Funding med school with a family

[abolt18]

Again, he can do whatever he wants.

Minimum wage of texas is $7.25. Stop pretending you were looking into it. I brought up $6 to show how even the lowest numbers work.

I'm a non-trad myself, and while I agree that having kids is important, I find it irresponsible to have kids when you can't afford them and expect the rest of us to foot the bill for you. Your selfish desire to pop out a human being does not supercede being responsible or should expect me to pay for it. Also, because you want to be a doctor, it doesn't mean the rest of people should sacrifice for you. Again, this guy gets no sympathy because he's irresponsible. He could have put his finances in order instead of going about it this way. He didn't choose to.

You are seriously SOOOOOO thick.

1. to say that someone who is working towards a well paying career--one in which they will pay back any benefits recieved 100 fold--is somehow undeserving of government assistance because they chose to have a family before going to medical school (who knows, maybe he decided on medicine AFTER starting his family) is just ignorant, selfish, and illogical.

2. I have one child and will have one or two more before medical school is over. I will enjoy the benefits of food stamps and medicaid while I have zero income. I will enjoy living off of your dime for a while because I KNOW that I'll be paying right back into the system; a whole lot more than I take out. I do not find it irresponsible of myself to do this because having a family is the highest priority on my list.

There are so many things wrong with so many of the things you have said that I don't know what to even think. Going to agree with everyone. You should just walk away from this one (or click away from it).

Besides OP explained that his wife PLANNED to work, hoping to get certified and whatnot. He was simply looking for other suggestions on how to supplement his income or need less income.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dudeliness]

Again, he can do whatever he wants.

Minimum wage of texas is $7.25. Stop pretending you were looking into it. I brought up $6 to show how even the lowest numbers work.

I'm a non-trad myself, and while I agree that having kids is important, I find it irresponsible to have kids when you can't afford them and expect the rest of us to foot the bill for you. Your selfish desire to pop out a human being does not supercede being responsible or should expect me to pay for it. Also, because you want to be a doctor, it doesn't mean the rest of people should sacrifice for you. Again, this guy gets no sympathy because he's irresponsible. He could have put his finances in order instead of going about it this way. He didn't choose to.

No need for the personal attacks.

While it is true that I could have made some better financial choices in my life, I haven't been flagrantly irresponsible either. We fell on hard times with my wife getting cancer last year. We had some insurance, but there are still a lot of bills associated not to mention loss of work over most of last summer for both of us. That ate up all our savings, but at least we aren't in debt over that and haven't forced anyone to pay for our medical bills.

You are correct in stating that even a low paying job can be a viable option for bringing in income, even if we would really prefer to not both be out of our daughters life for 40+ hours a week. If we did that, it would be at most 4 years before I was earning enough in residency that my wife could care for our child.

I do, however, think there is an important difference between someone being a "welfare queen", as you so elegantly put it, and leaning on the system temporarily in order to pursue a career that actually benefits society as a whole, all while preparing to pay back into the system. A subtle distinction perhaps, but a real one.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Exactly, which is why I said $7.25. $6 isn't the lowest, because McDonalds isn't allowed to pay $6.

I recommend you look more into full-time employment opportunities for "unskilled" positions (I use quotes because his wife has skills, but since they're not related to what she would be doing, she might as well be a high school dropout. It's the exact situation I'm in.) It's extraordinarily difficult to find a full-time position in a field where you have no skills or experience. Almost all major companies hire twice as many people to do half as much work each because they get off cheaper that way. It's one of the unintended consequences from such regulation.
What's the point of taxes if not to provide you with government services? And besides, if the programs aren't intended for people in this kind of position, then med students wouldn't qualify for assistance in the first place.

You said you looked up what it was in Texas, which was a lie to cover up your shotty argument.

You speak to me as if I'm some upper-middle class white kid that has never seen anything in the world. Sorry to break it to you, I'm not. I come from real poverty, and I'm a minority. I've done work that you wouldn't do because you think yourself as too dignified (don't give me this bs about skills). People in this country cross the border illegally, don't speak English and they make ends meet. You're entitled. You want government handouts because you feel entitled to pop out a baby or to stay at home with him or go to med school when you want. You're entitled to nothing.

Let me make this clear: you want school grant because you come from a poor neighborhood and your parents can't pay? Sure. You broke your arm and can't work or you have PTSD because your spouse beat you and it doesn't allow you to work? Collect disability because you deserve it. Lost your job suddenly? Unemployment is here to help you. You want to pop out a baby and go to med school when you have the ability to work and think the world owes you something and should give you a handout because you're oh-so-special? Well sorry, you get nothing.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[TriagePreMed]

No need for the personal attacks.

While it is true that I could have made some better financial choices in my life, I haven't been flagrantly irresponsible either. We fell on hard times with my wife getting cancer last year. We had some insurance, but there are still a lot of bills associated not to mention loss of work over most of last summer for both of us. That ate up all our savings, but at least we aren't in debt over that and haven't forced anyone to pay for our medical bills.

You are correct in stating that even a low paying job can be a viable option for bringing in income, even if we would really prefer to not both be out of our daughters life for 40+ hours a week. If we did that, it would be at most 4 years before I was earning enough in residency that my wife could care for our child.

I do, however, think there is an important difference between someone being a "welfare queen", as you so elegantly put it, and leaning on the system temporarily in order to pursue a career that actually benefits society as a whole, all while preparing to pay back into the system. A subtle distinction perhaps, but a real one.

I'm sorry those things happened to you. In that event, by all means collect the necessary government benefits to get through the cancer and back on your feet. It's a shame we live in a country that doesn't foot the bill in healthcare.

I don't think of you as a welfare queen. I'm talking about the other poster that thinks it's okay to just bring kids into this world when you cannot afford them. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I apologize if it seems that way. All I'm saying that if you act irresponsibly, you're irresponsible. I do, however, think it was irresponsible to overlook your finances, but what's done is done.

I wouldn't ever advocate for your child to go hungry. Even if a parent is irresponsible, oh well. I'll gladly feed a child. All I've been trying to say is that there are options to work by your spouse, so to say she won't work without her license is being unwilling to work. In my book, that's wrong. If your wife can't find any work, oh well, you deserve the help. If you barely break even with working, I do think you're doing best raising your own child. Again, no problem in benefits. I'm trying to be very specific in conveying that just because your job isn't ideal it shouldn't mean you dismiss all others and take the alternative of being a burden on society.

I'm sorry if this is all coming out poorly.

 

[abolt18]

I'm sorry those things happened to you. In that event, by all means collect the necessary government benefits to get through the cancer and back on your feet. It's a shame we live in a country that doesn't foot the bill in healthcare.

