<p>if you give everything away, your financial aid will increase. but you better hope everyone else did not do the same or there will be no one to pick up the slack and provide the funds for the financial aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Worst myth on cc. Seriously. The majority of poor people get the Pell and Stafford loans. A drop in the bucket at many colleges. Plus, they can’t afford commuting to a school since they don’t have a car nor can they afford to live at a college. Seriously, I wish that myth would just die. It’s terrible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another myth considering your INCOME counts for FAR more of your EFC than assets do.</p>
<p>AnnasDad, wasn’t there a bible quote in Exodus about selling your daughter into slavery too? ;-)</p>
<p>Sorry, and no offense to anyone here or their religion…or lack thereof. I think those 10 commandments are a pretty good idea. Beyond that, in my house, we pretty much let the rest of it sit. But that’s my house.</p>
<p>Lol @ Bears and Dogs. Cool by me. Carry on!</p>
<p>i think, all things being considered, I would rather be very wealthy</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are people with SUVs or flat screen TVs interfere with your choices? Who is trumpeting their lifetsyeles as the preferred way to live? I am not. It works for me, but not for everyone. My kids appreciate everything they have and the values we have instilled in them, but it has nothing to do with material goods.</p>
<p>money does not buy you happiness but it sure makes being sad easier.</p>
<p>@romanigypsyeyes,</p>
<p>The poor get a tremendous break on the cost of tuition & fees.</p>
<p>I was not thinking of what one gives up to send kids to college, or of kids who go with financial aid. I was wondering if anyone here thought paying for your kid to go to college might be bad for you kids; that it was not “essential” and that it might be bad for their character.</p>
<p>I think I used to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gates is to be commended, but I note that he has more than anyone could ever possibly need and isn’t exactly wanting for the good material things in his own life.</p>
<p>Frankly, I’m more impressed by Lawrence.</p>
<p>I met Lawrence on Wednesday, when I and my D were volunteering as part of our church group at a homeless shelter in a suburban city. My job was to check people in - take their IDs, scan them in, and record what bed they’re assigned. Lawrence was one of the homeless people who came up to the table, but with a difference. He handed me a $10 bill. “That’s for people less fortunate than myself,” he said when I looked at it (and him) strangely. Later, one of the center staff told me that Lawrence works as a day laborer - goes to a temporary labor agency and waits to see whether he’ll work that day. On days he works, he gets paid the same day - in cash - and gives $10 of his pay to the shelter.</p>
<p>It reminded me of the story that opens Luke 21: "1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”</p>
<p>GMT
it’s up to what kind of school that is; meet full need, some need, don’t care whatsoever.
try private art schools for example?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say they are. I was merely qualifying my endorsement of the otherwise open-ended comment that people have a right to live the life they want to live.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at most schools they don’t. At the typical “CCer” school, yes. At the typical public or state school, no not really. And again, that doesn’t cover you if you need a car to commute or need to live on campus because you CAN’T commute.</p>
<p>My sincere thanks go out to the first half of all your opinions they were truly helpful. The following response all lost me I felt like it had nothing to do with my question.</p>
<p>^In my post #58, I was trying to say that what seemed like a good idea at 20, didn’t seem like a good idea 10 year later. But I don’t think anybody tried to tell me that. I literally thank God that my children didn’t come then.</p>
<p>I was at a dinner party recently where someone asked if you would rather reveal your favorite sexual adventure or your income and net worth. Everyone agreed. Nobody wanted to reveal their net worth.</p>
<p>Then, someone pointed out that you’d rather talk about your income than your spiritual practices.</p>
<p>Odd. I like CC. People talk about things here that they wouldn’t talk about at a dinner party. </p>
<p>Honestly, the idea that poverty is character building is awful. Poverty is NOT character building. It’s exhausting. The idea that people who have means are automatically lazy or characterless or lack values is really insulting. I made my own way in the world, and my kids have been fortunate enough to not have to do that. They’ve had their own challenges, though. Nobody gets out of here alive, and nobody gets out of here without a little bit of pain. Nobody has a monopoly on this. But real poverty and deprivation truly does keep people from achieving all that they can. Let’s not romanticize it.</p>
<p>@poet- I think there’s a huge difference between poverty and simply not being dependent on material things. Poverty to me means not making ends meet and constantly having creditors and such on your back (been there, NEVER going back). “Going without” material possessions (as is being discussed in this thread) is an entirely different matter IMO.</p>
<p>This discussion reminds me of that old board game called Life. Money, Fame or Happiness- you choose the proportions and see if you come out a winner. I have heard of that $75K amount being rich enough to have a good lifestyle- more than that doesn’t increase happiness, but less may make a difference. It does make sense- enough money for a comfortable lifestyle, most needs/wants met. Less than that means finances play a large role in choices, more than that merely determines a level of luxury (or savings in our case).</p>
<p>Don’t be proud of denying your kids cable TV and other material things. I grew up without TV and other things many take for granted and don’t think it helped at all. You don’t need to spend much time with TV just because you get cable- reading books and free play outdoors can stilll easily be done. It is so nice to decide purchases based on their worth instead of on being able to afford them. Nice to just buy underwear when needed instead of Santa doing the honors at Christmas. Nice to choose a vacation without blowing the savings. Nice to buy books ad lib, although I still try to use the library’s copies when possible.</p>
<p>Having money doesn’t mean you need to spend it or buy more expensive versions of things. Having money doesn’t mean you can’t do low cost or free activites. Having money doesn’t mean you can’t have happiness. It does mean you have less to worry about than someone without it.</p>
<p>Back to the OP’s D (where are you , OP?). Nothing wrong with being content to make enough money to meet your current needs at this stage in life. With an interest in children I’ll bet someday marriage and children are on her radar. If so, her husband can be the major money earner to provide the finances desired. No reason she has to be able to support a family by herself, especially now. She can change her plans later.</p>
<p>@poetgrl, well said!</p>
<p>Romani–</p>
<p>I completely agree. I was responding to the romantic post about the gentleman at the soup kitchen donating his 10 dollars. Waxed a little too romantic for me. that’s all.</p>
<p>^ Ah, that makes far more sense lol.</p>