7 ms·

'Rich' is a relative term. > living in a $1.2 million home and earning more than $250,000 a year. In other words, you make enough to not qualify for any aid,

'Rich' is a relative term. > living in a $1.2 million home and earning more than $250,000 a year. In other words, you make enough to not qualify for any aid, bit not enough to have $60k/yr disposable income. I see where the parents are coming from.

pier25 7y ago
They could have not bought a 1.2M home...
- okmokmz 7y ago
  That's certainly not true. For those of you downvoting me, my parents home is currently valued at 1.134m and at the time of purchasing my Dad made less than 250k a year. It absolutely is possible to purchase a house worth 1.2m making 250k a year. Maybe not a great financial decision, but certainly possible. It's pretty incredible that a statement such as "They could have not bought a 1.2M home..." is upvoted, despite being obviously false as there absolutely are people that make 250kish and purchase homes worth over a million (such as my parents) but I get downvoted for stating that that statement was false, even though it is accurate. The upvotes/downvotes on this site are just as toxic as reddit; people use them as an agree/disagree button regardless of factuality or relevancy, and don't even comment to provide a counter point
  - pier25 7y ago
    > despite being obviously false as there absolutely are people that make 250kish and purchase homes worth over a million Yes, but my point is not whether they can but whether they should.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      My mistake, I read "they could not have" rather than "they could have not"
- nemothekid 7y ago
  In some parts of the country where you could earning 250,000+, the crappiest homes start at 800k.
- quaquaqua1 7y ago
  That's not an option for people who live in parts of California, New York, Seattle etc where median home prices are over 1M USD. Surely you don't want to penalize those people who arr grossing a lot but netting very little.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- nickbauman 7y ago
  many folks bought a $250k home that's now valued at 1.2 mil. They couldn't afford the home they live in how if they were buying.
  - zaccus 7y ago
    Even assuming they still owe the full 250k, that's almost a million dollars in equity. They could easily afford another 1.2MM home if they sell.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  If that home is in somewhere like SF, Los Angeles, or NY it could be a pretty small home. My house is a 3 bedroom, 1500sq/ft, not super fancy.... and is $1,000,000
scarface74 7y ago
Well, they had the choice of not buying a home that was four to five times the median while having a household income that was also four times the median.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Did they? They could have bought it 30 years ago when it was $200,000.
  - zaccus 7y ago
    In that case they have a paid off home with 1.2MM in equity. They can definitely afford college.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      Yeah, but if they sell the house and want to live in the same area, they are going to have to spend just as much on a new place.
      - zaccus 7y ago
        ...which they'll be able to afford, since they sold their house for 1.2MM.
        cortesoft 7y ago
        Except they have to pay taxes on the new amount, if they only have the income to support a $200,000 house, that tax bill will be pretty brutal.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Life is all about choices. They can choose not to live in the same area, to downsize, not to send their kids to an expensive college, let their kids pay for college through loans, they can take out loans, etc. Why should I subsidize their choice when I chose to live in an area where the cost of living vs salary is much more amenable to my choices and financial goals for me and my family?
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
1.2m home and $250k/yr is not enough to have $60k disposable in places where everything runs on monopoly bucks (SF, NYC, etc). Travel 4hr in any direction from those kind of places and you easily have $60k of disposable income.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Travel 4 hours in any direction from SF and you’re either working remotely, running a business, or not making $250k/year. Remote work and entrepreneurship are not options for everyone.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Fine then. Make it 1hr on the east coast and 2hr on the west coast. If you don't mind living in a city/town that makes your upper middle class coworkers cringe you can still find places with a reasonable cost of living. They won't have the greatest schools but living somewhere for the "good schools" is overrated (that's outside the scope of this comment).
ska 7y ago
> bit not enough to have $60k/yr disposable income. It's not like college is an unforeseeable expense. On $250k per year you should be comfortably able to plan for putting a couple of kids through college. Same holds true for most people on track for $250k/yr when their kids are in college. You may have to forgo a new Mercedes, but that's fine.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  Maybe they bought the house yesterday, adopted 17-year-old septuplets, and were heavily long MySpace, Enron, and Borders.
  - ska 7y ago
    Sure, but that's not the way the smart money would bet. It might make sense to adjust how the wealth test is applied (I don't know how it works), but it's just silly to suggest that the average family with a $250k/yr income can't afford to send a kid or two to college.
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      My response was tongue-in-cheek. :)
zaccus 7y ago
Eh, if I made 250k/yr I bet I could make it work, especially considering it's only a 4 year obligation. You have a lot of options at that income level; even if I couldn't come up with 60k/yr straight cash, I could finance part of it over a decade or so any hardly feel it. Also, my kid can take on 20k or so their damn self so they have some skin in the game. 20k is nothing. It's pretty hard to sympathize tbh, when I've had to work with waaaaay tighter budgets than that for extended periods.
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  > I could finance part of it over a decade Your present situation is not a guarantee of future income levels.

