Morality check

[raeoflyte]

Sept 25, 2020 10:46:22 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Sept 25, 2020 10:40:54 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Because he's reinvesting it in the business?

I dont know a ton on that piece. To me that means there really isnt income there?

I know we see loans come through for people who are certain they make enough for the loan, but we cant come up with any income for them based on tax returns. That to me says theyre working their books and are shady, but I dont really know how that ever becomes middle ground.

It doesn't necessarily mean there isn't income. It just means the owners aren't taking any income out of it. Kind of like dividend vs. growth stocks.

Gotcha. Thank you.

I admit that I really need to get a better handle on this piece. I think I'm actually in this boat with (my very small family) farm income this year and deciding if I get it this year or next. I have 2 conflicting thoughts...if I earn the money this year I should pay taxes on it, but also, why would I pay taxes on income I never received.

[gs11rmb]

I'm not bothered by the tuition but am by the government assistance.  My own opinion is that able bodied adults should at least by employed for the standard 40-hour work week.  Here are a couple of examples that are of value to me but I'm sure there are other opinions.

1.  Single mother with deadbeat ex-husband who won't pay child support.  She's working 40 hours a week but doesn't earn enough to pay her bills plus daycare and health insurance.  I hope she gets all the assistance she needs to get through these rough years.

2.  Married couple who want to have a SAHP but one person doesn't earn enough to cover their necessities.  Tough.  Both parents need to work and if their income still isn't high enough then daycare assistance, medicaid, foodstamps to ensure all basic needs are met.

I'm a big believer in the social safety net and don't think it is adequate in this country.  I think it becomes difficult to argue for increases in these programs when we see people who are perfectly capable of earning enough money in a standard workweek take advantage and inflate the number of claimants.


Also, raeoflyte you mention that your husband has chosen a low-paid career, which means the burden of supporting the family falls on your shoulders.  You are so deeply unhappy in your job, is it possible for your husband to transition to a different career or work longer hours so that you can cut-back?

[Lizard Queen]

Sept 25, 2020 10:58:25 GMT -5 Clifford said:

Sept 25, 2020 10:34:20 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

I think the devil is in the details. He's sheltering his business income. How much are we talking here? Who knows? The gist I get from it is not a huge amount, but if it was a lot, it makes it less cool.

The business could potentially generate about $20k/yr in income. Instead we are buying equipment and livestock. The estimated value of the business is included in the FAFSA, and anywhere else assets are listed. Eventually, we’d run out of equipment to buy, and I could squeeze it for income, probably generating up to $40k/yr.

Correct if I'm wrong, but I think the FAFSA doesn't count your net worth against you until your income is somewhere over $49k. (I'll look more closely at this as our kids near college age.

ETA: reinvesting the business income is like saving the max in a 401k. Imo, don't sweat it.

[raeoflyte]

Sept 25, 2020 10:57:02 GMT -5 giramomma said:

Sept 25, 2020 9:54:46 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

I'd argue too that having quality time with your highschool age kids is a good thing. Its likely the last few years youll be part of their nuclear family. That is worth more than money.

Actually, I think by the time a kid is in HS, the ship has sailed for quality time. The last time DS was sort of interested in spending time with us sort of regularly was freshman year. He will watch sports with DH, and have some dinners with us.  DS didn't go on vacation with us last summer. He got invited to hang out with his friends. Granted it was 5 days, but still. Even when we took our mini breaks this summer... DS didn't go on all the hikes we did.

DD1 is approaching 13, and is starting to get pickier about what she wants to do with DH and i.

I think its the availability factor. When little they need you all the time, so even if youre not with them all the time, you can meet their needs when you are. They need us less and less as they get older, and when we miss one of those windows that they really did need support we can't easily make up for it by being available later. Still doesnt mean we can or should be 100% available, but making sure they have reasonable access to parental support when they need it is definitely on my mind as mine get older.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Sept 24, 2020 17:38:52 GMT -5 Clifford said:

Sept 24, 2020 12:57:47 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Your choices don't sit well with me.

