school supplies!

I think that might be another example of cultural differences! From
what I have read there are huge differences between buying a house in
teh UK and buying one in the USA.

Over here, you pay tax when buying a house, but it has nothing to do
with property taxes going to the local council, it goes to the main
government. Property taxes are charged completely seperately. I can
completely understand that Anne's dh might not have realised that this
bill didn't need to be paid.

Exactly, Penny it's an enormous cultural difference, it's not a case of
not understanding and not asking, but not even knowing you didn't
understand, so you can't even ask. Though obviously there are many times
when we don't understand, but you can't ask every time, just as if you
put an 11 year old in a class for 17 year olds, they wouldn't
understand, but you'd waste a lot of time if they asked every question,
so you find a middle ground of asking the question that you think might
unlock doors to further understanding, but if it's the 11 year old
working out which question they are it will be a bit hit and miss, the
teacher is the best person and the 17 year old might have a good idea.
We're the 11 year olds, our friends are the 17 year olds and the
officials are the teacher. You ask the 17 year old the questions like,
what on earth are those blue and orange rectangles on car number plates
and hopefully get the answer "tags, they show you've paided your car tax
and when it's due", and with that info you can pin down further details,
without that info you wouldn't even know which agency was responsible
for them or whether you needed to do anything about them!

Cheers
Anne

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Anne Rogers wrote:

I don't know how they will run the wipes system, whether each child
will have to find their own or whether they will just use the packets in
sequence until they are done and if they are doing that, why can they
not just buy more of what they are already buying and up our fees by
however many cents that costs? They give us 10 dollars a month discount
for having 2 kids there, I'd rather not discount that 10 dollars and not
have had to buy baby wipes!

Usually they pool the things like wipes and tissues and
hand sanitizer and such. I've heard a gazillion people say they
wish the school would just buy the supplies and bill the parents
if necessary, but I think that must not be the prevailing
attitude. As I said, I'm shocked every year that most of the
parents don't take advantage of the PTA sponsored class supplies
kits, and given the demographics of the school, cost is definitely
not the leading explanation for why people don't go for it.
I don't know what the reason is, but it's clear that when given
the opportunity most of the people here don't choose to pony
up the money and have someone else provide the supplies.

Have you done a survey of that? Or brought it up at a PTA meeting or the like?

It could be that folks think they can do better shopping on their own (although
like you say the demographic should be OK with a pre-package). It could be that
they assume it's yet another Xmas wrapping/candy bar/popcorn sales kind of
fundraiser, and decline. Fundraiser fatigue spilling over.

Or, maybe it's not advertised enough or not with enough lead time - like, if the
info is sent out Aug 15 with the bus route information, or something like that,
and everyone has already stocked up. Or its just a fairly new program that
needs time to catch on.

I really suspect something in the implementation and communication part of your
particular situation.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...

It could be that folks think they can do better shopping on their own
(although
like you say the demographic should be OK with a pre-package). It could
be that
they assume it's yet another Xmas wrapping/candy bar/popcorn sales kind of
fundraiser, and decline. Fundraiser fatigue spilling over.

This is what I would assume. I would think it's probably overpriced,
especially if another company is assembling and selling it. I might pay
money for the PTA to buy in bulk and distribute to the classrooms as needed,
but not for prepackaged stuff sold from another company. I could do a
better job myself buying things that I think are a better quality or value.

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Anne Rogers wrote:

I don't know how they will run the wipes system, whether each child
will have to find their own or whether they will just use the packets in
sequence until they are done and if they are doing that, why can they
not just buy more of what they are already buying and up our fees by
however many cents that costs? They give us 10 dollars a month discount
for having 2 kids there, I'd rather not discount that 10 dollars and not
have had to buy baby wipes!
Usually they pool the things like wipes and tissues and
hand sanitizer and such. I've heard a gazillion people say they
wish the school would just buy the supplies and bill the parents
if necessary, but I think that must not be the prevailing
attitude. As I said, I'm shocked every year that most of the
parents don't take advantage of the PTA sponsored class supplies
kits, and given the demographics of the school, cost is definitely
not the leading explanation for why people don't go for it.
I don't know what the reason is, but it's clear that when given
the opportunity most of the people here don't choose to pony
up the money and have someone else provide the supplies.

Have you done a survey of that? Or brought it up at a PTA meeting or the like?

The PTA has certainly discussed it.

It could be that folks think they can do better shopping on their own (although
like you say the demographic should be OK with a pre-package). It could be that
they assume it's yet another Xmas wrapping/candy bar/popcorn sales kind of
fundraiser, and decline. Fundraiser fatigue spilling over.

