If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... AZ wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... GudGye11 wrote: In article , (Indyguy1) writes: Bingo. The point I have been making for years, as to why it is wrong for CS to stop at 18 in many cases, especially if they are are seeking some sort of post secondary education. I respectfully disagree with that: When a child is 18, he/she is an adult. Period. You can whine and bitch and moan to the contrary, but it's the truth. At that point, kids who are adults can and do make life-altering decisions for themselves. And they should. Then the feds ought to treat those between 18 and 25 as independants, because they DON'T. --------------- Yes the feds SHOULD treat adults as independents. Once you turn 18 you are an adult with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it. Really? It just isn't the Fed that won't look at 18 yr olds as adults, you know. You also have the drinking age, insurance companies, and car rental agencies that don't look at 18 as a fully cooked adult. ---------------------- They should look at 18 year olds as adults. ------------------- --------------- Until a student turns 25 student aid is handed out based on what a students parents earn, with some really narrow exceptions that few 18-24 yr old fall under. This is my MAIN reason for my wanting support of the post 18 group. If the feds wouldn't set up an EFC (estimated family contribution) that basically says *you as parents need to chip in this amount* I think I'd soften my feelings regarding this. --------------------- So if the 18 year old adults were treated as adults, seperate and independant of their parents by the feds you would agree that 18 year olds are adults? Nope, see above. Let's face it, a kid doesn't wake up on their 18th birthday and necessarily have all the skills, maturity and financial ability to move out and go it alone. ------------------- By the time a kid is 18 (s)he can already have over two years of work experience, could save the money they earned, could have a checking account and even a credit card, (co-signed). At 18 a person should have enough skills to keep their own place,(or share with roomates), cook their own food, wash their own clothes, own and maintain their own car, pay their own bills and get to work on time. What more is there? If someone at 18 can't do these simple things then I don't see how 3 more years is going to make much difference. ----------------------- Sure some kids can do it, but to be honest with you I have 2 kids one 18 and one 21 and out of their huge circles of friends there is only one friend of theirs that is out on his own and he is 21. --------------------- EVERYONE I knew when I was a teenager was chomping at the bit at 17,(upon graduating from high school), to move out on their own. I had already rented an apartment in a different city and was nearly all the way moved in on my 18th birthday. At 19 I moved to LA. Unfortunately, then I was a passenger in a car accident that left me in and out of concsiousness for a year. That was bad. But as soon as I was able I picked up once more and headed to Tucson to try my luck. Fast forward 20 years and my mom and I bought a house together. Having it built to our specifications so we wouldn't be tripping over each other. I had the cash for the down payment and she had the credit history. It worked perfectly until she died in 1996. --------------- --------------------- As a side note students of divorced parents actually can be sitting much prettier than children from intact families regarding federal aid. The reason being is that children with divorced parents only have to offer up one or the other's income (along with the steps income when it applies) as oppossed to both bio parents, and the student of divorced parents can pretty much pick whatever parents' income they want to use. So if one parent makes signifigantly less than the other parent they can use that parent's info and get much more federal aid, ------------------ When they consider the parent with significantly less income do they count the cs received as income? Yes they do. Or does she get to leave it out of the calculations? Nope but the kids of divorced parents don't have to use BOTH parents incomes just one. ------------------ Do they include the step-parents income? If they don't then that seems unfair. What if the mom is a sahm with no income? ------------ ------------------ as oppossed to students from intact families were both parents incomes are considered. They can vote, they can legally enter in binding contracts, they can pick up and leave and feel free to go wherever they want, they can join the armed forces, the Peace Corps, the French Foreign Legion. They can't drink, they can't even rent a car, hell they can't even drive a car rented by their parents untilt hey turn 21. ----------------- The drinking age was raised to 21 not that many years ago here. In my state it was always 21, except for a year or two when it was 18. If they can arbitrarily change things like that they can change them all to be 18. It should be 18 across the board. I agree, but at 21 not 18. ---------------- Anyone who is unable to make it on their own at 18 isn't going to do much better at 21. If a kid by 18 hasn't learned all the basic things like laundry, cooking, balancing a budget, then unless their is a BIG change where their parent(s) actually teach them how to and let them do these things on their own, they are going to be no better off at 21. ------------------- ---------------- And going to college is an option for them, too. However, the college option isn't engraved in stone, it's not a given, and it's not an "absolute right" though some like Indyguy would like to see it so. Since the college option isn't a given, it's not forced, then the payment for such an "option" shouldn't be forced upon the parents, either. What about the responsibility of the adult child now? Indyguy's opinion is that parents should be forced to pay for a child's college education. Indyguy's opinion is as long as the feds say the parents should be paying, the parents should be paying. ------------------- Just because the feds say you should be paying then it's ok with you? I can see having to go along with it because that's the way things currently are but I don't have to be ok with it. Am I ok with it? Oh NO I am not. We pay every penny for our kid's educations. Others' have kids in college for nothing or next to nothing, because of what mommy and/or daddy earn. I have a problem with that. ----------------------- What if a