Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do your kids qualify for needs-based financial aid for college?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AR
    replied
    Originally posted by ENT Doc View Post

    Based on current law I do. Would I be opposed to a law preventing discrimination based on ability to pay? Not sure. That’s a very slippery slope and typically the more the government interferes with the market the more it screws it up. Case in point: topic of this thread.
    That's fine. It's just that when most people say that a certain type of discrimination is terrible, they would be in favor of the government ending it. And if you don't think they should, it's hard to believe that you think it is as truly terrible as you claim it is.

    "Man, this discrimination is awful, but I don't think the government should do anything about it" is just not a position that most people have for obvious reasons. Even though it makes perfect sense if you substitute kneeling during the anthem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    replied
    afan
    "I live in the US and I want the economy to be as productive as possible. I want society to progress as rapidly as possible. For those things to happen, we need the most, best, smart, well educated people trying to accomplish those goals. If the entry is limited to those whose parents can afford the bill, then we are all worse off. Viewed purely from my narrow self interest, the system would be better if it provides even more help than it does to kids of lesser means."

    This is called a sense of civic duty and charity. The problem is the government or university funding for reasons that are not simply need and merit based. Then passing the bill to those that may have actually been better qualified leaving them with a bill. There is a breakeven point, what would have been affordable is now not. Opportunity removed or made more expensive. The goal of the "best, smart, well educated people" is not achieved. Not due to your charity, but due to the system.

    Leave a comment:


  • ENT Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by AR View Post

    But just to be clear, as outraged as you are, you think they absolutely ought to be allowed to do it.
    Based on current law I do. Would I be opposed to a law preventing discrimination based on ability to pay? Not sure. That’s a very slippery slope and typically the more the government interferes with the market the more it screws it up. Case in point: topic of this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • AR
    replied
    Originally posted by ENT Doc View Post

    Again, see my previous example. One can be quite enraged about things the first amendment provides for yet still want the first amendment. And yes I’m outraged by the fact that these colleges (and mainly our government) set up a second tier system of taxation. I think double taxation ticks a lot of people off.
    But just to be clear, as outraged as you are, you think they absolutely ought to be allowed to do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ENT Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by AR View Post

    So just to make sure I'm clear, you're saying this discrimination is bad, but they should absolutely be allowed to do it.

    Well, I'll give you your freedom-lover title back. But I don't know how outraged you can be if they're doing something that you fully believe they ought to be able to do.
    Again, see my previous example. One can be quite enraged about things the first amendment provides for yet still want the first amendment. And yes I’m outraged by the fact that these colleges (and mainly our government) set up a second tier system of taxation. I think double taxation ticks a lot of people off.

    Leave a comment:


  • afan
    replied
    As someone who paid for expensive school for my kids, I enthusiastically support need-based aid. The world is not fair. A kid who grows up in a two-physician household has so many advantages over a poor child from a single parent home that free college does not come close to leveling the playing field.

    I donate to scholarship funds to support need based aid.

    I planned to pay for my kids' educations before they were born and we saved up enough to cover the cost well before college came along. In the end, we were able to cash flow the expenses without touchings the savings. I am prouder and happier about that, both the savings and the cash flow financing, than I am about anything I have done in medicine. My kids were worth it, the educations were worth it and if some of the money we paid helped children from less fortunate families, well I am happy about that too.

    I live in the US and I want the economy to be as productive as possible. I want society to progress as rapidly as possible. For those things to happen, we need the most, best, smart, well educated people trying to accomplish those goals. If the entry is limited to those whose parents can afford the bill, then we are all worse off. Viewed purely from my narrow self interest, the system would be better if it provides even more help than it does to kids of lesser means.

    Of course, I don't view it purely from my self interest, which is why I donate money I don't have to give.

    I can, sort of, sympathize with the complaint that a family that spends like crazy then relies on financial aid has been treated better than a family that carefully saved. But the kids are not responsible for those big houses, fancy vacations and empty bank accounts. The parents who behave like that are punishing themselves and will continue to do so long after their kids are out on their own.

    Not wasting our money on indulgences was in part to make sure we could afford what was important in life. But we would not have wasted the money anyway.

    Of course, in a free country, no one has to send their kids to a college that offers generous need based aid. If a vendor offends you, don't patronize them. There are people who object to the low prices and convenience of Walmart or Amazon. Free country. Don't buy from them. Same for college.