No, it's abundantly clear that it's not a fundraiser.
I think it's most likely to be that people simply want to buy
their own supplies and that doesn't outweigh their dislike of
dealing with crowds, travel, multiple stores, being out of
certain supplies, or whatever else people are complaining about
in this thread.

Or, maybe it's not advertised enough or not with enough lead time - like, if the
info is sent out Aug 15 with the bus route information, or something like that,
and everyone has already stocked up. Or its just a fairly new program that
needs time to catch on.

Been going on several years. Orders happen in the spring,
before the previous school year ends. Plenty of notice, plenty of
opportunities to get the form in. Comes home in the regular Tuesday
folders several weeks in a row.

I really suspect something in the implementation and communication part of your
particular situation.

Not likely. It's been gone over any number of ways,
and the system is very easy to use for the parents. Return
one form with check in the usual Tuesday folder (the same
mechanism that you use for everything else) and supplies show up
at school ready to go. People simply choose to shop for their
own supplies. There are probably a few who figure they can
get the supplies for less shopping on their own (and they're
correct, if they shop sales carefully), I just don't think that's
an explanation for the vast majority in a district where the
median income is well over six figures.

Best wishes,
Ericka

toypup wrote:


"Banty" wrote in message
...

It could be that folks think they can do better shopping on their own
(although
like you say the demographic should be OK with a pre-package). It
could be that
they assume it's yet another Xmas wrapping/candy bar/popcorn sales
kind of
fundraiser, and decline. Fundraiser fatigue spilling over.

This is what I would assume.

Nope. Abundantly clear it's not a fundraiser.

I would think it's probably overpriced,
especially if another company is assembling and selling it. I

Not really. When initially evaluating the program, they
compared costs and found that they were quite comparable. You
can do better if you really shop around and hunt down sales,
or if you go with really cheap brands, but you won't beat the
price without some effort beyond walking into your office supply
store and picking up what's on the list.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Anne Rogers wrote:

I don't know how they will run the wipes system, whether each child
will have to find their own or whether they will just use the packets in
sequence until they are done and if they are doing that, why can they
not just buy more of what they are already buying and up our fees by
however many cents that costs? They give us 10 dollars a month discount
for having 2 kids there, I'd rather not discount that 10 dollars and not
have had to buy baby wipes!
Usually they pool the things like wipes and tissues and
hand sanitizer and such. I've heard a gazillion people say they
wish the school would just buy the supplies and bill the parents
if necessary, but I think that must not be the prevailing
attitude. As I said, I'm shocked every year that most of the
parents don't take advantage of the PTA sponsored class supplies
kits, and given the demographics of the school, cost is definitely
not the leading explanation for why people don't go for it.
I don't know what the reason is, but it's clear that when given
the opportunity most of the people here don't choose to pony
up the money and have someone else provide the supplies.

Have you done a survey of that? Or brought it up at a PTA meeting or the like?

The PTA has certainly discussed it.

It could be that folks think they can do better shopping on their own (although
like you say the demographic should be OK with a pre-package). It could be that
they assume it's yet another Xmas wrapping/candy bar/popcorn sales kind of
fundraiser, and decline. Fundraiser fatigue spilling over.

No, it's abundantly clear that it's not a fundraiser.
I think it's most likely to be that people simply want to buy
their own supplies and that doesn't outweigh their dislike of
dealing with crowds, travel, multiple stores, being out of
certain supplies, or whatever else people are complaining about
in this thread.

OK.


Or, maybe it's not advertised enough or not with enough lead time - like, if the
info is sent out Aug 15 with the bus route information, or something like that,
and everyone has already stocked up. Or its just a fairly new program that
needs time to catch on.

Been going on several years. Orders happen in the spring,
before the previous school year ends. Plenty of notice, plenty of
opportunities to get the form in. Comes home in the regular Tuesday
folders several weeks in a row.

Maybe the springtime timing is the problem. It's like selling overcoats in
July. People just aren't thinking about it and put it off.

Banty

Anne Rogers wrote:


If you didn't understand it,you should have asked. It isn't necessary
to blame this on 'things that are assumed'. You ask and keep on
asking until you understand everything. Don't let them fob you off
with some wonky explanation.

But the problem was DH didn't even know to ask, as far as he was
concered, he'd received a bill, it had a due date and he paid it by the
due date. It's all very well saying ask, but it wouldn't have even
occurred to him to ask because why would he think that there was some
other bizarre way of paying the bill that would happen automatically.

I tried to write this to you privately, but you don't have your real
email address there.