Are there people who "missed out" on the assistance who needed it/were working as hard/long hours as they could or with disabilities or struggling to find work? Who knows, and you are right  - doubtful if we can really get that question answered.

What can be answered definitively is that other people ARE paying for it. Not the rich that everyone points their fingers at. Yes, the rich are hiding money, managing money, pushing for even more favorable laws and tax coding to shield more and more of their millions/billions from taxes.

But its more the average person who is paying more to subsidize others. Via taxes, higher tuition rates, higher provider costs (because Medicaid doesn't even break even on medical services rendered. And I'm one of those people, paying more than my fair share because others aren't able or willing to pay theirs.

And I'm fine covering those who are struggling. Not so fine covering those who choose not to work enough to pay their fair share. 

I qualified for many 'benefits' for about a decade. I choose not to apply for them. I even tried to refuse the EIC on my taxes, but they sent it anyway. 

And now the big impediment to my retirement planning is 6 figure student loans. 

I appreciate that. If I was 100% fine with it I wouldn’t have posted the question.
Our household income ranged from 48-115k for 20 years, and we feel like we were definitely contributors. We were also YMAM types, so we tried to save as much as we could. For the last 5 years, our income ranged from 30-48k. We still pay taxes, but in the 10-12% range.

The system is set up to scrutinize income and overlook assets. We are not at FI/RE levels, but have more than the average 40k earners cause that’s not what we always were. We even keep 15-20k in checking, so its not sheltered or hidden in any way, but I’ve been straight with everyone.
Q: Would you really turn down free healthcare or tuition breaks on principle, seeing as how the tuition is a big obstacle for you now?

I did turn down free healthcare - medicaid - and a lot of other benefits we qualified for. Kids got in trouble because I refused to fill in the forms for free/reduced lunch so I finally filled that out. We were hounded about that, and really irritated me. 

My mindset was you only take handouts if you are truly desperate/hungry/imending homelessness type situation. Not just because things are tight or uncomfortable. I've gotten over that to a large extent. 

The tuition thing is a bit more amorphous and I disagree with everything about college pricing and how financial aid is distributed and the entire student loan industry.

In my particular case, what did me in was being pretty low income for many years and then getting into a decent mid-income range just before the college years. I didn't have the income to save through most of the pre-college years, but after getting some salary increases - I made enough to get no aid outside of loans, but not enough money to cash flow anything either. So in my case, a catch 22. I also went back to school myself at the same time, in previous years that would have helped our case but that piece was eliminated, although I did get a lot of tuition waivers/teaching asssitanceship for myself in later years.

As I said - it doesn't sit well with me - but I'm not irate or angered or anything extreme like that! I know it's a path many take. For me - it's a bit of gaming the system. I wouldn't do it, and not thrilled it's done, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

On the one hand, I do think some attention to lifetime earnings and local tax burdens should be included in all these income-based decisions if we are truly looking at leveling playing fields. But on the other, I think we should just really level the playing fields outright. Health insurance and the cost of health care is a mess, and I think it is too messed up to fix and single payer is likely our only good option right now. Parental income should not effect college costs because college students are adults. And I do think we should really prioritize a talented, educated population and provide high quality university educations at low cost to the students. The entire population benefits from college educated individuals and keeping education cost lower should benefit everyone financially. 

So - if everyone had the same healthcare options, and students had quality education at low costs not impacted by parental income, what choices would you be making now?

[Deleted]

For many, the choice is stay below the Medicaid limits or have shit "insurance" with such a high OOP we can't ever use it if we get sick. In Oregon, that number is $17K. 

If I go out and get a job at any local business, if I earn more than that I will find myself essentially without medical coverage. How is that helpful to my life when it means I couldn't get care for an expensive medical problem and might end up filing bankruptcy?

This isn't an issue of morality. It's an issue of a system that's broken and the wealthy don't want to change it because then the poor masses might have access to "their" "good" doctors. That's the bottom line. 

I don't believe now, and didn't when I had Cadillac insurance, that healthcare should be a commodity and your income should determine whether you should live or die. Americans seem to think your income determines your worth in life, and it so doesn't.

