UM Free Tuition for In-State Kids Whose Families Make Less Than $65K
too.
And this, perhaps, the best comment.
Ever.
Incentives to make less are always interesting. I think a sliding scale would be better. 100% at 65k and maybe 25% at $100k? I do like the focus on Michigan kids through.
I would really like them to do more for alumni kids with admissions - not funding - because they don't do shit for alumni - but I am admittedly biased
It's a valid question. Two neighbors could live across the street from one another, making nearly the same. One kid goes free, the other pays. That is fundamentally flawed.
I assume the additional proviso is that the kid's parents have not saved anything for college? Meaning if the kid's parents have saved, they'll take that money, but cover the rest?
These are enormous sums of money over long periods of time. We're currenlty putting aside gobs and gobs of money to cover our kid's college. What if I was below $65K, and my neighbor spent his money on junk for 20 years. They'll take my money and let his kid go to school for free? That is a hilarious twisting of working values. And it absolutely will have terrible consequences.
This is such a flawed argument. What is twisting about values and terrible consequences that doesn't punish a kid for the amount of money their parents have made or not. This is about access to the school for literally millions of kids who have no say in their family income.
You're intentionally dismissing the obvious while trying to paint me as the bad guy, and by extension, you as the good guy. This is American discourse today. Let's change it right now, you and I.
You probably know that I'm not against kids having access to a great school and I don't blame them for their parent's income. If you didn't, now you know that.
But you can't dismiss the sacrifice that family A, who saves for literally decades - forestalling pleasure and minimizing their lives (in an economic sense) - and then pays that out to send their little girl to college. Only to find all of their sacrifice was not matched by their peer across the street who were able to send their girl for free. This assumes the school will still take whatever college savings have been put aside.
Can you address that argument.
but I will NOT re-use the damn toilet paper!
Vomit on the inclusion of political terms. You are not better or smarter than what you call conservatives. There is no you and them. Its.just us.
That argument only applies to savings in general. This is deferred gratification, the spend comes later and is enormous. Many families enriched and economic spurring by those tuition payments passing hands.
If you pinch pennies and save the hell out of your money, banks have more of it to loan to people, making credit easier to obtain. There is literally nothing you can do with your money that does not help the economy, except for shoving cash under your mattress.
Frugality is not the cause of slow economies. Slow economies are the cause of frugality. And demand-side economics is an exercise in inflationary tail-chasing.
Interesting.
Where can I read more?
I kind of get what you're getting at. I do agree that too often conversations like this turn into austerity-offs. I don't know if its restricted to conservatives necessarily but this type of commenter likes to laud the families and individuals who live frugally, out of a weird sense of virtue, praising their efforts (sometimes going to ridiculous lengths) to make their lives as bare-bones as possible so they can pay back loans or save for the future or whatever. And any one who does not do the same is somehow undeserving, which I think is a little unfair. Mostly because it doesn't have to be this way. And I always shoot back with "I live frugally and have tons of student loans but I went to college to make money, not to make a decent salary but live like a goddamn serf because of my loads of debt." It's not good for the economy - we should be able to spend $ on other things to grease the wheels of the economy. College shouldn't be so damn expensive.
Ah, the internet tough guy comment, another crippling innovation to American discourse. It would seem like you know this is an.illustrative example, but you've intentionally ignored that to shoehorn in this comment. Nobody thinks you're tough or even remotely cares. This discussion is.not about that.
It's an economic argument not a personal one, it's stunning that you cannot see that. These are philosophical and sociological questions that concern public policy. Hypotheticals such as the one are one above are means by which these debates occur. Taking it and applying it literally in a dur-hur, "I can't believe you care about your neighbors" context is so flawed it's difficult to maintain enough interest to address it.
But I will. This is a hypothetical. If your neighbor, or someone living 1,000 miles away, or your lovely aunt in Florida or the most interesting man in the world, we're to be taxed at a lower level than you given equivalent incomes you would have no issue? You'd say "I'll never mind them." Because the world doesn't operate that way and yes people are concerned with being treated fairly.
