<p>Last time I looked, it was dollars per pupil, because that’s the relevant number. If their budget is too small, then 39 percent of it isn’t enough.</p>
<p>I looked at the 2006 number of $11,000 per pupil for CA - our state, NH, spends between $9,000 and $10,000 per pupil and generally performs quite well on educational measures. Perhaps cost of schooling is factored in. California has a ton of taxes and they’re spending 39% of those taxes on K12 so how could they spend more? I don’t see how they can generate more revenue and they do appear in crisis mode right now.</p>
<p><a href=“BCeagle91:”>quote</a>
I’d suggest you try it yourself sometimes. It’s a lot harder than it looks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What appears to be hard is for you to come up with an example to support your point, i.e., where (outside the nonprofit sector) a poor person’s dollar is worth as much as a rich one’s.</p>
<p>“What appears to be hard is for you to come up with an example to support your point, i.e., where (outside the nonprofit sector) a poor person’s dollar is worth as much as a rich one’s.”</p>
<p>I’d suggest you try it yourself sometimes. It’s a lot harder than it looks.</p>
<p>What needs to be tried is you substantiating your point. Typing the word “rubbish” is not an example. Clear examples were given where poor dollars are worth less than rich ones. Do you have an example (outside nonprofits) of the opposite?</p>
<p>There is no question that having more money gives you more flexibility. Those with the money can certainly choose to have less very easily. Just bring down the income and assets. That can be arranged a heck of a lot easier than bring up assets and income. I am not in denial of this fact.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that this forum is a place for all economic levels to discuss the many different ways to approach college costs. It is not for any specific income level. Hopefully those in the higher brackets contribute as well as those with zero EFCs. It gives us all a fuller picture of the college financial situation. </p>
<p>Though I have been very involved in college admissions for some years now it was still a shock to have my joy from my last son’s scholarship letter of $20K hit the reality of still having a $35K bill to pay since the COA is now in the mid $50’s for this particular school. Which is not atypical for private schools. This sticker shock hits all of us at all income levels and we try to share ideas to help us deal with it. For those who have the money to pay this with a yawn or little issue, good for them. For those of us who still feel the sting of that payment, we can look at alternatives. We found some of them and I do share them with the CC community, and I don’t care what the income level or financial situation is of anyone who wants to give it a try. There are some options available to those who only have need, some for only those who have the money. </p>
<p>There is that issue that many don’t seem to want to face, which is that with more assets, there are more obligations and responsibilities. There are things that you have to let go if you can’t do it, but you have to take care of if you have the means, which then puts your means down lower than before. DOn’t get me wrong, they are things that you want to be able to address. It is surprising how each extra dollar does not necessarily get you more free $$s. There was a time that I thought that I would be donating more than half of what we earn to charitable causes. Never really thought that taxes would snatch that up and that there are responsibilities that eat up a lot of what I thought would be truly discretionary spending. Would have never believed it thirty years ago when we were living paycheck to paycheck that we would be doing the same thing at a much higher income level.</p>
<p>“What needs to be tried is you substantiating your point. Typing the word “rubbish” is not an example. Clear examples were given where poor dollars are worth less than rich ones. Do you have an example (outside nonprofits) of the opposite?”</p>
<p>I’m busy and you’re not worth the time.</p>
<p>What BC means is that it’s easy to put $5000 under mattress vs $5 million. For example, the bed is not big enough for $5 million.</p>
<p>I met with a hedge fund manager many years ago - he managed about 45 times my net worth. I paid very careful attention to what he said and took notes. In general, I listened to what he had to say though he was interested in my opinions. He moved onto a job later managing about 600 times my net worth back then. My guess is that he’s managing 10 figures now given the firm that he is at.</p>
<p>I didn’t spend time arguing with him because he was the professor and I was the student. But he did tell me that in ways, it was easier for me to invest with my smaller amounts than it was for him. I did see his point. It didn’t have anything to do with mattresses.</p>
<p>OK, I’ll pick a couple simplier examples where the wealthy get a discount. </p>
<p>Banks … to get free accounts you must maintain a minimum balance … which clearly is easier for the more wealthy and leads to lower out of pocket costs for those using more services … and at the extreme low end some families who do not even have bank account get hosed by check cashing operations.</p>
<p>Investment Firms … same story as banks … more money = more services and less fees</p>
<p>After providing those two I have to admit I could not think of whole lot of places where there is pricing discrimination that explicitly favors the wealthy. There are other pricing schemes that indirectly favor the wealthy … for example, discount for seniors … while some seniors are poor overall seniors are among the best off among all age groups.</p>
<p>“I didn’t spend time arguing with him because he was the professor and I was the student. But he did tell me that in ways, it was easier for me to invest with my smaller amounts than it was for him. I did see his point. It didn’t have anything to do with mattresses” </p>
<p>Is some of this due to large investors moving the market while small investors have little if any impact?</p>
<p>Yes, and there are rules regarding how much a fund can have invested in a particular stock. If one stock takes off, the fund may have to sell off shares even if the fund manager would love to hold onto it, because that stock is now too large a percentage of the fund.</p>
<p>So in that way, it’s easier for me to invest than for a fund manager – I’m not bound by the same rules. If a particular stock is 45% of my “fund” and I’m okay with that, I can keep it – not so the professional fund manager.</p>
<p>There is wealthy and there is the truly wealthy. There is poor and there is truly poor. The differences between the two wealthy sorts and the two poor categories than there is between wealthy and poor. The middle income that bridges those two latter descriptions really has gradations that blur the borders.</p>
<p>“Yes, and there are rules regarding how much a fund can have invested in a particular stock.”</p>
<p>I don’t think this applies to hedge funds which is what BC eagle91 is referring to. The point is that unless a large fund “distributes” the purchases or sales approriately, other investors will know a big movement is coming and invest accordingly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is clearly not the case (i.e., not an actual disadvantage to the wealthy, per dollar) below some humongous level at which the discussion shifts to endowing buildings on campus, not paying tuition.</p>
<p>Really, how many situations do you know that don’t involve the government or a nonprofit, where the wealthy have fewer options per dollar than the poor? There’s no shortage of situations where they have more. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The storage costs per dollar of cash, at most levels of security, are less for a millionaire than for the guy with a mattress.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The question was about personal wealth, far below the levels where a hedge fund might lose agility. Somebody with several million dollars will not have the same problems a giant hedge fund might face in liquidating assets, buying large amounts of stock, or influencing prices. He will, however, have a large arsenal of options (both in absolute terms and per dollar) that a poorer person would not, such as investing in a hedge fund at all, buying at underprices when “cash is king”, shifting holdings to other currencies to reduce exposure to US dollar — the list is endless.</p>
<p>The more choice of options, the more difficult to choose - true in life and true in investing. That being said, I’d rather be rich than poor.</p>
<p>“That being said, I’d rather be rich than poor.”</p>
<p>For type-a personalities, the journey from poor to rich can be rather satisfying.</p>
<p>seriously consider a school that cost 50k a year, that way things may remain relatively unchanged in your quality of life, and don’t have to stress.</p>
<p>(what school cost 100k a year x.x)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know BCeagle91, I think we finally agree on something.</p>
<p>(And I’m definitely type-A.)</p>