Prioritizing Tuition (Split from School Closing)

↑ Atali ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 2:38 pm

saw50st8 wrote:

Well, if there is an inheritance, shouldn't that cover the debt?

Theoretically, yes.

But I don't think we want to have a situation where the children's entire inheritance is taken to pay for their education. That could cause particularly big family problems if the older child's education has already been paid off and there is nothing left because the younger child's education needs to be covered out of the inheritance.

It could be done, but I don't think that it should be done.

↑ yummymummy ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 2:39 pm

chavamom wrote:

yummymummy wrote:

chavamom wrote:

Great! So we'll have parents in debt FOREVER.

what's that saying? oh yeah, "There's no such thing as a free lunch"

It doesn't tackle the problem of the high tuition in the first place. When I compare what secular day schools in the area are getting for the same $10K, I sure don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth, you know?

Unless you are talking about bloated administration costs that prop up the cost of tuition, this is a different thread altogether.

Last edited by yummymummy on Mon, Nov 08 2010, 2:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ yummymummy ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 2:42 pm

Atali wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

Well, if there is an inheritance, shouldn't that cover the debt?

I disagree, just like the parents should take into account the amount of money the yessomim will need in the case a parent dies and purchase life insurance accordingly, they should budget tuition into their policy.

↑ Atali ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 2:44 pm

yummymummy wrote:

Atali wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

Well, if there is an inheritance, shouldn't that cover the debt?

Okay, I think you are right about that.

↑ saw50st8 ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 2:46 pm

Atali wrote:

yummymummy wrote:

Atali wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

Well, if there is an inheritance, shouldn't that cover the debt?

Okay, I think you are right about that.

And I think the community would support an orphan. We would have money to support orphans.

↑ JAWSCIENCE ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 3:24 pm

I was not saying that we should institute this policy rather than getting rid of the administrative bloat. I meant for it to be IN ADDITION to the schools really taking a good look at their costs and removing the excess. I don't think 20 girls need a teacher AND an assistant.

However, even with reducing the bloat there is sure to be a decent cost to tuition. And there is sure to be a group of people who say they can't pay it. Why shouldn't they pay their debt slowly? If a family suddenly falls into money why shouldn't they have to pay back the tuition scholarships they received?

Parents will be in debt forever? OK. I have no problem with that. Pay it off slowly like you would anything else. Like I said this plan would force people and their Rebeim to face the true cost of having children in today's day and age and come up with ways to ameliorate it (like lowering the administrative bloat to schools) instead of passing the buck onto the imaginary hoards of rich that some people seem to think are running around handing out money for other kids tuition's.

The payments can be restructured on a scheduled basis (with emergency restructuring for people who experience a financial hit etc.).

The debt would be in the parents name. They can certainly ask their children to help out but they cannot legally pass it on to their kids. If the parent passes away it will be handled like any other debt a parent has when they pass away.

Did I say this would be easy? No. But that is no reason not to do it. I am sure it is a lot easier to tell others to pay the bills. It would help a lot of schools. And it just might help the community too. If you are paying off your debt slowly you are less ashamed of having a tuition scholarship. If you see someone that you know is on a tuition scholarship dressing up their kids in fancy expensive clothes you will be able to fargin this to them as they too will eventually have to pay off their tuition. And yeshivas will not be used as vehicles to extort large amounts of money from hardworking people to support a huge amount of unnecessary administrators.

The old system of asking gevirim to pay for the needs of the rest of the community simply is not working anymore. There are less gevirim and more needy. There are less people entering the workforce because, frankly it is a lot easier for them not to. This is a tough economic time for everyone and we need innovative solutions. The choices that we have to make as a community are not going to be easy. But something has got to give. Or else schools will continue to close and NOBODY will get a Jewish education. If you are not willing to acknowledge this then you are living in la la land.