pier25 7y ago

They could have not bought a 1.2M home...

okmokmz 7y ago
That's certainly not true. For those of you downvoting me, my parents home is currently valued at 1.134m and at the time of purchasing my Dad made less than 250k a year. It absolutely is possible to purchase a house worth 1.2m making 250k a year. Maybe not a great financial decision, but certainly possible. It's pretty incredible that a statement such as "They could have not bought a 1.2M home..." is upvoted, despite being obviously false as there absolutely are people that make 250kish and purchase homes worth over a million (such as my parents) but I get downvoted for stating that that statement was false, even though it is accurate. The upvotes/downvotes on this site are just as toxic as reddit; people use them as an agree/disagree button regardless of factuality or relevancy, and don't even comment to provide a counter point
- pier25 7y ago
  > despite being obviously false as there absolutely are people that make 250kish and purchase homes worth over a million Yes, but my point is not whether they can but whether they should.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - okmokmz 7y ago
    My mistake, I read "they could not have" rather than "they could have not"
nemothekid 7y ago
In some parts of the country where you could earning 250,000+, the crappiest homes start at 800k.
quaquaqua1 7y ago
That's not an option for people who live in parts of California, New York, Seattle etc where median home prices are over 1M USD. Surely you don't want to penalize those people who arr grossing a lot but netting very little.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
nickbauman 7y ago
many folks bought a $250k home that's now valued at 1.2 mil. They couldn't afford the home they live in how if they were buying.
- zaccus 7y ago
  Even assuming they still owe the full 250k, that's almost a million dollars in equity. They could easily afford another 1.2MM home if they sell.
cortesoft 7y ago
If that home is in somewhere like SF, Los Angeles, or NY it could be a pretty small home. My house is a 3 bedroom, 1500sq/ft, not super fancy.... and is $1,000,000

scarface74 7y ago

Well, they had the choice of not buying a home that was four to five times the median while having a household income that was also four times the median.

cortesoft 7y ago
Did they? They could have bought it 30 years ago when it was $200,000.
- zaccus 7y ago
  In that case they have a paid off home with 1.2MM in equity. They can definitely afford college.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Yeah, but if they sell the house and want to live in the same area, they are going to have to spend just as much on a new place.
    - zaccus 7y ago
      ...which they'll be able to afford, since they sold their house for 1.2MM.
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        Except they have to pay taxes on the new amount, if they only have the income to support a $200,000 house, that tax bill will be pretty brutal.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Life is all about choices. They can choose not to live in the same area, to downsize, not to send their kids to an expensive college, let their kids pay for college through loans, they can take out loans, etc. Why should I subsidize their choice when I chose to live in an area where the cost of living vs salary is much more amenable to my choices and financial goals for me and my family?

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

1.2m home and $250k/yr is not enough to have $60k disposable in places where everything runs on monopoly bucks (SF, NYC, etc). Travel 4hr in any direction from those kind of places and you easily have $60k of disposable income.

pmiller2 7y ago
Travel 4 hours in any direction from SF and you’re either working remotely, running a business, or not making $250k/year. Remote work and entrepreneurship are not options for everyone.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Fine then. Make it 1hr on the east coast and 2hr on the west coast. If you don't mind living in a city/town that makes your upper middle class coworkers cringe you can still find places with a reasonable cost of living. They won't have the greatest schools but living somewhere for the "good schools" is overrated (that's outside the scope of this comment).

ska 7y ago

> bit not enough to have $60k/yr disposable income. It's not like college is an unforeseeable expense. On $250k per year you should be comfortably able to plan for putting a couple of kids through college. Same holds true for most people on track for $250k/yr when their kids are in college. You may have to forgo a new Mercedes, but that's fine.

cgriswald 7y ago
Maybe they bought the house yesterday, adopted 17-year-old septuplets, and were heavily long MySpace, Enron, and Borders.
- ska 7y ago
  Sure, but that's not the way the smart money would bet. It might make sense to adjust how the wealth test is applied (I don't know how it works), but it's just silly to suggest that the average family with a $250k/yr income can't afford to send a kid or two to college.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    My response was tongue-in-cheek. :)

zaccus 7y ago

Eh, if I made 250k/yr I bet I could make it work, especially considering it's only a 4 year obligation. You have a lot of options at that income level; even if I couldn't come up with 60k/yr straight cash, I could finance part of it over a decade or so any hardly feel it. Also, my kid can take on 20k or so their damn self so they have some skin in the game. 20k is nothing. It's pretty hard to sympathize tbh, when I've had to work with waaaaay tighter budgets than that for extended periods.

purple_ducks 7y ago
> I could finance part of it over a decade Your present situation is not a guarantee of future income levels.