I don't think of you as a welfare queen. I'm talking about the other poster that thinks it's okay to just bring kids into this world when you cannot afford them. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I apologize if it seems that way. All I'm saying that if you act irresponsibly, you're irresponsible. I do, however, think it was irresponsible to overlook your finances, but what's done is done.

I wouldn't ever advocate for your child to go hungry. Even if a parent is irresponsible, oh well. I'll gladly feed a child. All I've been trying to say is that there are options to work by your spouse, so to say she won't work without her license is being unwilling to work. In my book, that's wrong. If your wife can't find any work, oh well, you deserve the help. If you barely break even with working, I do think you're doing best raising your own child. Again, no problem in benefits. I'm trying to be very specific in conveying that just because your job isn't ideal it shouldn't mean you dismiss all others and take the alternative of being a burden on society.

I'm sorry if this is all coming out poorly.

Best thing you have said this whole thread.

 

[dudeliness]

I'm sorry those things happened to you. In that event, by all means collect the necessary government benefits to get through the cancer and back on your feet. It's a shame we live in a country that doesn't foot the bill in healthcare.

I don't think of you as a welfare queen. I'm talking about the other poster that thinks it's okay to just bring kids into this world when you cannot afford them. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I apologize if it seems that way. All I'm saying that if you act irresponsibly, you're irresponsible. I do, however, think it was irresponsible to overlook your finances, but what's done is done.

I wouldn't ever advocate for your child to go hungry. Even if a parent is irresponsible, oh well. I'll gladly feed a child. All I've been trying to say is that there are options to work by your spouse, so to say she won't work without her license is being unwilling to work. In my book, that's wrong. If your wife can't find any work, oh well, you deserve the help. If you barely break even with working, I do think you're doing best raising your own child. Again, no problem in benefits. I'm trying to be very specific in conveying that just because your job isn't ideal it shouldn't mean you dismiss all others and take the alternative of being a burden on society.

I'm sorry if this is all coming out poorly.

No worries! Even if people disagree on these topics it's very useful to hear other opinions/ideas especially since there is truth to be found everywhere, not just in one's own arguments.
FWIW I appreciate your input here.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

I gladly pay my taxes for others that need it.

You've brought up this theme a few times this thread; if you're living on what the OP brought up for income, claiming a dependent of some kind as you said, you don't "pay" taxes. You might have taxes withheld, but you get it all back. EIC, state tax deductions, etc. Easy on the umbrage with how much you are supporting people who need it, as you aren't the source of that money. You can't both talk about how well you get by even though you are poor and be pissed off that others are living off your scraps. I mean you can, but don't expect everyone to share your enthusiasm about hammering somebody trying to figure out how to make ends meet.

 

[abolt18]

You've brought up this theme a few times this thread; if you're living on what the OP brought up for income, claiming a dependent of some kind as you said, you don't "pay" taxes. You might have taxes withheld, but you get it all back. EIC, state tax deductions, etc. Easy on the umbrage with how much you are supporting people who need it, as you aren't the source of that money. You can't both talk about how well you get by even though you are poor and be pissed off that others are living off your scraps. I mean you can, but don't expect everyone to share your enthusiasm about hammering somebody trying to figure out how to make ends meet.

Can I get an amen?

 

[TriagePreMed]

You've brought up this theme a few times this thread; if you're living on what the OP brought up for income, claiming a dependent of some kind as you said, you don't "pay" taxes. You might have taxes withheld, but you get it all back. EIC, state tax deductions, etc. Easy on the umbrage with how much you are supporting people who need it, as you aren't the source of that money. You can't both talk about how well you get by even though you are poor and be pissed off that others are living off your scraps. I mean you can, but don't expect everyone to share your enthusiasm about hammering somebody trying to figure out how to make ends meet.

People don't pay taxes only through income tax. There's such a thing as sales tax, you know? And either way, rent is indirectly paying for someone's property tax. And even if you argue that I get my income tax back, it's in the hands of the government for a significant amount of time without them giving you interest on money they can invest in and get a return.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

People don't pay taxes only through income tax. There's such a thing as sales tax, you know? And either way, rent is indirectly paying for someone's property tax. And even if you argue that I get my income tax back, it's in the hands of the government for a significant amount of time without them giving you interest on money they can invest in and get a return.

I'll say it again, you aren't paying much if anything in taxes. And you understand that there are services which are provided out of those paltry taxes that you pay that are worth much more than you pay in, correct? There is more to government "handouts" than food stamps and disability checks, right? No one is here complaining about how the "handouts" that you take advantage of, schools, roads, services, etc, (all of which are financed by someone other than yourself) are undeserved. Just hardly see the point of going after the OP and doubling down about it here. Seems a silly fight when there is so much other stupidity on SDN to rail against. I've always liked your posts, just think your targeting here is off a bit.

 

[TriagePreMed]

I'll say it again, you aren't paying much if anything in taxes. And you understand that there are services which are provided out of those paltry taxes that you pay that are worth much more than you pay in, correct? There is more to government "handouts" than food stamps and disability checks, right? No one is here complaining about how the "handouts" that you take advantage of, schools, roads, services, etc, (all of which are financed by someone other than yourself) are undeserved. Just hardly see the point of going after the OP and doubling down about it here. Seems a silly fight when there is so much other stupidity on SDN to rail against. I've always liked your posts, just think your targeting here is off a bit.

My argument wasn't so much "my" taxes as it was that I don't believe society should be paying for someone unwilling but able to work. It's also not your tax money, so you can't all of a sudden insinuate I should shut up because it's not 100% from my pocket.

You then go on about schools, roads, etc. to try to put up a strawman where I'm somehow some libertarian that is against all those things. When have I said that roads, schools and other services aren't something that I'm glad to see my tax money going toward to? I made clear how many programs I do support.

Again, my argument is very specific to the point that someone that's able to work but is unwilling shouldn't expect government assistance. If the wife of the OP wants to raise her child, that's a noble cause. Members of my own family have done that. However, that doesn't mean that society should have to pay into her choice. If you can afford to do that, by all means do it. If you're not making ends meet and you could by working, you should work. Not everyone gets to be a stay-at-home mom. That's the reality of society. If that's some heinous doubling down to you, go ahead and believe as you wish.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

My argument wasn't so much "my" taxes as it was that I don't believe society should be paying for someone unwilling but able to work. It's also not your tax money, so you can't all of a sudden insinuate I should shut up because it's not 100% from my pocket.

You then go on about schools, roads, etc. to try to put up a strawman where I'm somehow some libertarian that is against all those things. When have I said that roads, schools and other services aren't something that I'm glad to see my tax money going toward to? I made clear how many programs I do support.

Again, my argument is very specific to the point that someone that's able to work but is unwilling shouldn't expect government assistance. If the wife of the OP wants to raise her child, that's a noble cause. Members of my own family have done that. However, that doesn't mean that society should have to pay into her choice. If you can afford to do that, by all means do it. If you're not making ends meet and you could by working, you should work. Not everyone gets to be a stay-at-home mom. That's the reality of society. If that's some heinous doubling down to you, go ahead and believe as you wish.