[oped]

Who was it who got a quote for Orton Gillingham tutoring that was like $128 an hour?

So I spent 3-4 hours a week not counting prep or travel time to do this the past 2 years for free for a family that could never have afforded it. A task I could undertake because I have the basics and the time. I guess I shouldn’t have done that and should have taken an 11$ an hour aid job to get insurance?

On the other hand I asked for volunteers to pilot and help me refine a Spelling curriculum I’m designing. One of my college roommates responded in a way that made it clear she thinks I should always give away my resources to teachers and parents and not charge for them.

It’s never all black and white. What we give and get from the system isn’t all quantifiable in the way some would like.

We need universal health care.

[oped]

Sept 25, 2020 11:36:05 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Sept 24, 2020 17:38:52 GMT -5 Clifford said:

I appreciate that. If I was 100% fine with it I wouldn’t have posted the question.
Our household income ranged from 48-115k for 20 years, and we feel like we were definitely contributors. We were also YMAM types, so we tried to save as much as we could. For the last 5 years, our income ranged from 30-48k. We still pay taxes, but in the 10-12% range.

The system is set up to scrutinize income and overlook assets. We are not at FI/RE levels, but have more than the average 40k earners cause that’s not what we always were. We even keep 15-20k in checking, so its not sheltered or hidden in any way, but I’ve been straight with everyone.
Q: Would you really turn down free healthcare or tuition breaks on principle, seeing as how the tuition is a big obstacle for you now?

I did turn down free healthcare - medicaid - and a lot of other benefits we qualified for. Kids got in trouble because I refused to fill in the forms for free/reduced lunch so I finally filled that out. We were hounded about that, and really irritated me. 

My mindset was you only take handouts if you are truly desperate/hungry/imending homelessness type situation. Not just because things are tight or uncomfortable. I've gotten over that to a large extent. 

The tuition thing is a bit more amorphous and I disagree with everything about college pricing and how financial aid is distributed and the entire student loan industry.

In my particular case, what did me in was being pretty low income for many years and then getting into a decent mid-income range just before the college years. I didn't have the income to save through most of the pre-college years, but after getting some salary increases - I made enough to get no aid outside of loans, but not enough money to cash flow anything either. So in my case, a catch 22. I also went back to school myself at the same time, in previous years that would have helped our case but that piece was eliminated, although I did get a lot of tuition waivers/teaching asssitanceship for myself in later years.

As I said - it doesn't sit well with me - but I'm not irate or angered or anything extreme like that! I know it's a path many take. For me - it's a bit of gaming the system. I wouldn't do it, and not thrilled it's done, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

On the one hand, I do think some attention to lifetime earnings and local tax burdens should be included in all these income-based decisions if we are truly looking at leveling playing fields. But on the other, I think we should just really level the playing fields outright. Health insurance and the cost of health care is a mess, and I think it is too messed up to fix and single payer is likely our only good option right now. Parental income should not effect college costs because college students are adults. And I do think we should really prioritize a talented, educated population and provide high quality university educations at low cost to the students. The entire population benefits from college educated individuals and keeping education cost lower should benefit everyone financially. 

So - if everyone had the same healthcare options, and students had quality education at low costs not impacted by parental income, what choices would you be making now?

There was a $20 an hour no benefits part time in a poverty district teaching reading I was offered last year that I would have taken. I like to do meaningful work. I don’t want to pay more to do so.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Some other thoughts on this after catching up on the posting.

I'm a firm believer in making hay while the sun shines. There are risks to postponing earning money for perceived benefits. Losing your health or ability to earn in some way, etc. And there are great benefits to work/life balance and spending more time with family/offspring.

I'm really fine with anyone deciding to make less money - with a caveat that they are paying their own way. So to Raeoflyte's comments - no you don't have to work as much as humanly possible, just pay your own way. In OPs case, it's a bit on the edge of paying your own way - so kind of debatable.

So - we are debating.

What OP didn't mention was getting food stamps, assistance with heating, using food pantries or anything like that. I think we'd have a clearer consensus if any of that was involved.