The time to ask was at the closing, not when you get the bill.
Property taxes are always dealt with at the closing. If you had asked
then your husband would have known what to do with the bill

Because it isn't for information only. At least check with the bank.
Weren't there also insurance, electric and other utility bills being
dealt with at the closing.

Which is precisely the problem, yes, all bills were dealt with at
closing, but all except the tax from that point on would be paid
directly by us. Later when we pulled out all the paperwork to look
through and see if it was clear whether tax was being with the mortgage
and it wasn't crystal clear. It may well have been if that had been the
only thing we were dealing with at the time, but it wasn't, we weren't
simply buying a house, but we'd moved continents, DH was starting a new
job something that if it was the only complicated thing you were dealing
with that had some vague familiarity to it is a lot easier than dealing
with that and everything else, when it's completely unfamiliar. Buying a
house in the US is completely different every step of the way to buying
a house in the UK and I don't think any of the people that we were
working with fully appreciated that, they had no difficulty
communicating with us, so I don't think realised that they needed to
explain things as carefully and as clearly as they might someone who
spoke a different language. For example, it was assumed we knew what
Escrow was, we didn't, we asked and found out, dealing with bills at
escrow seemed a good idea, as we'd had problems with that in the UK,
where there is nothing formalised about it, the new owner generally
rings the utilities and says we are moving in on such and such a day,
please terminate the contract of the previous owner, then when you move
in you do all the meter readings and call up with them, which is both

The man who bought my mom's house wanted to take over her phone
number, and we said that he could. Then the DSL line that she had,
which had been transferred to me was disconnected because he said he
didn't have one (which he didn't) and wouldn't pay it. I had to fight
with them for months over this (my line was disconnected late Friday
twice), which I wouldn't have had to do if I had just said no you
can't have this number.

complicated and unreliable and the previous owner of our house didn't
pay the bills and we had bailiffs coming round looking for him. So we
thought we understood what was going on and had to provide details about
lots of things, it really wasn't clear that one of those lots of things
, the tax was tagged on to the homeloan and continually paid via escrow.

The whole process was a bit like trying to understand an advanced class
having not sat the basic ones, you ask questions and you think you
understand the answers, but later you realise that the way you
constructed the question the person was answering a different thing and
what you thought they meant by the answer actually meant something
different.

So, if that bill wasn't "for information only", then do the tax people
have no idea where the payment is coming from? if so, are we then

They don't care where the money comes from as long as they get it.

expected to forward the bill to the relevant people, or are the tax
people sending one to us and one to them? if so, ours is "for
information only", yes we need that information, but a bill with nothing
else mentioned on it is a bill that needs paying. It's a bit like when
we get a bill from the hospital, but they've also sent it to our
insurance, it's quite clearly stamped on it that it's for our
information only, if it wasn't, then we'd have to call up the hospital
to find out if they had actually sent it to our insurance or lost the
details, or if we were expected to forward it to our insurance, I'm not
quite sure this particular hospital sends a copy to the patient as no
other office/clinic we've used does, but at least they don't give us a
fright by not saying anything on the bill that implies we're not
expected to pay it. I'd be surprised if the tax payment system is such

I've had hospitals continually bill me for things that were already
paid by insurance. I've even had one bill me for a bill where I got
the person who had been owed the money write to them and explain that
he had been paid. I don't think I've ever gone on a long trip when
whoever was handling our mail hasn't had to deal with an incorrect
medical bill. Even in some cases they threatened to sue and the bill
had already been paid.

The telephone company continually sends us bills which are
automatically paid by credit card and they never say on the bills that
it is for information only.

that the tax receivers have no idea who the payment is coming from, only
send the bill to the homeowner and then randomly receive payment on
their behalf from escrow, if that's the case then it is reasonable to
say nothing extra on the bill, though I'd be surprised if that was how
it worked, on the other hand, if they are expecting to receive payment
via escrow and they are sending out two bills then one should be marked
in some way, it's not reasonable for anyone in the position of sending
out bills to send out multiple copies without indicating which one they
are expecting to receive payment from and which is just so everyone
knows what is going on - then if we knew we'd paid off the mortage and
no longer had the escrow account, the bill that we received for our
information, we'd know we had to do something about it, similarly if we
got one that had gone into arrears, we'd know we had to call the escrow
company and work out what had gone wrong etc.

For us it really has been a big problem that we apparently speak the
same language, but when you to anything technical, it really isn't the
same language, no tax in the US is called the same name in the UK and
there are even some which have the same name, but are different things.

