5 ms·

I was taught budgeting and basic finances in both middle and high school (I went to public school in NJ) and whatever I learned evaporated immediately because I

I was taught budgeting and basic finances in both middle and high school (I went to public school in NJ) and whatever I learned evaporated immediately because I had next to no use for it at the time. College (when people are getting more independence than they’ve had previously) is a much better time to teach people these skills. In general, I chafe at the types of educational arguments that go “we should teach kids more useful skills, like how to file a tax return!”. I think such arguments would benefit from the knowledge that some students are already being taught this, and need to relearn it when they get out into the work force anyway.

Bartweiss 9y ago
I strongly agree. A lot of the "teach skills early!" advocacy seems to come from people who have little contact with teaching or teachers. Teaching someone a skill they won't practice for 5+ years is a basically hopeless project; there's no incentive to learn it and little chance of retention if it is learned. I remember learning to balance a checkbook in 7th grade. Why? What on earth did that teach me? Certainly not how to balance a checkbook as an adult; the seven year gap between learning and having a checkbook meant I learned it from scratch as an adult, and frankly it's not a hard skill to gain without formal training. If we're going to push 'practical skills in the classroom', it ought to be done with an eye towards what's age-appropriate and likely to be retained. The same year I learned to balance a checkbook, I learned to use Microsoft Office competently, work a simplified email account, and handle basic cooking and laundry. All of those things got steady real-world practice and I retained them nicely. Instead of teaching tax returns and budgeting in middle school, I'd love to see high school students get trained in things like public speaking, studying skills, or critical reading of the news.
walshemj 9y ago
reforming the tax system so that most (like the UK) don't have to file a tax return might make more sense
- sokoloff 9y ago
  IMO, there's substantial benefit to people being made aware of how much they pay in taxes. I'd also like tax returns to be due 2-6 weeks before elections, so the figures are fresh in voters' minds. (That's not to say I'm anti-tax necessarily, just that a tighter the linkage between "what I pay" and "what I expect" would be beneficial.)
  - walshemj 9y ago
    It would benefit the hard right small state parties - that's one of the reasons the UK civil service has what's called purdah they are not allowed to issue information "which could be seen to be advantageous to any candidates or parties in the forthcoming election" But in the UK we do get a yearly break down of where our taxes go - just not directly before an election
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      Logically if releasing at time X would benefit party Y, then it would seem that party "not Y" is benefited by releasing the information at time "not X".
      - jopsen 9y ago
        No, logically, there are many more times than "X" and "not X", furthermore most countries have more parties than "Y" and "not Y". And there are different pieces of information that could be released. But it's also a false balance, just because two sides have different positions doesn't mean they are equal. Process abuse and dirty tricks are not okay.
  - hiram112 9y ago
    I don't think that most people even look at their pay stubs - either physically or electronically, so adding yet another sheet with a big pie chart with vague slices like FICA, Defense, etc. wouldn't accomplish much. Taxes are also hidden in various ways. The ACA is more or less a redistributive tax charged to your health care premiums. More than 10 percent of your salary is deducted as employer FICA contributions, but they are essentially paid by the employee in terms of salary potential. Property taxes and municipality costs are hidden in mortgage payments and rent. With the exception of more education, I think the only true way to get people to understand where their taxes are going would be to not auto-deduct it from their pay checks or as employer paid or bundle them in with other payments (like mortgages), but instead send them several distinct bills to be paid in-person to some representative of the beneficiary. For example, I think defense spending would be less popular if each worker had to write a check for a few thousand dollars every six months and go deliver it in person to the local army base. Same thing for Social Security and Medicare if young people were required to deliver a check to individual retired persons (who, would, statistically be in far better financial shape than the millennial). Obviously, this is too absurd to be implemented.
zrail 9y ago
> I was taught budgeting and basic finances in both middle and high school (I went to public school in NJ) and whatever I learned evaporated immediately because I had next to no use for it at the time. Absolutely. This is why, as a parent, I'm going to teach my kids about money early, letting them make consequential mistakes as early as possible, probably starting around 2nd or 3rd grade. We'll fund the roof over their heads, the food in the fridge, very basic clothes (shoes, socks and underwear, basic shirts and pants, basic outerwear) but anything else they'll have to spend their own money on. They'll get a fixed allowance plus they'll get extra money for doing things around the house. Initially this will be in "the bank of mom and dad" with a super high interest rate (like 5-10% per month) which will hopefully help make the concept of compounding interest stick earlier. Over time we'll transition to joint bank accounts with separate debit cards.
- kyteland 9y ago
  My parents taught me (most likely inadvertently) all kinds of financial lessons very early in life. I had a weekly allowance that was earned doing generic chores. There was a list of bigger spring-cleaning-style chores that had their own separate payouts. Most importantly, 50% of everything I "earned" was required to be saved in the bank. The rest was mine. Paying taxes and saving appropriately was never something I had a hard time doing as an adult.
  - zrail 9y ago
    Requiring 50% to be saved is a good move, I might steal that. I think I might also do a "match" to a Roth IRA when they're older and actually earning taxable income. My mom never tied allowance to chores, we were just expected to do chores. The problem with tying them together is that at some point the kid will just opt out and you have no leverage. I had a bank account but we were never diligent about deposits so saving was harder for me as a young adult.
    - kanzure 9y ago
      you could add another rule where interest doesn't accrue if they temporarily opt out of your system; in fact, it could be negative interest during that period.

