Neither should reduce! Take out loans.

Community college for 2 years and transfer to a state school with some merit aid.

I would not reduce your retirement contribution. Compound interest is magical.

If kid wants to be at a university all 4 years then they can get loans.

Anonymous wrote:How much is the shortfall? Basically, how much have you saved and how much will you need annually for this first child? I took advantage of the payment plan at my child's college (I think it was 8 equal installments). Then, get serious about your monthly spending. No more eating out and vacations. You will be surprised at how much $$ you will have to direct to college tuition. I would urge your kids to a state school too.

Not urge, require. I don't recommend applying for a private school and hoping for enough aid to make it the price of state school. It rarely happens, kids fall in love and then parents don't have the discipline to say no.

How much is the shortfall? Basically, how much have you saved and how much will you need annually for this first child? I took advantage of the payment plan at my child's college (I think it was 8 equal installments). Then, get serious about your monthly spending. No more eating out and vacations. You will be surprised at how much $$ you will have to direct to college tuition. I would urge your kids to a state school too.

Anonymous wrote:For the people recommending student loans, students can take out a max of 27K in total over four years. So sure, have them take that out but it's not likely to bridge the gap.

We're going to be in a similar boat, will have my husband reduce because my company's match is 50 percent up to the full contribution.

That is for federal loans. Students can also take out private loans for the difference. Will need a cosigner, which OP can be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By maxing do you mean you are putting in the annual limit to your 401k? Or getting the employer max? Or putting money in 401k and additional avenues?

Are your finances joint? Your relationship is stable? If all money is shared, I'm not sure why it matters who reduces. Presumably you will share whatever is drawn down the road and will inherit each other's should one partner die.

We are both contributing the annual 401k limit (with catch-up for older partner), have some employer match, and contribute to Roth most years.

Finances are joint but I guess I am wondering about the impact of number of years for contributions to grow before disbursement, etc.

I'm thinking this idea of years for funds to grow before disbursement is a mental accounting/ bucketing error (unless possibly if you're thinking about forced RMDs that A will have to take before B, but that's really far off and I'm not even sure it matters then).

You will need as much money as you will need each year, and as long as Partner A has enough for the time before Partner B can access theirs, then I don't see why it matters how much each account has grown versus the other one. It's really all one bucket.

Contribute to both to get the employer match and then divide up the remainder unless one plan has considerably better options. There are benefits to both situations.

Get matches, consider fees and investment options, but if all else is equal, I'd want more in Partner A's because they will be 59.5 sooner and for part of the time child 2 is in college. That money will be more easily withdrawn for college or living expenses if Partner A does lose their job.

In general, I would also treat both accounts as one portfolio for asset allocation and investment choices. One may have the better bond fund and hold all the bonds while the other has a better equity fund, etc.

For the people recommending student loans, students can take out a max of 27K in total over four years. So sure, have them take that out but it's not likely to bridge the gap.

We're going to be in a similar boat, will have my husband reduce because my company's match is 50 percent up to the full contribution.

Anonymous wrote:You could both reduce and make sure you're both getting the employer match. It doesn't matter who dies first or whose money it is, it would be split equally in divorce and in death it would go to the surviving partner

I think you're doing the right thing. People way oversave for retirement and I don't think it's always needed. (Of course, you need to save, I just mean you don't need 3m or whatever) Versus burdening young 20s with massive student loans.

If OP didn't save enough for her kids to go to state school for college, I highly doubt she has 3M in retirement.

The kids need loans OP. You can always help pay them off later.

Anonymous wrote:You could both reduce and make sure you're both getting the employer match. It doesn't matter who dies first or whose money it is, it would be split equally in divorce and in death it would go to the surviving partner

I think you're doing the right thing. People way oversave for retirement and I don't think it's always needed. (Of course, you need to save, I just mean you don't need 3m or whatever) Versus burdening young 20s with massive student loans.

Having parents with massive medical bills and requiring home aids, this is it true.

I would have kid take out some loans. S/he could get a job or be an RA.

You could both reduce and make sure you're both getting the employer match. It doesn't matter who dies first or whose money it is, it would be split equally in divorce and in death it would go to the surviving partner

I think you're doing the right thing. People way oversave for retirement and I don't think it's always needed. (Of course, you need to save, I just mean you don't need 3m or whatever) Versus burdening young 20s with massive student loans.

Where is all your money going? Reduce expenses.

Anonymous wrote:I would not reduce retirement - you can take out loans for college but not college. BUT I digress...

who cares who reduces? am I missing something? My friend who was recently divorced told me that when you divorce the retirement funds get split equally no matter whose name it is in.

+1 as long as you are both saving enough to get the employer match, it really doesn't matter. Reducing savings seems fine as it sounds like you have been saving a lot (or is that recent and you still feel short on savings?) If you are short on savings, I would expect the kids to take the federal loans. That's not an unreasonable amount to repay regardless of post-college jobs.

If you cash flow 80%, why can't they take out student loans for the 20%? You can help pay them back.
Student loans should be some of the cheaper loans out there. Let the kid pay a little and later appreciate when you help to pay them off.