I'm fairly certain I could drive you into a seething rage if I set up a hidden camera scenario where you were charged $2 more fir a car wash than the guy in front of you. If you said you didn't care, well that would be even more obtuse. But you wouldn't do that, you'd object. The dalai lama routine you espouse above is a falsehood to convince others that you're above basic concerns such as fairness. It's false, and lord knows why you would think anyone cares about the personality of your totally anonymous internet persona.
I am not dismissing the obvious, I am arguing you are setting up a strawman that somehow this practice encourages poor planning. It does not. There is some fallacy in the US that people who live on the lower ends of the economic spectrum are their because of poor decisions on their part. There isn't some scourge of people in the United States acting stupid with the intention of playing the system. To knock a policy because of the one example of that person is flawed. The vast majority of people who make under 65k are working their assess off, not intentionally fucking around in the hope a hand out save them later and that will be true after this in place just like it is true today. Nobody is being rewarded or punished for their work ethic in this situation other than the students who get in and can now afford to go being rewarded for being good students and not judged by their paretns income.
I didn't say you were a bad guy, I said your argument was based on a flawed concept, and that is just as true for your second post as it was for the first.
First, I admire your effort to rise above the political fray. Well done.
I realize I am inserting myself into this conversation, but I am intrigued by the thought exercise. On one hand, the example you provide does expose an unfairness in the setup. Aside from that though, what is your argument? You say it's unfair; I say you're right, so what? You assume that some standard of fairness must be applied, and I think it's an exercise in futility to design a system that will be fair to everyone.
That said, while there is some ambiguity and potential for disappointment for the families who are right around the cutoff, the system will greatly benefit those kids who's family incomes are nowhere near the cutoff point. I would even the say the intent of the system is to aid those kids who would have no opportunity to attend UM otherwise.
Also, by drawing a line in the sand somewhere, it provides a starting point. After all, a cutoff would have to be applied somewhere. Moving the cutoff in either direction (higher or lower), wouldn't solve the problem of unfairness you noted; it would simply shift the disappointment to other people. But by having a starting point, we can 1) impact a great many people who are below the cutoff, and 2) figure out ways to assist those who are right around the cutoff.
If you're putting aside gobs and gobs of money, you're making over 65k.
Having said that, I agree with your assessment in the (not so) hilarious twisting of working values, where the "responsible" people are SOL.
Gobs and gobs is relative to everyone. Any parent at any income level where they have to be conerned about saving for college will tell you it is a sacrifice. We're putting aside as much as we can. Could I be doing a lot of other things with that money? Yep. Is it incredible unfair to my entire family - including my children, who will have lesser economic life because we are saving - that someone else who does not sacrifice will find their tuition covered. Yep. Will I ask myself another question? Nope.
This isn't difficult to consider, and I know you've agreed on this point but for those who do not.
Family A: buys the best clothes; closet full of shoes for dad and sons; dad bought a boat, had fun for a few years, sold it for 1/4 of its value; travel all over; tennis/soccer/hockey/golf lessons; golfing for dad, two times a week; club membership. There are a million ways to spend the $100-$800 people can/need to set aside for their kid's college. Not even saying they're bad people, just aren't sacrificing.
Family B: none of that shit, but they wouldn't have minded having it. But they saved for college for 20 years so their kid could go.
University of Michigan takes all of Family B's money. Says Family A doesn't have to pay a dollar. That is some bullshit and it should be very easy for everyone to see that.
There is a sliding scale. See Gulo Blue's post below.
"I assume the additional proviso is that the kid's parents have not saved anything for college? Meaning if the kid's parents have saved, they'll take that money, but cover the rest"
That's a pretty big assumption to then work yourself into a huff over. Have you -- or anyone -- actually checked if this is indeed the case?
How 'bout, just for argument, we assume instead that *both* income & savings are taken into account?
Along with number of kids? And major financial crises, like cancer in an underinsured family? And ...oh dear. Now we have a tax code.
Basically, your argument contributes to the case for a graduated or sliding scale, as others have pointed out. (And yes, that comes with more bureaucracy.)
