Anonymous wrote:I have been MC all my life. I wanted to be married, have kids, and have at least a MC life. Beginning of marital life, we were quite poor and made very little money. Later on, our earnings increased.
Because of that - we only had 2 kids, only lived in house in a inexpensive neighborhood, only sent my kids to our local public K-12 schools, did not have a pet, lived a modest life, saved for our retirement, emergency fun, and started saving for as much college as we could. My kids went in-state and chose majors that can get them employed.
We first saved for 2 years of community college tuition, then we added 2 years of in-state public university tuition, then we added two more years of Masters in-state public college. Once we had that in place, we started to save for living expenses for 2,4, 6 years. Once we had hit that target, we started to save for MBA, medical school, law school etc.
Paying for kids college gives them a SES leg-up that can help them and future generations. So, I don't have to sing the praises of college education for the kids or why making kids graduate debt-free is a blessing to them. Suffice to say, you need to live with a degree of frugality to save for your kids.
If you are very poor, then at least make your kids high achievers by prioritizing education and enriching them at home.
I think people are critical when parents live a lavish life - vacations, booze, socializing, expensive hobbies and do not save for the kids education.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All I know is by the time my kids are old enough to buy a house, the average price is north of $1 million around here. If they are saddled with loans, they will never own a home.
Why can't they just move to a low cost of living area? It's how my MD brother in law paid his full med loans off. Why do you expect your kids to buy in a million dollar house area?
Why should they? Imagine the shame when for the parents when their friends learn that their kids fled the area because they were too poor to afford living there.
I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling on this one. Or I hope you are because otherwise you're absurd.
Are you member of a country club? You are probably not otherwise you would understand what PP was saying.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.
Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?
No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.
I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)
Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).
Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.
College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.
College was absolutely cheaper back then...in 1950 Harvard was $625/year and around $1,000/year including room and board and the median HHI was $3,100.
In 1990, Harvard total cost of attendance was $19,395 and median HHI was $50,000.
Today, Harvard total cost of attendance is $83,538 and median HHI is $75,000/
So, Harvard went from 32% to 39% to 111% of HHI over those time periods.
University of MD total COA in 1990 for in-state was $6,500, so, 13% of HHI. Current in-state total COA is $29,637, so 40% of HHI.
Perhaps the bigger issue is just how little median HHI has increased since 1990.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All I know is by the time my kids are old enough to buy a house, the average price is north of $1 million around here. If they are saddled with loans, they will never own a home.
Why can't they just move to a low cost of living area? It's how my MD brother in law paid his full med loans off. Why do you expect your kids to buy in a million dollar house area?
Why should they? Imagine the shame when for the parents when their friends learn that their kids fled the area because they were too poor to afford living there.
I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling on this one. Or I hope you are because otherwise you're absurd.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.
Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?
No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.
I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)
Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).
Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.
College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.
Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?
No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.
I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)
Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).
Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.
College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.
No it wasn't. I attended a T10 uni, graduated in 93 (that university is now 90K+). My last year the total cost/all-in with all fees/travel/etc was estimated at 27K. My first year (took 5 years for 2 degrees) was ~$20 or 21K.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We plan pay between 80-100% of an in state public undergraduate degree. The way that loan companies go after young adults who have zero experience is shameful and can impact them for the rest of their lives.
For grad school, we’ll work with them on choices and financial pros/cons but it will be their money at that point.
Usually parents do 50/50 split on grad school. Your money is more their money. You will be dead soon anyhow
I don't think this is true at all.
They can use their inheritance to pay off what remains of their grad school loans.
I'm 55, my parents are early/mid 80s and still going strong. Most people could be 60+ before they "get their inheritance". Smart parents (if they have the money) will help kids with grad school and avoid the major interest collection
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.
Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?
No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.
I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)
Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).
Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.
College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.
Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?
No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.
I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)
Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).
Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.
Anonymous wrote:I actually wished I had some loans when I graduated. My work had a loan tuition repayment program and would give 5-10k towards loans every year for 5 years.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We plan pay between 80-100% of an in state public undergraduate degree. The way that loan companies go after young adults who have zero experience is shameful and can impact them for the rest of their lives.
For grad school, we’ll work with them on choices and financial pros/cons but it will be their money at that point.
Usually parents do 50/50 split on grad school. Your money is more their money. You will be dead soon anyhow
I don't think this is true at all.
They can use their inheritance to pay off what remains of their grad school loans.