Lots of people manipulate income going into the college years, including full on retiring when oldest hits jr. year of HS. And I think that points to a huge flaw in the system. It ends up with people in better financial circumstances getting more financial assistance. 

I can deal with the hand I was dealt even if it is a shade less than 'fair' to my mind. I have other benefits that are increasing over time while I don't use others - my projected SS income has gone up each year. As does my employer 401k contribution on my behalf. I'm really using those tax-advantaged accounts to my benefit right now.

I'm working quite a bit more than 40/week currently, and I really don't want to. But that is the price I'm paying for the salary and benefits I have right now.

[gs11rmb]

Sept 25, 2020 11:36:05 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Sept 24, 2020 17:38:52 GMT -5 Clifford said:

I did turn down free healthcare - medicaid - and a lot of other benefits we qualified for. Kids got in trouble because I refused to fill in the forms for free/reduced lunch so I finally filled that out. We were hounded about that, and really irritated me. 

My mindset was you only take handouts if you are truly desperate/hungry/imending homelessness type situation. Not just because things are tight or uncomfortable. I've gotten over that to a large extent. 

The tuition thing is a bit more amorphous and I disagree with everything about college pricing and how financial aid is distributed and the entire student loan industry.

In my particular case, what did me in was being pretty low income for many years and then getting into a decent mid-income range just before the college years. I didn't have the income to save through most of the pre-college years, but after getting some salary increases - I made enough to get no aid outside of loans, but not enough money to cash flow anything either. So in my case, a catch 22. I also went back to school myself at the same time, in previous years that would have helped our case but that piece was eliminated, although I did get a lot of tuition waivers/teaching asssitanceship for myself in later years.

As I said - it doesn't sit well with me - but I'm not irate or angered or anything extreme like that! I know it's a path many take. For me - it's a bit of gaming the system. I wouldn't do it, and not thrilled it's done, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

On the one hand, I do think some attention to lifetime earnings and local tax burdens should be included in all these income-based decisions if we are truly looking at leveling playing fields. But on the other, I think we should just really level the playing fields outright. Health insurance and the cost of health care is a mess, and I think it is too messed up to fix and single payer is likely our only good option right now. Parental income should not effect college costs because college students are adults. And I do think we should really prioritize a talented, educated population and provide high quality university educations at low cost to the students. The entire population benefits from college educated individuals and keeping education cost lower should benefit everyone financially. 

So - if everyone had the same healthcare options, and students had quality education at low costs not impacted by parental income, what choices would you be making now?

I agree with the bolded wholeheartedly!

[azucena]

Sept 25, 2020 12:24:10 GMT -5 oped said:

Who was it who got a quote for Orton Gillingham tutoring that was like $128 an hour?

So I spent 3-4 hours a week not counting prep or travel time to do this the past 2 years for free for a family that could never have afforded it. A task I could undertake because I have the basics and the time. I guess I shouldn’t have done that and should have taken an 11$ an hour aid job to get insurance?

On the other hand I asked for volunteers to pilot and help me refine a Spelling curriculum I’m designing. One of my college roommates responded in a way that made it clear she thinks I should always give away my resources to teachers and parents and not charge for them.

It’s never all black and white. What we give and get from the system isn’t all quantifiable in the way some would like.

We need universal health care.

If you're still looking for volunteers that are elementary age students, I'll volunteer DD12 (7th) and DD8 (2nd).  Both are good readers so above average spellers

[Clifford]

Sept 25, 2020 11:36:05 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Sept 24, 2020 17:38:52 GMT -5 Clifford said:

So - if everyone had the same healthcare options, and students had quality education at low costs not impacted by parental income, what choices would you be making now?

If everyone had free/affordable healthcare and free/affordable quality education, I think it would reinforce my current decision to work less. I think that others would do it more as well with those concerns addressed. Again, I have 20 years of YMAM frugalness to cover emergencies and some retirement, so my opinion is biased toward time at home right now. If I didn't have that, I'd have to work beyond subsistence wages enough to put away for those events as well.