child, whose parents are paying for his/her education, decides second semester junior year, that all of a sudden they don't wanna go to school anymore? Mom and Dad have just spent $60,000 for nearly three years of education. Does Junior owe that money back to Mom and Dad? Or are Mom and Dad just "out of luck" even though it was (the "adult") Junior's decision to both enter and later leave college? So I guess you feel no education is better than some? --------------------- I feel an adult should find ways to pay for their own education. If this 'Junior' as mentioned above was to later show up at mommys door wanting to go back to school,(say 10, 15 years later), should she still be obligated to pay 'Juniors' way? Nah, junior would then be over 24 and be able to get aid without using mommy or daddy's income for the basis of federal aid. ---------------- So this is less about maturity and more about the money then? --------------- --------------------- Indyguy would say "Oh, poor Mom and Dad...but that's too bad...Mom and Dad OWED that to Junior." BALONEY!!! Junior is an adult, and if Junior has the right to make adult decisions like entering or leaving college, then Junior should have to pay the costs of those decisions. Work on getting the feds to agree with ya. ------------------- That's better than not really agreeing with the situation but saying you do because the feds say it's so. Then get it changed. It does no one any good to just agre or disagree. ------------------ It does no good to say that because of the financial aid situation that everyone should have to support their kids until their 21 or 24. ----------------- --------------------- This is basically a micro-analysis of what is wrong with this country today. There is a basic disparity between rights and responsibilities. People clamor about rights, but then tend to ignore the responsibilities that go with said rights. People who don't have the rights often have the responsibilities of paying for someone ELSE'S decisions. That is inherently wrong. The CS system says your an adult at 18 and the feds say not so when it comes to paying for your college education, you aren't truely emancipated from your parents purse strings unitl you are 25. Now *that* is inherently wrong, wouldn't you agree? --------------------- Yes that is wrong. But I don't think the answer is making more laws requiring paying anything for any adult over 18. I'm not talking about making any new laws. I say get rid of the EFC and base handing out federal aid on how well a kid does in high school. My kids would be getting a full ride if that was the case. --------------------- I could reply, then get it changed, but I won't. I think you are right that it should be more dependent on how well the kid has done to prepare themself for college. Surely they have received scholarships and various grants to help? My future dh went to college for a metallurgical engineering degree and then for one in computers and artificial intelligence and applied for and received tons of money not just to use for tuition and books but for living expenses as well. And his dad is a surgeon. ~AZ~ Mrs Indyguy ~AZ~ Mrs Indyguy |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... AZ wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... GudGye11 wrote: In article , (Indyguy1) writes: Bingo. The point I have been making for years, as to why it is wrong for CS to stop at 18 in many cases, especially if they are are seeking some sort of post secondary education. I respectfully disagree with that: When a child is 18, he/she is an adult. Period. You can whine and bitch and moan to the contrary, but it's the truth. At that point, kids who are adults can and do make life-altering decisions for themselves. And they should. Then the feds ought to treat those between 18 and 25 as independants, because they DON'T. --------------- Yes the feds SHOULD treat adults as independents. Once you turn 18 you are an adult with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it. Really? It just isn't the Fed that won't look at 18 yr olds as adults, you know. You also have the drinking age, insurance companies, and car rental agencies that don't look at 18 as a fully cooked adult. ---------------------- They should look at 18 year olds as adults. ------------------- --------------- Until a student turns 25 student aid is handed out based on what a students parents earn, with some really narrow exceptions that few 18-24 yr old fall under. This is my MAIN reason for my wanting support of the post 18 group. If the feds wouldn't set up an EFC (estimated family contribution) that basically says *you as parents need to chip in this amount* I think I'd soften my feelings regarding this. --------------------- So if the 18 year old adults were treated as adults, seperate and independant of their parents by the feds you would agree that 18 year olds are adults? Nope, see above. Let's face it, a kid doesn't wake up on their 18th birthday and necessarily have all the skills, maturity and financial ability to move out and go it alone. ------------------- By the time a kid is 18 (s)he can already have over two years of work experience, could save the money they earned, could have a checking account and even a credit card, (co-signed). At 18 a person should have enough skills to keep their own place,(or share with roomates), cook their own food, wash their own clothes, own and maintain their own car, pay their own bills and get to work on time. What more is there? If someone at 18 can't do these simple things then I don't see how 3 more years is going to make much difference. ----------------------- Sure some kids can do it, but to be honest with you I have 2 kids one 18 and one 21 and out of their huge circles of friends there is only one friend of theirs that is out on his own and he is 21. --------------------- EVERYONE I knew when I was a teenager was chomping at the bit at 17,(upon graduating from high school), to move out on their own. I had already rented an apartment in a different city and was nearly all the way moved in on my 18th birthday. At 19 I moved to LA. Unfortunately, then I was a passenger in a car accident that left me in and out of concsiousness for a year. That was bad. But as soon as I was able I picked up once more and headed to Tucson to try my luck. Fast forward 20 years and my mom and I bought a house together. Having it built to our specifications so we wouldn't be tripping over each other. I had the cash for the down payment and she had the credit history. It worked perfectly until she died in 