But here's the extension of that argument. You are obviously a smart guy, yet you make beans doing whatever you do while (I assume) trying to get life lined up to attend medical school. You could be earning more than you are now by applying your intellect/skill/motivation more efficiently. But you're not. You doing whatever, school, research, whatever, making not a lot of income for now so that you can attend medical school in the future. You're punching (temporarily) under your weight, and while doing so you're sucking on the public teat in many ways small and large. You just aren't using food stamps or disability or social security or unemployment. But you're still a leach, and you could be a net payer of taxes instead of said leach if you did something that earned more. You could do that, but you've chosen not to. I'm not complaining about you being a net leach, even though by your rationale I could or should. Not everyone gets to be a stay-at-home mom, of course, but not everyone gets to be a piss poor researcher/nontrad undergraduate student for half their life making potholes but not paying for them either. Society as we know it would fall apart if everyone went on the TPM plan. Your sense of community welfare and community property are just a little different than mine, and that's fine. I will continue to, as always, believe what I wish.

 

[xffan624]

I paid 7K + in taxes this year (not even counting medicare and SS)... and I kinda agree with TPM. Does that make his argument more legitimate?

 

[Pons Asinorum]

I paid 7K + in taxes this year (not even counting medicare and SS)... and I kinda agree with TPM. Does that make his argument more legitimate?

I'm not saying it's illegitimate. I'm saying there is a reason that he isn't appreciating that people think (wrongly, I think) he's an ******* and fool for some of the things he's written in this thread. Thank you for posting how much you paid in taxes though. What am I supposed to do with that? Do you want to know how much my wife and I paid in taxes this year? Would that make my argument super-legitimate?

 

[xffan624]

I'm not saying it's illegitimate. I'm saying there is a reason that he isn't appreciating that people think (wrongly, I think) he's an ******* and fool for some of the things he's written in this thread. Thank you for posting how much you paid in taxes though. What am I supposed to do with that? Do you want to know how much my wife and I paid in taxes this year? Would that make my argument super-legitimate?

Neither. Just saying I agree that individuals (should) have some responsibility in planning their family and finances before they start taking out on the government dole.

 

[534455]

No need for the personal attacks.

Isn't that the truth but it's the price you pay for free advice from people you do not know, people who pretend and are often times just out right lying. I am new to SDN and I find it a good reflection of society at large of some individuals who are appreciative of what folks do for them when they are in need, while other will never be appreciative. Learn who the appreciative folks are (Avatars mean nothing - they're just entertaining), and block the chaff (I have hit "block / ignore" a few on here in the interest of time)

You have been on here for a while. I use filters when skimming SDN.

Unless if it is on the NonTrads Threads, if the poster is a Pre-Med I don't even bother to read their posts. That eliminates a large number of ad hominem, vitriolic posts that the kids do on the WWW. If I sense a person's response is off topic and is meandering, same thing - go on to the next post. And if it even whiffs of a personal attack, they are telling us alot more about themselves than they think they are about their intended audience.

Funding med school with a family is difficult.
It can be done.
I am doing it.
Some have posted options that are different than mine, all very good ones.
Move on, you got some input, pick up your books and go study.
studying your material (be it MCAT, MD/DO course work,etc) is what's going to make you a physician, not posting on SDN

Just saying!

Best wishes,

 

[TriagePreMed]

If you have a job for me that earns very well, even at paying high amount in taxes, refer it to me right now because apparently my intellect/etc. can't find it.

I understand what you mean about net loses and net gains and what not. Believe me, it's a reasonable/good argument. However, I believe that there are limitations to people qualifying for certain benefits. It's a net benefit to society to have schools, fire fighters, roads, etc. For society to pay for someone to be an at-home mom when they are able to work is simply not.

Maybe I am a "leech," but without many of us "leeches," you wouldn't have these people on top paying big taxes earning the money they do to pay those taxes, whereas a society with too many at-home moms would easily collapse.

But here's the extension of that argument. You are obviously a smart guy, yet you make beans doing whatever you do while (I assume) trying to get life lined up to attend medical school. You could be earning more than you are now by applying your intellect/skill/motivation more efficiently. But you're not. You doing whatever, school, research, whatever, making not a lot of income for now so that you can attend medical school in the future. You're punching (temporarily) under your weight, and while doing so you're sucking on the public teat in many ways small and large. You just aren't using food stamps or disability or social security or unemployment. But you're still a leach, and you could be a net payer of taxes instead of said leach if you did something that earned more. You could do that, but you've chosen not to. I'm not complaining about you being a net leach, even though by your rationale I could or should. Not everyone gets to be a stay-at-home mom, of course, but not everyone gets to be a piss poor researcher/nontrad undergraduate student for half their life making potholes but not paying for them either. Society as we know it would fall apart if everyone went on the TPM plan. Your sense of community welfare and community property are just a little different than mine, and that's fine. I will continue to, as always, believe what I wish.

 

[kimposibl]

TriagePremed,

JK Rowling was a single, unemployed mom on welfare in Britain. Now she's richer than the Queen and paying back quadruple what she took out (most likely) and will be paying that amount for the rest of her life. Your argument is invalid.

Also, hope you've been saving up for your own retirement cuz babyboomers are raiding our SS. (Maybe you're a babyboomer, idk)

OP is not the type of welfare recipients I've encountered, who do enough freelance work to support themselves yet still file for unemployment, or the family that decides to get pregnant because their welfare time is about to end from the last time they had a kid. Entitlement programs are there for a reason, to help people who actually need it. Stop hating on OP. Obviously, he has aspirations and will pay back what he and his family took out.

If you complain about taxes, you don't make enough money.

 

[rain4venus]

You said you looked up what it was in Texas, which was a lie to cover up your shotty argument.

Well I don't know why I would lie about that, but sure, believe what you want. If you like, I could PM you a screenshot of my history?
(Also, "shoddy")

As I said before, for my situation, either we have children before/during the time my boyfriend is in med school, or he doesn't go to med school. If he doesn't go to med school, he'll make maybe $30-40k per year for the next 40+ years. If he does go to med school, we'll have to borrow whatever we can, and possibly apply for state assistance. (Though we probably won't qualify at least for the first 1.5-2 years because we're both planning to work for the next two years to save up whatever we can. I have an engineering degree and I work at K-Mart - I assure you I don't think myself too good for any job!) After residency he'll probably make about $140k. He will pay back anything we might take in assistance in less than 2 years. After probably 3 years we will break even, paying more total than we would if he were to keep his low paying job. How would it be more responsible for him to keep his low-paying job than for us to get food stamps for a few years while he makes himself a more valuable member of society?