[Clifford]

Sept 25, 2020 12:41:14 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

What OP didn't mention was getting food stamps, assistance with heating, using food pantries or anything like that. I think we'd have a clearer consensus if any of that was involved.

We didn't apply for any of these, so I have no idea if we'd qualify. I don't need help with food or electricity.

We were begged to fill out the free lunch deal, as the school's funding apparently increases significantly based on # of kids receiving the benefit. So we filled it out, and the kids eat free/reduced. Turns out you get a few other perks with this one, like free ACT testing and waived college application fees, although we still paid to send the test results to DS's uni choices. Does my kid need free lunch? No. Does she take it? She might get a plate for the ice cream twice a week, then gives the rest of the tray to her carnivore friends. 

We pay for ourselves through ACA, which of course is also reduced based on income, but the kids were automatically kicked to the free programs.

[buystoys]

I have to wonder how many programs need a specified number of applicants to justify their existence.  DH and I get called every couple of weeks about programs to pay our share of Medicare every month and other programs such as rides to appointments.  We don't qualify for these or don't need them, so neither of us fills out the paperwork.  This thread has made me wonder if we should fill it out just to help keep the "user" numbers up.

[TheOtherMe]

I believe the free breakfast and lunch programs that started last summer due to covid do need a certain number of people eating the meals to keep their funding.

Currently all the schools near me are providing free meals for all students.

[jerseygirl]

Sept 25, 2020 14:41:36 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I have to wonder how many programs need a specified number of applicants to justify their existence.  DH and I get called every couple of weeks about programs to pay our share of Medicare every month and other programs such as rides to appointments.  We don't qualify for these or don't need them, so neither of us fills out the paperwork.  This thread has made me wonder if we should fill it out just to help keep the "user" numbers up.

Calls are about Medicare Advantage. If you qualify for Medicare you can get Advantage. It does have advantages like you mentioned rides to doctors, gym membership think vision and hearing aids. Lots of retired teachers have this plan.
However, Advsntage does limit the doctors and think it has a limited area where you’re covered. So if you want to use your present docs check it out and also might limit going e.g. to out if state hospitals like Mayo Clinic’s

[buystoys]

Sept 25, 2020 14:50:13 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Sept 25, 2020 14:41:36 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I have to wonder how many programs need a specified number of applicants to justify their existence.  DH and I get called every couple of weeks about programs to pay our share of Medicare every month and other programs such as rides to appointments.  We don't qualify for these or don't need them, so neither of us fills out the paperwork.  This thread has made me wonder if we should fill it out just to help keep the "user" numbers up.

Calls are about Medicare Advantage. If you qualify for Medicare you can get Advantage. It does have advantages like you mentioned rides to doctors, gym membership think vision and hearing aids. Lots of retired teachers have this plan.
However, Advsntage does limit the doctors and think it has a limited area where you’re covered. So if you want to use your present docs check it out and also might limit going e.g. to out if state hospitals like Mayo Clinic’s

I'm disabled, so an Advantage plan is all I can use for full coverage.  None of the regular secondary plans will cover me until I'm 65.  I know there are advantages and disadvantages.  I had to change mid-year because I was on a poor plan that didn't offer any coverage for mental health.  My own fault for not checking enough and taking their posted listings as correct.

I do still wonder if some of these services require a certain number of participants to get the financial help necessary to offer them.  Or if they look at the number of applications as who is interested in these programs.  Maybe I should go ahead and apply for some of them even though I know I don't qualify to help increase the applications number?  I don't know how they go about financing these additional services, some through the state and others through federal money.

[Deleted]

After many days of following this thread and honestly evaluating the wide variety of responses, I conclude that:

• We all have choices to make in our lives, and those choices determine our future path
• Choices involving income are 100% up to the individual UNTIL they involve someone else's money
• Choosing to earn less money and spend more time with family is awesome as long as the individual can support that family without assistance from taxpayer supported programs
• Freedom to choose a lifestyle doesn't sync with freeloading on taxpayers
• Social safety net programs were created to assist those who, due to unavoidable circumstances, needed help.  Please note the difference between unavoidable circumstances and choosing a lifestyle.