Prioritizing Tuition (Split from School Closing)

↑ chavamom ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 11:30 am

yummymummy wrote:

chavamom wrote:

saw50st8, I ran your whole premise of those who have no plan to pay full tuition and yet - *gasp* - keep having kids by my husband and the "being a drain on society". His comment was that you are relying on a totally non-Jewish concept. Much as secular society taxes everyone to provide for schools regardless of if they are using them, the Jewish community has an obligation to provide schools to educate Jewish children in a torahdik fashion. Not everyone has the wherewithal to pay full tuition for "x" number of children - and even if they did, tuition wouldn't cover the expenses of the school. We as a community have an obligation to support the schools (something the chassidish communities seem to be doing a much better job at). Notions of being a "leech" or a "drain on society" not to mention saying "oh, we'd love to have more kids, but we can't afford full tuition" are just......non jewish. Seriously, has anyone asked a rav if this is a valid reason not to have more children? If there are no other factors involved?

To me it sounds like saw50St8 is trying to argue against the "free rider" problem, which is what happens when enough people use the arguments you've listed above to shirk their financial responsibilities.

Sigh. And I'm arguing the fact that while there are few of us that can afford $10K/per kid tuition (heck, even a middle class family with only ONE kid would find that a stretch) it doesn't inform our decisions on when we are yotzei pru u'revu.

And to the Israeli poster - do you seriously think the gov't only subsidizes charedi education???? You could use your same logic to say that ghetto schools shouldn't get gov't funds, b/c, you know, they don't pay as much into the system, they are POOR.

↑ yummymummy ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 11:38 am

Atali wrote:

It is wrong to call someone a leech for following halacha as his rav paskens. Even leaving Torah values aside, it is the fundamental right of individuals in a free society to follow their religious beliefs. Would you consider someone who continues to accept unemployment benefits rather than work on shabbos a leech? I would be willing to bet that the majority of the population of the US would think that this person should take the job rather than rely on the government. Does that make him a leech?

If the answer is no, then why is an individual receiving benefits, tuition or otherwise, who continues having more children in accordance with his or her religious beliefs, even if they aren't yours, considered a leech in your eyes? It is outright hypocrisy to expect others to tolerate your religious beliefs if you do not tolerate their's.

She is not calling anyone a leech for following halacha as his rav paskens. She is calling people leeches for failing to have a financial plan in place to support the large family they will have as a result of following their rav's psak. BIG DIFFERENCE.

↑ Atali ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 11:45 am

yummymummy wrote:

Atali wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

To the amother who said I lack bitachon for limiting my family size due to tuition prices:

If you use BC for any reason, you are lacking bitachon. Doesn't Hashem know what you can/can't handle? If Hashem really wants me to have more, nothing, including abstinence would work right? I don't buy that argument one bit.

If people really had bitachon they would pay their tuition bills first in full and then worry about paying rent mortgage. Realistically though, people skimp on tuition.

Here's the basic idea. When you are 18 and thinking about what life will be like, it should be somewhat like the following:

I see myself getting married between 20-22 and would like to have 7-8 kids. I imagine I would live in Lakewood and being a SAHM. So I need to plan on 8 tuitions (at $5000/year), rent/mortgage for a place large enough (lets say $2000/year), food ($1500/month) etc...go through the basic plan. If that's the case, we need to earn $125,000 approximately before taxes (or whatever). That may mean my husband has to be in a high paying position or I might not be able to be a SAHM. If I become a nurse, within 10 years I cna reasonably be expected to earn $60-75,000, which would mean my husband would need a job that also pays in that range.

Something to that effect. Obviously, life changes, plans change etc. But if your plan is something like I'm going to be a secretary and earn $20/hr, my husband is going to bag groceries at shop rite, you are destined to be a drain on society.