Everyone's got a story. That's mine; the OP shared his. I don't understand why you feel the need to come across as the expert that gets to determine whose story is legit and whose isn't. What if a person doesn't have savings because he was foolish in their youth and spent everything he earned on UG in order to reinvent himself? What if another person values her health above all and will only eat organic vegan foods? What if a third person gave up their financial assets in a messy divorce in order to keep a mortgaged home? You don't know every med student's story, so it doesn't make any sense for you to make a blanket statement that it's irresponsible for any of them to go on food stamps.

Bringing it all back around to the original post, what it boils down to for me is this: A school's cost of living allowance is rarely generous enough for the student to be able to support a family on his/her loans alone. If my family needed an extra, say, 6k per year, we would gladly take out that extra amount in loans before applying for assistance. But borrowing extra isn't allowed. What is allowed is applying for food stamps. So maybe you should be directing your anger at the government and not at the people in this post.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Well I don't know why I would lie about that, but sure, believe what you want. If you like, I could PM you a screenshot of my history?
(Also, "shoddy")

As I said before, for my situation, either we have children before/during the time my boyfriend is in med school, or he doesn't go to med school. If he doesn't go to med school, he'll make maybe $30-40k per year for the next 40+ years. If he does go to med school, we'll have to borrow whatever we can, and possibly apply for state assistance. (Though we probably won't qualify at least for the first 1.5-2 years because we're both planning to work for the next two years to save up whatever we can. I have an engineering degree and I work at K-Mart - I assure you I don't think myself too good for any job!) After residency he'll probably make about $140k. He will pay back anything we might take in assistance in less than 2 years. After probably 3 years we will break even, paying more total than we would if he were to keep his low paying job. How would it be more responsible for him to keep his low-paying job than for us to get food stamps for a few years while he makes himself a more valuable member of society?

Everyone's got a story. That's mine; the OP shared his. I don't understand why you feel the need to come across as the expert that gets to determine whose story is legit and whose isn't. What if a person doesn't have savings because he was foolish in their youth and spent everything he earned on UG in order to reinvent himself? What if another person values her health above all and will only eat organic vegan foods? What if a third person gave up their financial assets in a messy divorce in order to keep a mortgaged home? You don't know every med student's story, so it doesn't make any sense for you to make a blanket statement that it's irresponsible for any of them to go on food stamps.

Bringing it all back around to the original post, what it boils down to for me is this: A school's cost of living allowance is rarely generous enough for the student to be able to support a family on his/her loans alone. If my family needed an extra, say, 6k per year, we would gladly take out that extra amount in loans before applying for assistance. But borrowing extra isn't allowed. What is allowed is applying for food stamps. So maybe you should be directing your anger at the government and not at the people in this post.

Look, you don't need to justify yourself to me. I get it. It boils down to you wanting a baby and the tax payers have to foot it for you. You feel entitled like that, so you play the system. I hope that you never give this advice to patients "want a baby? Responsible family planning? F-that. Get on welfare and have the government pay it." And don't give me bs about how much you'll earn. As long as there are more applicants than seats, you're nothing special and someone else could be paying those taxes in four years without having to game the system.

 

[eject]

People respond to the economic incentives that are in place--it would be irrational to do anything else but to maximize one's advantages so far as the rules allow.

There ought to be a better debate about who we subsidize and under what conditions, but that's not germane.

Don't hate the player, and all of that.

 

[TriagePreMed]

TriagePremed,

JK Rowling was a single, unemployed mom on welfare in Britain. Now she's richer than the Queen and paying back quadruple what she took out (most likely) and will be paying that amount for the rest of her life. Your argument is invalid.

Also, hope you've been saving up for your own retirement cuz babyboomers are raiding our SS. (Maybe you're a babyboomer, idk)

OP is not the type of welfare recipients I've encountered, who do enough freelance work to support themselves yet still file for unemployment, or the family that decides to get pregnant because their welfare time is about to end from the last time they had a kid. Entitlement programs are there for a reason, to help people who actually need it. Stop hating on OP. Obviously, he has aspirations and will pay back what he and his family took out.

If you complain about taxes, you don't make enough money.

Yes, she was an unemployed mom, and like I said, I fully support people to get benefits if they are unable to work but willing to. I don't see your point? It seems people keep trying to box me into this pretty little package that you can dismiss because I'm somehow unreasonable and want all government programs gone.

I'm seriously troubled by the number of members in this forum that don't believe in responsible family planning. The sense of entitlement is astounding.

People respond to the economic incentives that are in place--it would be irrational to do anything else but to maximize one's advantages so far as the rules allow.

There ought to be a better debate about who we subsidize and under what conditions, but that's not germane.

Don't hate the player, and all of that.

I don't disagree that's what is happening. However, I do find trouble with people trying to pretend or make themselves out to be what they are not. If you're going to bring a kid into this world when you're financially unable and expect the tax payers to subsidize your decision, you're irresponsible and shady. Don't pretend you're not. Go ahead and do whatever you want.

 

[kimposibl]

Yes, she was an unemployed mom, and like I said, I fully support people to get benefits if they are unable to work but willing to. I don't see your point? It seems people keep trying to box me into this pretty little package that you can dismiss because I'm somehow unreasonable and want all government programs gone.

I'm seriously troubled by the number of members in this forum that don't believe in responsible family planning. The sense of entitlement is astounding.


I don't disagree that's what is happening. However, I do find trouble with people trying to pretend or make themselves out to be what they are not. If you're going to bring a kid into this world when you're financially unable and expect the tax payers to subsidize your decision, you're irresponsible and shady. Don't pretend you're not. Go ahead and do whatever you want.

My point is, you don't like people who are unable to financially support their children and have to use welfare. Ms. Rowling is my example for such a person, who is now extremely wealthy and giving back what she got out and then some. Yet you say you support people who need the benefits.... Who else would take the benefits if they don't need it?? Aren't you contradicting yourself? Are you not reading what you type??

You're trolling.

And I'm sorry if some of us on SDN feel that children are entitled to food, clothing, and shelter.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

If you have a job for me that earns very well, even at paying high amount in taxes, refer it to me right now because apparently my intellect/etc. can't find it.

I understand what you mean about net loses and net gains and what not. Believe me, it's a reasonable/good argument. However, I believe that there are limitations to people qualifying for certain benefits. It's a net benefit to society to have schools, fire fighters, roads, etc. For society to pay for someone to be an at-home mom when they are able to work is simply not.

Maybe I am a "leech," but without many of us "leeches," you wouldn't have these people on top paying big taxes earning the money they do to pay those taxes, whereas a society with too many at-home moms would easily collapse.