"University of Michigan takes all of Family B's money. Says Family A doesn't have to pay a dollar."
Again, this is a hypothetical only loosely related to the statement the OP presented. A huge stretch. Presented without any evidence of being actually rooted in reality. Which is regardless then presented as a fact to get your boxers bunched up over:
"That is some bullshit"
and a Self-Evident Truth to boot:
"and it should be very easy for everyone to see that."
Woah Nelly! Way to go jumpin' over ruts and disjunctures to false conclusions! Is there any evidence that this is actually how it works? If so, it hasn't been presented, so no, I'm not following you to your "very easy to see" conclusion. You have to give your audience sound building blocks to take them where you want to go.
I appreciate your trying to maintain a tone of civility -- I'm striving reign in the snark & respond in kind -- but not doing good legwork before setting sail on a resentment-fueled complaint is another type of grevious error fueling today's incivil (is that a word?) discourse & climate.
Focussing on tone is nice, but taking the time to set up the fundamentals of the argument comprises basic respect.
Aye, logic classes for everyone!
...that's a pretty big assumption.
To then use as wind to fuel a BIG trip down Resentment River.
Do we *know* whether or not the policy takes savings into account?
Also tuition is just about 1/2 - 2/3 the cost, IIRC, of attending. Room & board (unless you're local), plus fees, supplies, & books will soak up a good portion of those savings.
So no worries, that sacrifice will still go a long ways.
Not as good of a headline for the Schliss if instead it reads "UM instututes sliding aid scale to more fairly benefit low and middle income families in Michigan". It doesn't make any sense, but that's the climate we're in.
If I'm making $70k, I'm asking my boss for a pay CUT to drop below that $65k threshold.
EDIT: Or...even smarter because giving up money is dumb, get creative come tax time. Open a small business on the side for some tax write-offs, put some money in an IRA, donate...whatever it takes to get below $65k for that free tuition.
I like the way you think. But i'm assuming the university is not going to allow 401k contributions and other items to put someone below $65k and allow that person to get free tuition.
Yeah, I wonder what they will use to determine income level. I would assume the AGI from your taxes since that is pretty universal. But who knows.
I would guess it is gross income... but like Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption said, How much do you trust your wife? You can have a temporary divorce and get back together after your kids gets through college. I'm mostly kidding...
But you did touch on some sound advice. Financial aid doesn't factor in the value of your house (or how much is paid off) nor the value of your retirement. If you go the private college (with a nice endowment) route and have a chunk of savings, put it into your retirement or your house and you will get more aid than if he had been prudent and saved tens of thousands for your kids' college. In other words, someone making $80K with $2 million in retirement and a $5 million house gets as much aid as someone making $80K with no retirement and no housing equity. Or more aid if the latter person has saved $50K for college.
Would a "temporary divorce" still allow for that three-month period post-divorce where you have sexual relations with anything that walks?
Man, the divorce question is an interesting one. If one spouse is making $90k and the other is making $45k, could you legally separate and have the $45k spouse claim the kid and get free tuition?
Seems like the opportunity for fraud is high with this.
That will eliminate most people who have been paying off a home for any considerable amount of time or who have been long term contributors to a 401K.
I know studies show the average family has like $0 in the bank these days, but the 50K asset cap will prevent a lot of potential abuse of the rule.
missed the retirement account exclusion. Thanks for pointing it out.
They didn't say a damn thing about numbered Swiss bank accounts!
some light, so we can see what it is we're actually debating. Been stumbling in the dark so far ~
put all those hard-earned savings in your IRA.
Feel better now?
That's an interesting choice unless your kid is about to enter college. Tuition alone is only $14k a year and future income long after your kid graduates college will be determined by your salary history that you are now freezing artifically below your value.
I like the idea of a gradient, too. Perhaps $65k and under is 0% tuition, then you go up to 25% tuition, etc.
Also I think if you're close to the $65,000 you could do something (like increase 401k or IRA contribution) to dip down. Hell, open an FSA if you're close enough and throw enough to dip below $65,000. I know what you're getting at and ultimately do agree.