At every stage of life where you cannot afford what you want, you should look at "How can I increase my income or decrease my expenses?" You can't really plan for curves in life. But the guy who went from earning a high salary to $25,000? He should absolutely be supported by the community and AT THE SAME TIME, he should reduce expenses to reduce how much assistance he needs.

If you find yourself in a position in life, where you realize you are never going to be self sufficient base don jobs, salaries etc, you should do everything in your power to change that. Go back to school. Take on extra work etc. If you just say "well scholarships are available" you ARE being a drain on society. If you are working towards being financially independent, then you aren't.

This should be BASIC. Relying on communal assistance for the long term, without trying to change it is WRONG.

I agree with the bottom half of your post.

However, Part of being a frum Jew is following the guidelines of halacha in every area of ones life and putting halachic considerations above all other considerations, including financial ones. A Jew is often required to do things that are against his economic best interest for the sake of following halacha, including not working on shabbos (which eliminates quite a large number of potential career paths), not eating treif food at business lunches or in general to save money, etc. The same applies with regard to family planning. Birth control is an area that is discussed in halacha as far back as the times of the gemara, and just like an observant Jew must follow the piskei halacha of his rav with regard to shabbos or kashrus, he must follow his psak halacha with regard to family planning as well.

If your rav says that financial considerations are a legitimate reason for using birth control, then that is fine for you. However, if someone else's rav says that financial requirements are not a legitimate reason for bc than that is halacha for him. It is absurd to then argue that it is the rav's responsibility to pay for the family's expenses because the rav is simply there to interpret the halacha and is not required to pay for any financial problems that result (a rav does not have to pay you if he declares that your chicken is treif).

It is wrong to call someone a leech for following halacha as his rav paskens. Even leaving Torah values aside, it is the fundamental right of individuals in a free society to follow their religious beliefs. Would you consider someone who continues to accept unemployment benefits rather than work on shabbos a leech? I would be willing to bet that the majority of the population of the US would think that this person should take the job rather than rely on the government. Does that make him a leech?

If the answer is no, then why is an individual receiving benefits, tuition or otherwise, who continues having more children in accordance with his or her religious beliefs, even if they aren't yours, considered a leech in your eyes? It is outright hypocrisy to expect others to tolerate your religious beliefs if you do not tolerate their's.

She is not calling anyone a leech for following halacha as his rav paskens. She is calling people leeches for failing to have a financial plan to support the large family that they will have as a result of following their rav's psak. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Unless I am misreading her, she is criticizing those who have more than they can afford. Realistically, regardless of the amount of advance planning there is a very large percentage of the population that could never 'afford' to have more than a few children. Not everyone has the intelligence or other skills necessary to get a high-paying job. Some people made serious financial mistakes when they were young. Does that mean that they must now disregard their religious beliefs and not have more kids?

L'chatchila I definitely agree that everyone should have a plan for how to support a family without relying on assistance, but real life often doesn't work that way.

↑ saw50st8 ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 11:49 am

Rav Hershel Shachter says that you are allowed to stop having kids after you have fulfilled pru u'revu.

I'm laughing at being called not normal for wanting to fulfill my own financial obligations. HAHA! And amother, is there a reason you are afraid of saying that using your own name?

I'm not saying anyone should limit their family size based on tuition. But its important to look at your job and lifestyle and say "how do I support it?" So if you aren't going to be on birth control, you should attempt to find jobs that pay better to be able to pay your tuition. Or reduce your lifestyle choices so that you can afford to educate your kids.

Doesn't the Torah talk about eating bread and water to learn Torah?

Doesn't the Torah talk about not relying on tzedaka unless you have to?

We are living in times where everyone has so much more wealth than we have ever had. Most people refuse to realize it. Do you read how many threads are there of people who "need" cleaning help? Or "need" other things that are 100% luxuries (in most cases obviously)?

Maybe I am "idealistic" - maybe I just think that people are taking less and less responsibility for their lives. It used to be shameful to *need* social services or scholarships. Now people think of it as a discount to try for, rather than striving to pay for it.