See that bolded part is your opinion. The OP/wife is responding to the legal incentives available to them. Society, through our democratically elected lawmakers, have made laws that are going to allow her to do exactly what you don't want. Society actually does want the OP's wife to stay home, raise children in a responsible way, and pull down some food stamps while she's at it. It is legal for her to do so, so...society actually agrees with her plan. It's just you who doesn't, which I get. But don't act like society's desires are perfectly aligned with yours, because de facto they aren't.

 

[TriagePreMed]

See that bolded part is your opinion. The OP/wife is responding to the legal incentives available to them. Society, through our democratically elected lawmakers, have made laws that are going to allow her to do exactly what you don't want. Society actually does want the OP's wife to stay home, raise children in a responsible way, and pull down some food stamps while she's at it. It is legal for her to do so, so...society actually agrees with her plan. It's just you who doesn't, which I get. But don't act like society's desires are perfectly aligned with yours, because de facto they aren't.

You do realize that food stamps and all these benefits have in law that you must be seeking employment, right? You're welcome to look at the rules here: http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/assistance/pages/foodstamps/foodstamps.aspx society hasn't said that they want her to raise her kid at our expense. This is why I keep saying they are gaming the system for their benefit.

 

[TriagePreMed]

My point is, you don't like people who are unable to financially support their children and have to use welfare. Ms. Rowling is my example for such a person, who is now extremely wealthy and giving back what she got out and then some. Yet you say you support people who need the benefits.... Who else would take the benefits if they don't need it?? Aren't you contradicting yourself? Are you not reading what you type??

You're trolling.

And I'm sorry if some of us on SDN feel that children are entitled to food, clothing, and shelter.

No, I'm not trolling. I didn't get a post count of 5k by being a troll around here.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. Read it slowly because you don't get it: If you're unable to work but willing, you deserve benefits (JK Rowlings). If you're able to work but unwilling, you don't deserve them.

Yes, children are entitled to food, clothing and shelter. I said that explicitly. That's not what is being discussed here. If you haven't followed the discussion or don't understand it, please refrain from posting.

 

[rain4venus]

As long as there are more applicants than seats, you're nothing special and someone else could be paying those taxes in four years without having to game the system.

But.... if he doesn't get in then the whole thing is irrelevant and we'd be paying taxes those 4 years anyway from his low-mid salary.

 

[rain4venus]

See that bolded part is your opinion. The OP/wife is responding to the legal incentives available to them. Society, through our democratically elected lawmakers, have made laws that are going to allow her to do exactly what you don't want. Society actually does want the OP's wife to stay home, raise children in a responsible way, and pull down some food stamps while she's at it. It is legal for her to do so, so...society actually agrees with her plan. It's just you who doesn't, which I get. But don't act like society's desires are perfectly aligned with yours, because de facto they aren't.

+1
Said much better than I could.

And to me, being raised by a parent is essential to a child's wellbeing. I know other people disagree and I have no opinion on anyone else's parenting styles, because it's not my place as long as they aren't directly harming their children. To me it's similar to wanting to provide my child with nutritious food. Few people would question a working mother getting food stamps to supplement their income because it's established that will make the children healthier, and healthy children are beneficial to society. For me, I believe having a SAH parent is as necessary to a child's health (again, no judgments for anyone who disagrees) and so is also beneficial to society. If government assistance will allow me to provide my child with maximum health, I don't see why I would choose to instead do something I feel would injure my child, especially if I was relatively confident that my family would eventually be able to pay back whatever we received and much more.

I'm not advocating having children in order to get benefits. But I'm also not advocating that less wealthy nontrads decide between children and medical school. Those benefits are there in order to help people get ahead in life. They want people who are bettering themselves and will eventually pay back more into the system than they take out.

Ugh...brevity is not my strong suit.

ETA: Furthermore, the reason this whole thing started is that instead of asking "OP, would your wife be able to get a job?" TPR came in with "Tell your wife to get a job." I think everyone would be more amenable to hearing his position if he hadn't come in so aggressively, especially when he didn't even know anything about the OP's background.

 

[rain4venus]

You do realize that food stamps and all these benefits have in law that you must be seeking employment, right? You're welcome to look at the rules here: http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/assistance/pages/foodstamps/foodstamps.aspx society hasn't said that they want her to raise her kid at our expense. This is why I keep saying they are gaming the system for their benefit.

In that case, why does the very link you provide list "Am I an eligible student?" as the third option under "Information for applicants and recipients"?

 

[sgemmell]

You do realize that food stamps and all these benefits have in law that you must be seeking employment, right? You're welcome to look at the rules here: http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/assistance/pages/foodstamps/foodstamps.aspx society hasn't said that they want her to raise her kid at our expense. This is why I keep saying they are gaming the system for their benefit.

Actually, that's not entirely true. If you notice, per your own link, there is separate eligibility for students and food stamps (see the links to the right within your linked website). In this link, it states that students over 18 that are at least half-time students MAY be eligible (depending on income) under a variety of circumstances - including simply having a dependent child. It does NOT say that they must be seeking employment.

Each state has their own requirements. I live in Pennsylvania - here, my children and I are eligible for food stamps, and my boys are on medicaid, while I am a medical student. We are not eligible for other welfare benefits (such as housing or daycare assistance), because I am not looking for employment while in school.

Seeking employment may or may not be required based on the type of assistance being applied for and the state in which the person resides.

 

[TriagePreMed]

In that case, why does the very link you provide list "Am I an eligible student?" as the third option under "Information for applicants and recipients"?

The student may be eligible under some circumstances. His wife is not a student. She's an able bodied person that should work.

Actually, that's not entirely true. If you notice, per your own link, there is separate eligibility for students and food stamps (see the links to the right within your linked website). In this link, it states that students over 18 that are at least half-time students MAY be eligible (depending on income) under a variety of circumstances - including simply having a dependent child. It does NOT say that they must be seeking employment.

Each state has their own requirements. I live in Pennsylvania - here, my children and I are eligible for food stamps, and my boys are on medicaid, while I am a medical student. We are not eligible for other welfare benefits (such as housing or daycare assistance), because I am not looking for employment while in school.

Seeking employment may or may not be required based on the type of assistance being applied for and the state in which the person resides.

Yes, that's correct, but the issue is that this involves a spouse. Do you have a spouse that's unwilling to work? If that's the case, I find it hard to believe the food stamp/medicaid system not being played.

 

[sgemmell]

Yes, that's correct, but the issue is that this involves a spouse. Do you have a spouse that's unwilling to work? If that's the case, I find it hard to believe the food stamp/medicaid system not being played

.

Personally, I don't have a spouse - I divorced my ex-husband in 2005 for very good reasons that I will not disclose here. However, there are several married parents in my medical school class. One couple - the mother works (as an RN) while the dad is a medical student, they receive no assistance. The other couples all have a stay at home mother, while the father is in medical school - every single one of them is eligible for food stamps and medicaid. In these families, the mothers haven't completed college, and due to their skills sets and the economy where we live, they can't find work that would actually bring any money into the household after they pay child care.