    But understand why someone fortunate enough to be a doctor will not get much sympathy when they complain that they have to pay for their kids' education.

    Leave a comment:


  • MSooner
    replied
    We found out recently that the fact my spouse is a (basically an honorary) faculty member for the state university system, our children will likely qualify for a tuition discount should they decide to attend a state university. I don't know if that will actually happen, but it is a nice bonus. Especially considering the only thing he actually has to do for the title is have a med student tag along with him every once in awhile.

    Leave a comment:


  • AR
    replied
    Originally posted by ENT Doc View Post

    I don’t think the government should be complicit in the system of discrimination. My entire gripe with our current set up is that the government sets up a system of unlimited funds and after-tax discrimination via the FAFSA. And of course places can use their funding to do as they please. But just because I think someone or some entity shouldn’t do something doesn’t mean I think it should be legally banned. For example, I think people shouldn’t kneel for the anthem but fully recognize they can and am not calling for this to be banned federally.
    So just to make sure I'm clear, you're saying this discrimination is bad, but they should absolutely be allowed to do it.

    Well, I'll give you your freedom-lover title back. But I don't know how outraged you can be if they're doing something that you fully believe they ought to be able to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marko-ER
    replied
    Originally posted by legobikes View Post
    How many years do you need to not have an income to qualify? Just wondering, how many tax returns will they check?
    For those in the know, I want the answer to this question too. How many years are admins looking back at as far as income? I am looking to retire or rather scale back drastically quite early (mid 50s), and since we had kids late in life, the oldest may be 15yo at the time (??). My wife will probably continue working, though probably at 0.7 FTE, mostly for health and fringe benefits.

    Also does having 519 plan under the grandparents help in any way?

    Leave a comment:


  • ENT Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by AR View Post

    Well then help me out here. You're saying that they shouldn't discriminate, right? What should happen if they decide to exercise their freedom and do it anyway?
    I don’t think the government should be complicit in the system of discrimination. My entire gripe with our current set up is that the government sets up a system of unlimited funds and after-tax discrimination via the FAFSA. And of course places can use their funding to do as they please. But just because I think someone or some entity shouldn’t do something doesn’t mean I think it should be legally banned. For example, I think people shouldn’t kneel for the anthem but fully recognize they can and am not calling for this to be banned federally.

    Leave a comment:


  • AR
    replied
    Originally posted by ENT Doc View Post

    So you are projecting an intervention that I never suggested. That seems to be the basis of your problem here.
    Well then help me out here. You're saying that they shouldn't discriminate, right? What should happen if they decide to exercise their freedom and do it anyway?

    Leave a comment:


  • ENT Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by AR View Post

    I agree that is exactly what you said. But it seems to me like you want the government to take away their freedom to discriminate and ensure that they don't. There is nothing wrong with that position, but like I said, that doesn't sound very freedom-loving to me.
    So you are projecting an intervention that I never suggested. That seems to be the basis of your problem here.

    Leave a comment:


  • AR
    replied
    Originally posted by ENT Doc View Post

    I explicitly said they shouldn’t discriminate. You’re trying to paint me as a hypocrite while ignoring the broader inequity and inefficiency of what’s going on here. Nice try.
    I agree that is exactly what you said. But it seems to me like you want the government to take away their freedom to discriminate and ensure that they don't. There is nothing wrong with that position, but like I said, that doesn't sound very freedom-loving to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ENT Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by AR View Post

    So let me get this straight. Private entities should be allowed to discriminate. Unless it's a type of discrimination that gets in to "uglier territory". In that case, you want the government to step in and prevent it. Is that right? You would have the government trample the freedoms of these private entities? That just doesn't seem like something that someone who loves freedom as much as you do would espouse.
    I explicitly said they shouldn’t discriminate. You’re trying to paint me as a hypocrite while ignoring the broader inequity and inefficiency of what’s going on here. Nice try.

    Leave a comment:


  • AR
    replied
    Originally posted by Kamban View Post

    You forget one thing - that almost all these private colleges are 501(c) not for profit colleges that pay no taxes and hence the tax payers are supporting them. In that case they have to not discriminate blatantly.

    If they become a pure for-profit entities and rescind their 501c status, I say - go and happily discriminate away on your dime and not mine.
    I didn't forget. It's just not relevant to the point I'm interested in (which is admittedly different from what most others are interested in).

    If it makes it easier we can just limit this to for profit universities.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X