Bartweiss 9y ago

I strongly agree. A lot of the "teach skills early!" advocacy seems to come from people who have little contact with teaching or teachers. Teaching someone a skill they won't practice for 5+ years is a basically hopeless project; there's no incentive to learn it and little chance of retention if it is learned. I remember learning to balance a checkbook in 7th grade. Why? What on earth did that teach me? Certainly not how to balance a checkbook as an adult; the seven year gap between learning and having a checkbook meant I learned it from scratch as an adult, and frankly it's not a hard skill to gain without formal training. If we're going to push 'practical skills in the classroom', it ought to be done with an eye towards what's age-appropriate and likely to be retained. The same year I learned to balance a checkbook, I learned to use Microsoft Office competently, work a simplified email account, and handle basic cooking and laundry. All of those things got steady real-world practice and I retained them nicely. Instead of teaching tax returns and budgeting in middle school, I'd love to see high school students get trained in things like public speaking, studying skills, or critical reading of the news.

walshemj 9y ago

reforming the tax system so that most (like the UK) don't have to file a tax return might make more sense

sokoloff 9y ago
IMO, there's substantial benefit to people being made aware of how much they pay in taxes. I'd also like tax returns to be due 2-6 weeks before elections, so the figures are fresh in voters' minds. (That's not to say I'm anti-tax necessarily, just that a tighter the linkage between "what I pay" and "what I expect" would be beneficial.)
- walshemj 9y ago
  It would benefit the hard right small state parties - that's one of the reasons the UK civil service has what's called purdah they are not allowed to issue information "which could be seen to be advantageous to any candidates or parties in the forthcoming election" But in the UK we do get a yearly break down of where our taxes go - just not directly before an election
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    Logically if releasing at time X would benefit party Y, then it would seem that party "not Y" is benefited by releasing the information at time "not X".
    - jopsen 9y ago
      No, logically, there are many more times than "X" and "not X", furthermore most countries have more parties than "Y" and "not Y". And there are different pieces of information that could be released. But it's also a false balance, just because two sides have different positions doesn't mean they are equal. Process abuse and dirty tricks are not okay.
- hiram112 9y ago
  I don't think that most people even look at their pay stubs - either physically or electronically, so adding yet another sheet with a big pie chart with vague slices like FICA, Defense, etc. wouldn't accomplish much. Taxes are also hidden in various ways. The ACA is more or less a redistributive tax charged to your health care premiums. More than 10 percent of your salary is deducted as employer FICA contributions, but they are essentially paid by the employee in terms of salary potential. Property taxes and municipality costs are hidden in mortgage payments and rent. With the exception of more education, I think the only true way to get people to understand where their taxes are going would be to not auto-deduct it from their pay checks or as employer paid or bundle them in with other payments (like mortgages), but instead send them several distinct bills to be paid in-person to some representative of the beneficiary. For example, I think defense spending would be less popular if each worker had to write a check for a few thousand dollars every six months and go deliver it in person to the local army base. Same thing for Social Security and Medicare if young people were required to deliver a check to individual retired persons (who, would, statistically be in far better financial shape than the millennial). Obviously, this is too absurd to be implemented.

zrail 9y ago

> I was taught budgeting and basic finances in both middle and high school (I went to public school in NJ) and whatever I learned evaporated immediately because I had next to no use for it at the time. Absolutely. This is why, as a parent, I'm going to teach my kids about money early, letting them make consequential mistakes as early as possible, probably starting around 2nd or 3rd grade. We'll fund the roof over their heads, the food in the fridge, very basic clothes (shoes, socks and underwear, basic shirts and pants, basic outerwear) but anything else they'll have to spend their own money on. They'll get a fixed allowance plus they'll get extra money for doing things around the house. Initially this will be in "the bank of mom and dad" with a super high interest rate (like 5-10% per month) which will hopefully help make the concept of compounding interest stick earlier. Over time we'll transition to joint bank accounts with separate debit cards.

kyteland 9y ago
My parents taught me (most likely inadvertently) all kinds of financial lessons very early in life. I had a weekly allowance that was earned doing generic chores. There was a list of bigger spring-cleaning-style chores that had their own separate payouts. Most importantly, 50% of everything I "earned" was required to be saved in the bank. The rest was mine. Paying taxes and saving appropriately was never something I had a hard time doing as an adult.
- zrail 9y ago
  Requiring 50% to be saved is a good move, I might steal that. I think I might also do a "match" to a Roth IRA when they're older and actually earning taxable income. My mom never tied allowance to chores, we were just expected to do chores. The problem with tying them together is that at some point the kid will just opt out and you have no leverage. I had a bank account but we were never diligent about deposits so saving was harder for me as a young adult.
  - kanzure 9y ago
    you could add another rule where interest doesn't accrue if they temporarily opt out of your system; in fact, it could be negative interest during that period.