Child care, amazingly, does cost a lot. Just an example - one of my friends who is a 4th year medical student is also a single mother - she pays just under $900/month for before and after school care for her two daughters. Fortunately for her, her dad is a retired ENT and her parents have paid all of her tuition, fees and living expenses while in medical school (which they don't have to do but choose to do), so she has been able to avoid getting any welfare assistance (other than CHIP for her girls).

Basically, while I agree that people need to be creative and do whatever is necessary - sometimes, given their situation, using welfare assistance is necessary. According to the OP, his wife is attempting to get her national certification in her field, which will be necessary for her to work within her field where he will be attending medical school. If she is able to do this, then, if the economy is such that she can get a position within that field, perhaps they can avoid using welfare assistance. They are actively trying to avoid assistance by doing this. However, if she is not able to get this certification for some reason, depending on the economy where they live - if she works, she may be working to simply pay daycare costs - which doesn't really alleviate the financial shortfall since there may not be enough left over after paying daycare to actually afford necessities. IF this is the case, they may need to apply for food stamps and medicaid for their daughter, and the mother be a stay at home mother until her certification goes through, allowing her to get a position that pays well enough to not need assistance.

It's wrong to assume that IF the mother stays home she isn't willing to work and that they would be playing the system. Yes, there are people that play the system - and that's wrong. But, unless you are privy to every detail of the economy where they live (including the cost of daycare, relative to income), their individual circumstances, you simply don't have enough information to determine someone is playing the system.

 

[sgemmell]

The student may be eligible under some circumstances. His wife is not a student. She's an able bodied person that should work.

Again, you are assuming she can find a position in another field that will pay enough to pay more than just the daycare of their child.

Think about it like this - say she gets a job at McDonald's and works as much as they will schedule her. Let's face it, many of these places will only work the person part time unless they are in management - and unless she has managerial experience in the same field, she's not going to get hired on in management. This means she most likely would be paid minimum wage and work 20 - 30 hours a week - at 30 hours a weeks that's $870/month prior to taxes, medicare, social security. She might take home $740/month. Now, let's look at daycare - daycare typically charges full time rates if the child will be present more than 20 hours a week. Given their daughter is not in school yet, this means that they would need what is considered full time daycare, and for a child that isn't in school yet, that means they will probably pay between $150 - $250/week in daycare costs. If they luck out at find a place that charged $150/week for daycare. They will come out with $140/month from the mother's job. Well, now they are paying extra in gas and increased maintenance for the vehicle that she drives to get to and from work. This means they are down to having that job bring them in maybe $50 - 75/month. $50 - $75/month isn't going to help them. Their child would no longer be eligible for medicaid, they won't get food stamps, etc., etc. - which means that the amount he gets from his monthly stipend will go even less far. In other words, working at McDonald's or other job equal to this would actually hurt their financial situation.

Once their daughter is in school, it might be easier for the mother to accept a lesser paying job, and get off assistance and actually have her limited income actually be beneficial. She might be able to find a part time job that works hours that would only be while their daughter is in school - in which case, they won't need to pay daycare and all the income can go toward other household expenses. Or the cost of before and after school care may be enough cheaper that even if they pay daycare, the income will still be helpful.

That doesn't mean she shouldn't look for work, even outside her field - but, it means they have to look at it realistically. They have to figure out what the minimum income they would need her to make in order to not need welfare assistance. This will narrow the types of jobs she can realistically accept.

See there is this income range that is too little to make ends meet without assistance, but is too high to be eligible for assistance. They cannot end up in this position. As a result, they may need her to be a stay at home mom while he's in medical school; or they may find something that works well for their family and avoids the need for assistance. In an ideal world and hopefully, she will be able to find a position (in her field or otherwise) that prevents them from needing assistance of any kind.

 

[TriagePreMed]

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Refer back to a few posts where I answered to it. In short, yes, if it doesn't work out financially, go ahead and find assistance. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not here taking an extremist position. I'm saying that if $2,000 isn't enough, the wife could work a minimum wage job making $1,600 a month. The criticism initiated due to the fact that the OP said the only way his wife would be working was if she obtained her license for her current job skill. I said that's an unacceptable standard since there are other jobs, such as minimum wage, that she can work without having to have a big skill set.

Again, you are assuming she can find a position in another field that will pay enough to pay more than just the daycare of their child.

Think about it like this - say she gets a job at McDonald's and works as much as they will schedule her. Let's face it, many of these places will only work the person part time unless they are in management - and unless she has managerial experience in the same field, she's not going to get hired on in management. This means she most likely would be paid minimum wage and work 20 - 30 hours a week - at 30 hours a weeks that's $870/month prior to taxes, medicare, social security. She might take home $740/month. Now, let's look at daycare - daycare typically charges full time rates if the child will be present more than 20 hours a week. Given their daughter is not in school yet, this means that they would need what is considered full time daycare, and for a child that isn't in school yet, that means they will probably pay between $150 - $250/week in daycare costs. If they luck out at find a place that charged $150/week for daycare. They will come out with $140/month from the mother's job. Well, now they are paying extra in gas and increased maintenance for the vehicle that she drives to get to and from work. This means they are down to having that job bring them in maybe $50 - 75/month. $50 - $75/month isn't going to help them. Their child would no longer be eligible for medicaid, they won't get food stamps, etc., etc. - which means that the amount he gets from his monthly stipend will go even less far. In other words, working at McDonald's or other job equal to this would actually hurt their financial situation.

Once their daughter is in school, it might be easier for the mother to accept a lesser paying job, and get off assistance and actually have her limited income actually be beneficial. She might be able to find a part time job that works hours that would only be while their daughter is in school - in which case, they won't need to pay daycare and all the income can go toward other household expenses. Or the cost of before and after school care may be enough cheaper that even if they pay daycare, the income will still be helpful.

That doesn't mean she shouldn't look for work, even outside her field - but, it means they have to look at it realistically. They have to figure out what the minimum income they would need her to make in order to not need welfare assistance. This will narrow the types of jobs she can realistically accept.

See there is this income range that is too little to make ends meet without assistance, but is too high to be eligible for assistance. They cannot end up in this position. As a result, they may need her to be a stay at home mom while he's in medical school; or they may find something that works well for their family and avoids the need for assistance. In an ideal world and hopefully, she will be able to find a position (in her field or otherwise) that prevents them from needing assistance of any kind.

 

[sgemmell]

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Refer back to a few posts where I answered to it. In short, yes, if it doesn't work out financially, go ahead and find assistance. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not here taking an extremist position. I'm saying that if $2,000 isn't enough, the wife could work a minimum wage job making $1,600 a month. The criticism initiated due to the fact that the OP said the only way his wife would be working was if she obtained her license for her current job skill. I said that's an unacceptable standard since there are other jobs, such as minimum wage, that she can work without having to have a big skill set.

I understand this. However, what you are failing to understand is that we don't know what types of jobs she will have access to where they live. btw - most jobs that pay minimum wage are NOT full time -- furthermore, working 40 hours a weeks at $7.25/hour (which is minimum wage) does not bring in $1600/month. 40 hours a week at minimum wage is $1160/month prior to taxes -- or just about $986/month after taxes, medicare, social security. Again - you run into the problem that, after daycare, it may not be enough to make up the financial short comings, but be enough that they won't qualify for any assistance.

I understand that you don't have a problem with people using assistance if they need it. What you seem to be failing to grasp, and correct me if I'm wrong, but having a stay at home parent doesn't automatically mean that the people are playing the system. You seem to fail to realize that minimum wage jobs, even if full time, actually HURT a family's financial situation more than they help. The family ends up not getting assistance, but not making enough to actually take care of the family either.

The OP stated that his stipend will be $2122 before taxes, which comes out to approximately $1800/month after taxes. They will have to pay $1000/month in rent and utilities -- leaving $800/month for everything else (food, gas, car insurance, household and personal cleaning items, co-pays, etc., etc.). So, say the mom gets a minimum wage job, and is lucky enough to find one that is full time. Now, their combined income, after taxes would be approximately $2800 / month. They pay their rent & utilities of $1000/month, leaving them $1800/month for everything else. Now, because the mom is working full-time, they now have to pay full-time childcare. Say they find the average rate of daycare of $200/week for their daughter - now they are down to $1000/month for food, car insurance, gas, car maintenance, household and personal hygiene items, co-pays, etc., etc. Sounds good, right? Well, not really, now that you consider that they've lost eligibility for medicaid. This means that now, her full-time, but minimum wage job that was bringing home nearly $1000/month is only bringing home approximately $750/month after insurance premiums are taken out. This means that now, instead of having $1000/month to pay expenses, they actually only have $750/month to pay expenses -- which is less than they had with just his stipend and her being a stay at home mom, but being eligible for medicaid. Keep in mind their expenses increase with her working due to more gas, car maintenance, etc., etc.

Essentially, the only way it would benefit them to have her work is if she could land a job that pays quite a bit more than minimum wage and is full-time, whether the job is in her field or not. How much more she would need depends on their specific expenses.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Please refer back to the other posts. I'm glad to discuss things but not repeat myself. The $1600 figure is based on the minimum wage of Oregon, the state they will live in. I made that clear in a previous post. I also made clear the numbers game about expenses. The idea that a minimum wage job = the net of not working, even with child care for one child, is ridiculous, but play your numbers until they fit your argument if you want. And again, not making an argument here for her to work if there's no net gain. You say you don't want to make the assumption of what job she'd get, but you do want to make the assumption that she won't get full time or that most minimum wage doesn't do full-time. There is no requirement for the job to be minimum wage. That was simply a reference point. Many waitresses, hostess and other jobs pay above minimum wage (factoring in tips if you must).

One last time: the argument began over the idea that the wife was only going to work if she got her license i.e. wouldn't work another type job. I was saying there are other jobs besides those of her license that she could work with minimum skills.

Sorry, but next time I won't repeat myself. There's no point discussing something that has been discussed.

I understand this. However, what you are failing to understand is that we don't know what types of jobs she will have access to where they live. btw - most jobs that pay minimum wage are NOT full time -- furthermore, working 40 hours a weeks at $7.25/hour (which is minimum wage) does not bring in $1600/month. 40 hours a week at minimum wage is $1160/month prior to taxes -- or just about $986/month after taxes, medicare, social security. Again - you run into the problem that, after daycare, it may not be enough to make up the financial short comings, but be enough that they won't qualify for any assistance.

I understand that you don't have a problem with people using assistance if they need it. What you seem to be failing to grasp, and correct me if I'm wrong, but having a stay at home parent doesn't automatically mean that the people are playing the system. You seem to fail to realize that minimum wage jobs, even if full time, actually HURT a family's financial situation more than they help. The family ends up not getting assistance, but not making enough to actually take care of the family either.

The OP stated that his stipend will be $2122 before taxes, which comes out to approximately $1800/month after taxes. They will have to pay $1000/month in rent and utilities -- leaving $800/month for everything else (food, gas, car insurance, household and personal cleaning items, co-pays, etc., etc.). So, say the mom gets a minimum wage job, and is lucky enough to find one that is full time. Now, their combined income, after taxes would be approximately $2800 / month. They pay their rent & utilities of $1000/month, leaving them $1800/month for everything else. Now, because the mom is working full-time, they now have to pay full-time childcare. Say they find the average rate of daycare of $200/week for their daughter - now they are down to $1000/month for food, car insurance, gas, car maintenance, household and personal hygiene items, co-pays, etc., etc. Sounds good, right? Well, not really, now that you consider that they've lost eligibility for medicaid. This means that now, her full-time, but minimum wage job that was bringing home nearly $1000/month is only bringing home approximately $750/month after insurance premiums are taken out. This means that now, instead of having $1000/month to pay expenses, they actually only have $750/month to pay expenses -- which is less than they had with just his stipend and her being a stay at home mom, but being eligible for medicaid. Keep in mind their expenses increase with her working due to more gas, car maintenance, etc., etc.

Essentially, the only way it would benefit them to have her work is if she could land a job that pays quite a bit more than minimum wage and is full-time, whether the job is in her field or not. How much more she would need depends on their specific expenses.

 

[rain4venus]

One couple - the mother works (as an RN) while the dad is a medical student, they receive no assistance. The other couples all have a stay at home mother, while the father is in medical school - every single one of them is eligible for food stamps and medicaid.

sgemmell basically said what I wanted to say. The SAH parent may not be eligible, but the med student parent may well be, since all it takes in some states (OR included it seems) is to be a student with a dependent child. Whether his wife is eligible or not is irrelevant because they're a family. If he qualifies for food stamps, it's her kids that will be eating the food bought with them. The fact that TPM is drawing some distinction makes it even clearer that he's not married.
Also, I didn't even think about the extra cost associated with being ineligible for medicaid, although I assume if you didn't work and enrolled in medicaid you'd be gaming the system again. Probably best to just forgo the insurance for your kids to make your minimum wage job worth it.

PS: I don't recommend using numbers or reality (like that minimum wage jobs are rarely full time) in your arguments. Neither seems to be TPM's strong suit.

Many waitresses, hostess and other jobs pay above minimum wage (factoring in tips if you must).