For a house closing the language is foreign to everyone except maybe
the bankers and maybe even them sometimes. That's what I meant when I
said that you needed to ask about every term and what it meant at the
closing. Most of us in the US do not throw terms like 'escrow' and
'in arrears' around in our everyday speech.

Same with cars, there are very few parts of cars, or things surrounding
them that have the same names, so it can be hard work to figure
everything out - so it's hardly surprising that from time to time we get

I am pretty sure that I know the equivalents (car wise) of the UK and
US terms. It's not so hard.

it wrong - all the small things that others have mentioned not knowing
because it was their first child at that school, or whatever, happens to
us or whatever in every walk of life and just as the school didn't think
to mention, or informed in a way that wasn't necessarily obvious to the
newcomer happens all the time, very few websites have glossaries and
they are often the main source of information and put there by the
officials.

Here's one example, I didn't know until recently that you needed to
carry your drivers license whilst driving, the Washington State Drivers
Guide said you needed to license to drive - which to me meant have
obtained your license, it be still valid and what not, not that it was
in your pocket whilst you were driving. The crime of driving without a
license, to me meant driving without having a license at all, not
driving without it upon your person. When I found this out, I scoured
the driver licensing website and found no mention of it, only the above,
which as I've already explained I read differently - and is a valid way
of reading it according to a US dictionary. It took ages to find
confirmation of this, eventually I found evidence that is the case by
finding a tiny bit of information deep in the transcripts of debate at
state senate about different fines for driving without a license based
on whether you actually owned one and could produce it later, or whether
you really didn't have one - so even in finding out about a law of the
state there is no clear expression of what it is, there is some
statement of the law that is more formal than the drivers guide, but it
says something that techincally is equally ambiguous, but by someone in
the know would be read one way and for someone coming from a country
where you don't have to carry your license, but do have to have one to
drive, would be read as just that.

It is different in different states. Most of the time it is a minor
problem, like having a headlight out.

I was hit by an uninsured driver whose license had been suspended. The
charging officer only charged him for not being able to produce a
license, not for driving on a suspended license or for lack of
insurance because he didn't know that at the time. The driver (who
broke 4 of my ribs and totaled my car) was only charged $25 and court
costs for that.

"toypup" wrote:

"Clisby" wrote in message
om...
A different type of mortgage? Or do you mean that if you put down at
least 20% you don't have to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI)? If
nobody told you about the PMI, that's truly astounding.

I do think it's possible that when something is widely known, everyone
assumes that everyone else knows it. So when Anne asks about a different
mortgage when she means saving on PMI, no one knows what type of different
mortgage she's talking about. No one would even think she's asking about
something so widely known, they must think she's asking about something very
obscure, especially if she's specifically asking about a *different*
mortgage. She's not even aware of what to call this thing doesn't know
exist. It's easy for me to see her difficulty. I'm not sure why everyone
is giving her a hard time.

I tried to email her privately and it bounced.

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Anne Rogers wrote:

I don't know how they will run the wipes system, whether each child
will have to find their own or whether they will just use the packets in
sequence until they are done and if they are doing that, why can they
not just buy more of what they are already buying and up our fees by
however many cents that costs? They give us 10 dollars a month discount
for having 2 kids there, I'd rather not discount that 10 dollars and not
have had to buy baby wipes!
Usually they pool the things like wipes and tissues and
hand sanitizer and such. I've heard a gazillion people say they
wish the school would just buy the supplies and bill the parents
if necessary, but I think that must not be the prevailing
attitude. As I said, I'm shocked every year that most of the
parents don't take advantage of the PTA sponsored class supplies
kits, and given the demographics of the school, cost is definitely
not the leading explanation for why people don't go for it.
I don't know what the reason is, but it's clear that when given
the opportunity most of the people here don't choose to pony
up the money and have someone else provide the supplies.
Have you done a survey of that? Or brought it up at a PTA meeting or the like?
The PTA has certainly discussed it.

It could be that folks think they can do better shopping on their own (although
like you say the demographic should be OK with a pre-package). It could be that
they assume it's yet another Xmas wrapping/candy bar/popcorn sales kind of
fundraiser, and decline. Fundraiser fatigue spilling over.
No, it's abundantly clear that it's not a fundraiser.
I think it's most likely to be that people simply want to buy
their own supplies and that doesn't outweigh their dislike of
dealing with crowds, travel, multiple stores, being out of
certain supplies, or whatever else people are complaining about
in this thread.

OK.