1996. --------------- --------------------- As a side note students of divorced parents actually can be sitting much prettier than children from intact families regarding federal aid. The reason being is that children with divorced parents only have to offer up one or the other's income (along with the steps income when it applies) as oppossed to both bio parents, and the student of divorced parents can pretty much pick whatever parents' income they want to use. So if one parent makes signifigantly less than the other parent they can use that parent's info and get much more federal aid, ------------------ When they consider the parent with significantly less income do they count the cs received as income? Yes they do. Or does she get to leave it out of the calculations? Nope but the kids of divorced parents don't have to use BOTH parents incomes just one. ------------------ Do they include the step-parents income? If they don't then that seems unfair. What if the mom is a sahm with no income? ------------ ------------------ as oppossed to students from intact families were both parents incomes are considered. They can vote, they can legally enter in binding contracts, they can pick up and leave and feel free to go wherever they want, they can join the armed forces, the Peace Corps, the French Foreign Legion. They can't drink, they can't even rent a car, hell they can't even drive a car rented by their parents untilt hey turn 21. ----------------- The drinking age was raised to 21 not that many years ago here. In my state it was always 21, except for a year or two when it was 18. If they can arbitrarily change things like that they can change them all to be 18. It should be 18 across the board. I agree, but at 21 not 18. ---------------- Anyone who is unable to make it on their own at 18 isn't going to do much better at 21. If a kid by 18 hasn't learned all the basic things like laundry, cooking, balancing a budget, then unless their is a BIG change where their parent(s) actually teach them how to and let them do these things on their own, they are going to be no better off at 21. ------------------- ---------------- And going to college is an option for them, too. However, the college option isn't engraved in stone, it's not a given, and it's not an "absolute right" though some like Indyguy would like to see it so. Since the college option isn't a given, it's not forced, then the payment for such an "option" shouldn't be forced upon the parents, either. What about the responsibility of the adult child now? Indyguy's opinion is that parents should be forced to pay for a child's college education. Indyguy's opinion is as long as the feds say the parents should be paying, the parents should be paying. ------------------- Just because the feds say you should be paying then it's ok with you? I can see having to go along with it because that's the way things currently are but I don't have to be ok with it. Am I ok with it? Oh NO I am not. We pay every penny for our kid's educations. Others' have kids in college for nothing or next to nothing, because of what mommy and/or daddy earn. I have a problem with that. ----------------------- What if a child, whose parents are paying for his/her education, decides second semester junior year, that all of a sudden they don't wanna go to school anymore? Mom and Dad have just spent $60,000 for nearly three years of education. Does Junior owe that money back to Mom and Dad? Or are Mom and Dad just "out of luck" even though it was (the "adult") Junior's decision to both enter and later leave college? So I guess you feel no education is better than some? --------------------- I feel an adult should find ways to pay for their own education. If this 'Junior' as mentioned above was to later show up at mommys door wanting to go back to school,(say 10, 15 years later), should she still be obligated to pay 'Juniors' way? Nah, junior would then be over 24 and be able to get aid without using mommy or daddy's income for the basis of federal aid. ---------------- So this is less about maturity and more about the money then? --------------- --------------------- Indyguy would say "Oh, poor Mom and Dad...but that's too bad...Mom and Dad OWED that to Junior." BALONEY!!! Junior is an adult, and if Junior has the right to make adult decisions like entering or leaving college, then Junior should have to pay the costs of those decisions. Work on getting the feds to agree with ya. ------------------- That's better than not really agreeing with the situation but saying you do because the feds say it's so. Then get it changed. It does no one any good to just agre or disagree. ------------------ It does no good to say that because of the financial aid situation that everyone should have to support their kids until their 21 or 24. ----------------- --------------------- This is basically a micro-analysis of what is wrong with this country today. There is a basic disparity between rights and responsibilities. People clamor about rights, but then tend to ignore the responsibilities that go with said rights. People who don't have the rights often have the responsibilities of paying for someone ELSE'S decisions. That is inherently wrong. The CS system says your an adult at 18 and the feds say not so when it comes to paying for your college education, you aren't truely emancipated from your parents purse strings unitl you are 25. Now *that* is inherently wrong, wouldn't you agree? --------------------- Yes that is wrong. But I don't think the answer is making more laws requiring paying anything for any adult over 18. I'm not talking about making any new laws. I say get rid of the EFC and base handing out federal aid on how well a kid does in high school. My kids would be getting a full ride if that was the case. --------------------- I could reply, then get it changed, but I won't. I think you are right that it should be more dependent on how well the kid has done to prepare themself for college. Surely they have received scholarships and various grants to help? My future dh went to college for a metallurgical engineering degree and then for one in computers and artificial intelligence and applied for and received tons of money not just to use for tuition and books but for living expenses as well. And his dad is a surgeon. ~AZ~ Mrs Indyguy ~AZ~ Mrs Indyguy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(Copied Post): Fairness of Family Courts | Werebat | Child Support | 0 | April 4th 04 09:14 AM |
Statistics for Sheila | Bobbi | Child Support | 11 | March 3rd 04 03:35 PM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |