstrapped myself from the LMC to the UMC. I’ve observed two things: (1) how few of my peers in my high school honors/AP classes made it here with me; and (2) how many of my peers who are children of UMC parents “failed down” or coasted to a level I worked so hard to achieve.

I had a lot of interests growing up and was thought to be “very good” at many of them, but my parents didn’t have the resources to get me private lessons or training and my personal practice skills without the benefit of Google and the modern internet only got me so far. I didn’t have a good understanding of UMC social mores and that cost me a lot of opportunities. I had to take loans out for college and paid summer jobs only, and that hurt my career options because I had to chase money to pay back the loans.

My kids will have private lessons in the activities they are serious about and for which they show promise. They will receive tutoring if they need it. We will live in a crap house in a good district so they can have all that. Who knows- maybe they can use those opportunities and make something of them, or feel like they have choices. I don’t care about fancy anything- the best use of money is to make your life better and give you choices.