Or, maybe it's not advertised enough or not with enough lead time - like, if the
info is sent out Aug 15 with the bus route information, or something like that,
and everyone has already stocked up. Or its just a fairly new program that
needs time to catch on.
Been going on several years. Orders happen in the spring,
before the previous school year ends. Plenty of notice, plenty of
opportunities to get the form in. Comes home in the regular Tuesday
folders several weeks in a row.

Maybe the springtime timing is the problem. It's like selling overcoats in
July. People just aren't thinking about it and put it off.

Could be, but the alternative of trying to do it in
the fall is a no-go, so it is what it is. Short of the school
itself making centralized purchasing of supplies a requirement,
I don't think there's much to be done about it. I just don't
think that the majority of folks are upset enough about the
status quo to do something different. I'm just hoping that
enough parents keep buying the kids that the PTA keeps making
the arrangements ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

The time to ask was at the closing, not when you get the bill.
Property taxes are always dealt with at the closing. If you had asked
then your husband would have known what to do with the bill

But as I said, we didn't even know to ask and the lack of knowledge
wasn't to do with the Escrow anyway, we knew that there was some
component of it that was paying a certain time period of property tax.
The lack of knowledge was in terms of where the money we pay monthly for
the home loan goes, we assumed it goes to pay of interest and capital,
not that it goes to that plus keeps a bit extra aside to pay the
property tax - and we never saw the mortgage person face to face there
were phone calls and emails to collect bits of information, both between
us and the mortgage person and between the mortgage person and the
realtor, obviously things must have been signed, but I think they were
probably faxed to legal people, so there was never a time when someone
who actually knew the details of the mortgage was in the same room as us
and explaining each step.

As I'd got the vague idea that something like this was happening, but it
was DH that had had the majority of contact with the mortgage person, I,
not unreasonably, had no reason to think that DH had no idea that such a
thing happened, assuming that as he'd spoken to the mortgage guy, what
I'd heard from a friend had either been explained to him, or it was
something optional or only applied to houses, or something. But from his
perspective, he'd been asked for details of many numbers, things like
what are homeowner dues, because they use all those to calculate what
loan amout you can get, so even though information had been exchanged
about property tax, it was one number among many and not stated to him
that he was providing this particular number because it was going to be
paid that way and it would never occur to him that it might occur that
way because from his knowledge at that time that was a completely brand
new concept.

Whatever way you look at it, it comes down to not even knowing what
question to ask, as you said it's confusing for anyone, double or triple
that confusion and you to start having to trust the people you are
working with, otherwise you never would actually complete the sale -
which was touch and go anyway - silly stuff like us being given a sum
for the amount we needed to transfer, going to the bank to do the wire
transfer and literally as the person is about to hit send, a cell phone
ringing with a different number.

It's quite possible that DH was told that the property tax was paid this
way, but then 6 months down the line had forgotten, which then comes
down to the basic assumption, which from you're experience turns out not
to be true, but as far as we've experienced is in the UK. As you might
expect there are differences in the banking system, automated payments
coming from credit cards don't really exist, though if they did it is
logical that a bill wouldn't say anything different to usual as that's a
system you've set up. Instead a common way to pay bills automatically is
direct debit, which is set up by you providing your bank details to the
company you are paying money to and them doing the leg work, i.e.
completely the opposite way round to how you set up an automated bill
pay here, so if you've set up a direct debit for a bill, you will get
the bill and it will be marked in someway. In theory we did set up the
payment of property tax, but it was involuntary, without us being aware
of it, so I do see what you are saying about why would they mark the
bill, given there must be some kind of law set to make it be that way,
then I don't think it's unreasonable to think that maybe there might be
some general information on the back, or wherever there is information
about how to pay your bill, saying something along the lines of such and
such a law requires loan companies to to whatever, if you have a home
loan this bill will likely be paid in this way, please confirm with
them, or something like that. But the when I get bills here there often
isn't clear information how to pay, sometimes there is a small print,
somewhere on it that tells you who to make a cheque payable to - whereas
in the UK it is very common for bills to be printed on paper that the
business uses only for bills and for the back to be preprinted with
extensive details about their specific payment options, and if it's
something like council tax how to apply for benefits as well. So a
prescription slip is the same across the country and on the back it will
have a list of who is eligible for help with payment or free, etc, I
think we are obviously a nation that likes writing on the back of paper
as I regularly find myself turning paper over to see what is on the
back, only to find it's blank - and it's back to not knowing what
questions to ask, if the only details a bill has is who to pay a cheque
to, then I'd probably assume I had to pay by cheque, but once I had to
call as a cheque must have gone astray in the post and apparently they
could take a payment by credit card over the phone!

Cheers
Anne