I wonder if people were required to pay their discounts back (so loans instead of scholarships) that have to start being paid back when your child graduates from high school - would people be so flippant?

Not everyone will achieve 100% of their goals and be 100% self sufficient. But everyone should be striving for that.

↑ yummymummy ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 11:54 am

Atali wrote:

yummymummy wrote:

OK, since you are taking her position to the extreme, I'll take yours to the extreme. If every one in the very large percentage of the population who can not "afford" to have more than few children choses to do so who do you propose will support them? You're building an entire society on the backs of the tiny minority who does have money? And this problem will only be multiplied x-fold as each subsequent generation continues to have large families that they have no realistic mean to support.

I think we can all agree on this part, "L'chatchila I definitely agree that everyone should have a plan for how to support a family without relying on assistance." (and I purposefully left out this part " but real life often doesn't work that way"). The argument comes into play when people don't even bother having any sort of plan but default to public support.

In additiion, from the beginning of the thread I though saw50st8 was arguing against people not being willing so sacrifice for their children's education but again, defaulting to scholarships to pay for tuition. An argument I completely agree with.

↑ chavamom ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 11:56 am

saw50st8 wrote:

Rav Hershel Shachter says that you are allowed to stop having kids after you have fulfilled pru u'revu.

Oh yeah? According to which shita?

Quote:

I'm not saying anyone should limit their family size based on tuition. But its important to look at your job and lifestyle and say "how do I support it?" So if you aren't going to be on birth control, you should attempt to find jobs that pay better to be able to pay your tuition. Or reduce your lifestyle choices so that you can afford to educate your kids.

Actually, you did say that, a few times over. And again. we can't all be hedge fund managers.

Quote:

Maybe I am "idealistic" - maybe I just think that people are taking less and less responsibility for their lives. It used to be shameful to *need* social services or scholarships. Now people think of it as a discount to try for, rather than striving to pay for it.

Maybe you have yet to pay tuition for even ONE kid...

Quote:

I wonder if people were required to pay their discounts back (so loans instead of scholarships) that have to start being paid back when your child graduates from high school - would people be so flippant?

Not everyone will achieve 100% of their goals and be 100% self sufficient. But everyone should be striving for that.

Flippant???? Oh fergawdsakes. And how do you know how much any one of us "leeches" is striving?

↑ Atali ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 11:57 am

saw50st8 wrote:

Rav Hershel Shachter says that you are allowed to stop having kids after you have fulfilled pru u'revu.

Other rabbonim disagree. Those who hold otherwise are required by their religion to have more children unless there are other extenuating circumstances. Also, many people need to have more than two or three kids to fulfill basic pru urvu. I know quite a number of families that had children all of one gender until child five or six. I know one family that didn't have a girl until child #11.

Quote:

I'm laughing at being called not normal for wanting to fulfill my own financial obligations. HAHA! And amother, is there a reason you are afraid of saying that using your own name?

I'm not saying anyone should limit their family size based on tuition. But its important to look at your job and lifestyle and say "how do I support it?" So if you aren't going to be on birth control, you should attempt to find jobs that pay better to be able to pay your tuition. Or reduce your lifestyle choices so that you can afford to educate your kids.

I certainly agree with that. However, as I wrote above not everyone is capable of earning enough to pay full tuition for 8, 10, or 12 kids no matter what they do. Additionally, one's past financial mistakes do not exempt one from the requirement to fulfill pru urvu now. So on a societal level there will always need to be individuals on assistance, however each individual should try to avoid being one of them.

Quote:

Doesn't the Torah talk about eating bread and water to learn Torah?

Doesn't the Torah talk about not relying on tzedaka unless you have to?

We are living in times where everyone has so much more wealth than we have ever had. Most people refuse to realize it. Do you read how many threads are there of people who "need" cleaning help? Or "need" other things that are 100% luxuries (in most cases obviously)?