PinkFridge

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 3:32 pm

chavamom wrote:

Just by way of comparison, Catholic schools here cost $5,000 for the first kid, the second kid in the school is $500 and the rest are FREE! And they have reciprocity across the diocese - so is it any wonder there are a large # of kids in Catholic schools here? OK, I know we don't have the power structure of the Catholic church, but it *is* similar to the kehilla tax of yore. If tuition was something that was in reach of MOST people, it would be more realistic for more of us not to be leeches.

Dioceses all over are closing and restructuring. I don't know if the church still has the power structure, even before the need for massive payouts.

↑ chavamom ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 4:43 pm

yummymummy wrote:

chavamom wrote:

Ve have vays of making you pay....seriously, if you can't get an aliyah, can't use the mikvah, can't host a kiddush, you are going to be stuck.

Yes, but WHO will you make pay? As JAW pointed out the same people who can't afford tutiton will get a break on the kehilla tax and then all you've done is charged the same "wealthy" people as you would've if you'd just left the current tuition system in place.

Not to mention that I have issues with charging other people to pay for your (general you) religious choices. Yesterday there was a whole argument that everyone should be allowed to follow his own rav's pask with regard to limiting family size due to financial considerations. On the flip side I don't think anyone should be forced to subsidize someone else following their rav's psak...

(sorry if any of this has been discussed previously, this thread is so long and so active I just don't have time to keep up with every post)

A communities obligation to support a school is completely independent of anyone's thoughts on "subsidizing religious choices" (I assume you mean having more children).

mirror ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 4:51 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

chavamom wrote:

Dioceses all over are closing and restructuring. I don't know if the church still has the power structure, even before the need for massive payouts.

I have heard that many, many catholic schools closed down in recent years.

↑ mirror ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 4:59 pm

JAWSCIENCE wrote:

In your experience, how many people suddenly fall into money?

In my experience, the more you make, the more the schools charge.

As far as being in debt forever, based on my calculations, if someone has seven children, and has to pay $10,000 a year per child with after tax dollars, and is allowed to owe the money instead of paying it all at once, and only makes $100,000 a year before taxes...

Then those parents should be in debt until they drop dead.

↑ yummymummy ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 5:06 pm

chavamom wrote:

yummymummy wrote:

chavamom wrote:

Ve have vays of making you pay....seriously, if you can't get an aliyah, can't use the mikvah, can't host a kiddush, you are going to be stuck.

A communities obligation to support a school is completely independent of anyone's thoughts on "subsidizing religious choices" (I assume you mean having more children).

My point was to explain why I feel that paying off tuiton over time is more equitable than a community wide tax. The community's school's costs will rise in proportion with the number of students enrolled so I believe those who choose to have more children (for whatever reason) should shoulder a greater burden.

↑ yummymummy ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 5:10 pm

OPINIONATED wrote:

JAWSCIENCE wrote:

I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect parents to pay a manageable amount for as long as it takes.

Also, realize that the $10K you quoted will go down as more parents are required to pay tuition (over time). If you spread your fixed cost over a greater number of students the per student cost goes down.

This system/reduction will of course be difficult to implement in the beginning.

↑ yummymummy ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 5:15 pm

chavamom wrote:

And is there any rav anywhere that would say "those people should use birth control until they can pay full tuition"? I'm not sure how just b/c someone FEELS that someone else should limit their family size based on tuition becomes "following the psak of their rav".

I'm not sure I'm following you here. The rav doesn't have to change his psak; the parents will just have to pay tuition (over time) after following his psak. And who is feeling what? I don't care if someone else limits their family size or not based on tuition, I care if they aren't willing to shoulder their share of the burden (over time). But again, I'm not sure if this is what you mean.

↑ mirror ↓

Mon, Nov 08 2010, 6:22 pm

yummymummy wrote:

What is a fixed cost? The more kids are enrolled, the more classrooms you need, the more teachers you need, the more sprinklers you need, the more insurance you need.

Also, our administrators also serve as police officers. We cannot do without them.