<p>Marite I’m chuckling at that also, probably best to stay at home with that attitude!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes…and I do. As stated…my entire (read that again…ENTIRE) take home pay has been used to pay college bills since 2003. When you factor in the tuition/room/board/fees/expenses that I pay, I don’t think I’m getting $1 in $5. BUT I am accruing seniority in my job and when I’m done paying tuition (hopefully this spring)…I’ll be in a better job position than if I had not worked. AND I feel very good that my husband and I have been able to give our kids the gift of a good undergraduate college education.</p>
<p>thumper- this is something that can not be left out of the equation-I am accruing seniority in my job and when I’m done paying tuition (hopefully this spring)…I’ll be in a better job position than if I had not worked.</p>
<p>Thank you, thumper and tom1944.</p>
<p>Marite and Thumper, I am looking forward to reading your thread on “Jobs So Fun You’ll Be Happy Doing Them For No Pay.” What section will that be in?</p>
<p>Why should we work for no pay?
Is your point that it’s not worth working if the financial reward is not there? When welfare reform was passed, that was not an argument that swayed the voters in favor of welfare queens.</p>
<p>If the idea is that people should work only if the job is fun, that is the slap in the face of all the people who have spent their lifetime working, often in difficult, demanding, boring, repetitive jobs, so they could put food on the table for their families and pay for their children’s education. </p>
<p>Go tell the people who are currently unemployed that working eight hours a day is a waste of time.
I happen to love my job. But more than that, I do not believe society owes me a living or colleges owe me financial aid for my kids.</p>
<p>The original poster is postulating a situation where her friend, a former stay at home mom, now an empty-nester, could take a job now, but with the costs of employment and the hit on her kids’ financial aid, she said she would have a “100% tax rate” or as I paraphrased “work for no pay.” </p>
<p>Yes, my point was that it is not worth working any job for no pay. No Pay. Are you arguing there is such a job, or this is like being a welfare queen somehow?</p>
<p>If one goes to work strictly for compensation purpose, that will drive person so depressed that one should consider not to work at all, otherwise their job will cost them too much because of huge increase health care expenses. If one does not derves any satisfaction from their job, that is way to depressing even to think about, let alone participate in dreadful thing.</p>
<p>Going back to work - true that every dollars she earns is now taxed. She gets no deductions - they are all used on her husband’s salary. For her to go back to work and earn $10,000/ year has the same effect as if he got a $10.000 year raise. </p>
<p>I know a little bit about financial aid, so here goes:</p>
<p>If going back to work puts this family in the 25% tax bracket then they are not going to qualify for Federal grants - working or not. The financial aid she must be talking about is a Financial Aid grant from the college - NOT tax $$.
Colleges are free to decide for themselves who will qualify and won’t qualify for a financial aid grant.
The only Federal Aid this student is receiving would be a Sub loan - the value of which is comparatively small.</p>
<p>For those of you who think this woman is being unethical - decide where to draw the line. If you would require both parents to work then why not require them to work two jobs?
Lots of folks work two jobs - why should they only work one when they can pick up another 15-20 hours a week at WalMart?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is worse than being a welfare queen. Welfare queens take other peoples money for basic subsistence expenses. The mom in question wants others to pay for her kid’s college education, when she is perfectly capable of doing it herself. I <em>think</em> there was a time in history when people were happy to work to be able to pay for their childrens’ educations and would be ashamed to accept hand-outs unless it was a last resort. Maybe that was just a dream I had.</p>
<p>dt:</p>
<p>The OP postulated a situation where a person would work and get paid. She did not say that the person should volunteer. If she deigned to “waste eight hours a day working,” she would get paid.</p>
<p>I agree with Bay. I’m outta here. I’ve got to work and earn the money I spend on my kids’ tuitions.</p>
<p>H worked for a company that had a generous tuition assistance plan for children of employees. It was ‘merit based’ in that kids had to apply, there was an essay, and you needed 2 recommendations. It was need based in that year after year the top awards (which were quite significant) went to the children of hourly/clerical employees or members of the janitorial staff. There was an annual photo OP of the kids, the proud parents, and the CEO handing out the fake checks and I have to admit— you could burst with joy (or sob buckets) at this event.</p>
<p>So I love it when members of my family, neighbors, former college classmates, all complain that “it’s not worth it” going back to work after 10+ years of maternity leave. Even in these recessionary times, the benefit packages at a big corporation are easily worth 35-45% on top of your salary, and that’s not including things like the tuition assistance. (which are signficant but obviously, only a tiny proportion of the employees use this benefit).</p>
<p>So yes- do the math, get the aid, stay home. But that is very short-sighted accounting in many cases. Many jobs pay much more than the marginal value of the last dollar in compensation.</p>
<p>I think where you fall on this issue depends on what you think about tuition. Is a “price” like the price on a car? Or is it a negotiable contract? If you believe the former you think only shirkers would fail to pay the full “price” if they could. Does that make those that seek merit aid and athletic scholarships, even though their families could pay the full tuition reprehensible?</p>
<p>I found the post below interesting - it makes the argument that it is difficult to assess what it really costs to educate an undergraduate:</p>
<p>Thread:
Whos Paying the Bills at the Nations Top Public Universities?
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063267033-post18.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063267033-post18.html</a></p>
<p>Is full tuition some magic number, or just simply what colleges decide the market will bear?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some people (and colleges) do think it is inappropriate to take merit scholarships when a family can afford to pay, and this has been discussed in other threads on this board.</p>
<p>For me, the difference is that with merit and athletic scholarships, the recipient did something extraordinary to earn the tuition award. In the OP’s case, the parent intentionally does nothing in order to receive the financial aid.</p>
<p>I’m sorry to offend some regulars here but I think it is insane to suggest (as some have) that people should happily work for zero net financial gain. Not everyone is lucky enough to have such an enjoyable job. There is a reason it is called “compensation”.</p>
<p>Working for no financial gain is called volunteering. Not working in order to get finaid is called…</p>
<p>…socialism?</p>
<p>Oh, no. Under socialism, it should be “everyone according to his needs and everyone according to his abilities.” The latter is as important as the former, one might say even more important than the former since socialist countries have done a particularly poor job of addressing their citizens’ real needs (not just their perceived ones, like a free college education at someone else’s expenses).</p>
<p>Socialist countries have done a poor job of addressing their citizens real needs because it is tough to get everyone (or hardly anyone) to perform to his abilities with a poor incentive system, like in this case.</p>
<p>The ironic thing here, is that my DS a full pay student at the same institution as my friend’s DD. I feel no rancor toward her. I feel like she’d be crazy to work for close to nothing. As for the argument that she’d be building up contacts, seniority, etc: after running some numbers I conclude that’s a valid argument IF the rate of growth is fairly steep, AND she intends to keep working for a sufficient number of years after the last one gets out of school.</p>
<p>geomom:</p>
<p>back to your original point: in general, finaid is reduced 46% for every additional after-tax dollar that you/your friend earn. While the formula is a little more generous if the dollars are earned by a second family earner (in comparison to a salary increase for a single earner), the rule of thumb is 50% of after-tax income gets applied against your EFC and will impact need-based finaid.</p>