Maybe I am "idealistic" - maybe I just think that people are taking less and less responsibility for their lives. It used to be shameful to *need* social services or scholarships. Now people think of it as a discount to try for, rather than striving to pay for it.

I wonder if people were required to pay their discounts back (so loans instead of scholarships) that have to start being paid back when your child graduates from high school - would people be so flippant?

Not everyone will achieve 100% of their goals and be 100% self sufficient. But everyone should be striving for that.

I agree with all of this.

↑ Atali ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 12:02 pm

yummymummy wrote:

Atali wrote:

yummymummy wrote:

The answer is that each individual needs to do his or her best to support him or herself to the best of one's ability. This includes planning for how one will support oneself, getting the education or training needed to do so, and reducing expenses as needed. Even with this, many people will end up needing assistance, but hopefully if enough people do this we can build a sustainable model.

↑ saw50st8 ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 12:06 pm

chavamom wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

Rav Hershel Shachter says that you are allowed to stop having kids after you have fulfilled pru u'revu.

Oh yeah? According to which shita?

Quote:

Actually, you did say that, a few times over. And again. we can't all be hedge fund managers.

Quote:

Maybe you have yet to pay tuition for even ONE kid...

Quote:

Flippant???? Oh fergawdsakes. And how do you know how much any one of us "leeches" is striving?

According to his shita. I haven't listened to the shiur in a long time, but its on YU Torah.

I think people should be able to provide for their families and take a realistic approach to that. That's MY shittah. You disagree? That's fine.

I may not have paid yet, but I pay tuition rates for a school near me. So the financial burden is similiar. I also used my DINK days to make sure to have a large savings. Again, a life choice you may not make. But don't make me sound "irresponsible" because I have a plan to pay tuition.

And yes, I know a lot of flippant people. Friends who just put a $300,000 addition on their house. ON SCHOLARSHIP.

Friends who have said "I can pay full tuition, but why should I?"

My step-brother in law who said "I just don't want to work so hard" (he's 100% a drain on society though, so maybe not a great example)

Don't you know the adage is "Buy a house before you pay tuition because once you do, you'll never be able to afford it." That's not being flippant?

Again, I'm not talking about a specific person's situation. I'm talking general. And yes, the overall trend is to shirk their tuition responsibilities.

And we can't all be hedge fund managers - my husband and I will never be able to either! But we will do our best to make sure we can.

↑ saw50st8 ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 12:08 pm

Atali wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

Chavamom, I understand not everyone will get to make large salaries. And I'm not even saying they should limit their family size. I'm saying they should constantly be aiming for that, reducing luxuries even if its hard and keep aiming for that. So many people I know don't even try and just keep their lifestyle that way.

Atali, I'm not criticizing those who have more than they can afford. I'm criticizing those who don't do their utmost to pay their full way. Even if they can never get to 100%.

In that case I agree with you. But keep in mind that you, looking at it from the outside, may never understand why an individual family is not supporting itself. The family may have a legitimate need to have things like cleaning help, or may have a legitimate factor preventing them from earning a decent income. There are so many complicating factors that could prevent an individual from supporting himself.

I'm not judging individuals.

This started because I said I wasn't surprised a school was closing, given where tuition priorities usually fall.

↑ Atali ↓

Sun, Nov 07 2010, 12:11 pm

yummymummy wrote:

Atali wrote:

I completely agree and believe this is exactly what saw50st8 is saying (50 correct me if I'm wrong) . Of course, the community should support those who despite their best effort are not able to make ends meet or pay full tuition, the problem is when people don't even bother making that effort.

And I have to say, at first I thought we were back in Marina's "argue the other side of your position" thread when I first read your post. It was so precisely what we've been say that it through me for a loop. LOL

Go back and read my other posts. I never contradicted that. My issue was more with the "don't have more kids than you can afford" concept as well as the attitude that seemed to be expressed that if a person made mistakes when they were younger (like not getting job training, etc.) then they shouldn't be supported since they brought the problem on themselves.