A very large number of waitresses are actually paid well below minimum wage (last one I looked at was something like $2.50), and although you're absolutely correct that they often end up making over minimum wage once tips are factored in, it requires a certain personality to be able to earn much in tips. I wouldn't call waiting tables a job that requires no skills; I doubt I would be able to do it well. Also, even the least desirable restaurants usually won't hire people to the waitstaff if they haven't worked in food service, meaning you also need experience in most cases. You can sometimes get hostess positions without experience, but you won't make nearly as much money that way. Some places don't even give hostesses a cut of tips, putting you back at minimum wage.

One last time: the argument began over the idea that the wife was only going to work if she got her license i.e. wouldn't work another type job. I was saying there are other jobs besides those of her license that she could work with minimum skills.

Sorry, but next time I won't repeat myself. There's no point discussing something that has been discussed.

There is one point to it, which is that you still don't grasp the point we're making. Fortunately I don't mind repeating myself: It's extremely hard to find a full-time entry-level job for which you have and/or need no skills, experience, or qualifications. It costs much more for a company to hire one person for 40 hours per week than to hire two people for 20 hours each. And if she can't find *full-time* work, then she will probably be barely breaking even with her job.
Additionally, it's often tough to convince any kind of minimum wage employer to hire you if you have a college degree, or any specific skills, because they assume you're going to leave them once you find a job in your preferred field. And in the case of the OP's wife, they'd be right to think that.

 

[sgemmell]

rain4venus: All very good points. While I agree that people, including the OP's wife, should look for work in an effort to avoid using welfare assistance, I also realize that, sometimes, this isn't possible, depending on the circumstances. I also realize that TPN does see times when welfare assistance is needed, s/he has stated this many times.

TriagePreMed: I would like to point out one more thing to you -- a full time, minimum wage job, even in OR does NOT make $1600/month. Minimum wage in OR, as of January 1, 2013, is $8.95/hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $1432/month, gross (without overtime).

Again, I agree that people need to be creative when they are in a financial short fall. They need to find ways to cut expenses and increase income. I'm not saying that's not possible with the OP. What I am saying is a minimum wage job, even full-time, which is what you initially suggested (flipping burgers at McDonald's) isn't going to cut it, even with minimal expenses. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this.

 

[TriagePreMed]

rain4venus: All very good points. While I agree that people, including the OP's wife, should look for work in an effort to avoid using welfare assistance, I also realize that, sometimes, this isn't possible, depending on the circumstances. I also realize that TPN does see times when welfare assistance is needed, s/he has stated this many times.

TriagePreMed: I would like to point out one more thing to you -- a full time, minimum wage job, even in OR does NOT make $1600/month. Minimum wage in OR, as of January 1, 2013, is $8.95/hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $1432/month, gross (without overtime).

Again, I agree that people need to be creative when they are in a financial short fall. They need to find ways to cut expenses and increase income. I'm not saying that's not possible with the OP. What I am saying is a minimum wage job, even full-time, which is what you initially suggested (flipping burgers at McDonald's) isn't going to cut it, even with minimal expenses. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this.

The difference comes to you using the 4 week month versus me using the 4.5 week month, so in a way we are both correct. A month like February is $1.4k but a month like May is $1.6k.

I think many of us are actually on the same page, but (perhaps through my own doing) it came off as if I was saying that no government programs should be used at any time, which, as you acknowledge, is not what I was intending to say.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Those are all arguable points as to how much you'll make vs. no make, etc. Also, part-time work doesn't necessarily mean you break even. You might be working 20 hours, which is not great, but it also means you could be working only 3 days a week, which cuts the cost on daycare, gas, etc. Also it could be working nights which could mean dad takes care of the child. All of this is very variable, which is what I'm pointing out. In short, all I was saying was that not getting a job in your desired field doesn't mean you need to go without employment and you should seek reasonable options.

sgemmell basically said what I wanted to say. The SAH parent may not be eligible, but the med student parent may well be, since all it takes in some states (OR included it seems) is to be a student with a dependent child. Whether his wife is eligible or not is irrelevant because they're a family. If he qualifies for food stamps, it's her kids that will be eating the food bought with them. The fact that TPM is drawing some distinction makes it even clearer that he's not married.
Also, I didn't even think about the extra cost associated with being ineligible for medicaid, although I assume if you didn't work and enrolled in medicaid you'd be gaming the system again. Probably best to just forgo the insurance for your kids to make your minimum wage job worth it.

PS: I don't recommend using numbers or reality (like that minimum wage jobs are rarely full time) in your arguments. Neither seems to be TPM's strong suit.



A very large number of waitresses are actually paid well below minimum wage (last one I looked at was something like $2.50), and although you're absolutely correct that they often end up making over minimum wage once tips are factored in, it requires a certain personality to be able to earn much in tips. I wouldn't call waiting tables a job that requires no skills; I doubt I would be able to do it well. Also, even the least desirable restaurants usually won't hire people to the waitstaff if they haven't worked in food service, meaning you also need experience in most cases. You can sometimes get hostess positions without experience, but you won't make nearly as much money that way. Some places don't even give hostesses a cut of tips, putting you back at minimum wage.



There is one point to it, which is that you still don't grasp the point we're making. Fortunately I don't mind repeating myself: It's extremely hard to find a full-time entry-level job for which you have and/or need no skills, experience, or qualifications. It costs much more for a company to hire one person for 40 hours per week than to hire two people for 20 hours each. And if she can't find *full-time* work, then she will probably be barely breaking even with her job.
Additionally, it's often tough to convince any kind of minimum wage employer to hire you if you have a college degree, or any specific skills, because they assume you're going to leave them once you find a job in your preferred field. And in the case of the OP's wife, they'd be right to think that.

 

[sgemmell]

The difference comes to you using the 4 week month versus me using the 4.5 week month, so in a way we are both correct. A month like February is $1.4k but a month like May is $1.6k.

I think many of us are actually on the same page, but (perhaps through my own doing) it came off as if I was saying that no government programs should be used at any time, which, as you acknowledge, is not what I was intending to say.

True on the weeks in a month. The reason I used the 4 week month is simply this - most people will end up taking vacation, having to call in sick, etc., etc. - and many jobs (anymore) don't pay for vacation and sick time, especially for minimum wage workers.

Also, I agree - many of us are much more on the same page than it appears at first glance. I absolutely understand you are not saying don't use public assistance if necessary.

To be honest, my only issue with you has been (and it's probably a misperception on my part), is that you came across as judgmental and rather arrogant. I don't think that was intentional on your part; rather, a lack of nonverbal communication that led me to read more into your comments that you were actually conveying.

Anyway, best of luck to the OP. I am quite sure you and your wife will figure out what is best for your family. Hopefully, her certification will go through and she can land a job in her field - that will alleviate much of your worry about finances.

 

[sgemmell]

Those are all arguable points as to how much you'll make vs. no make, etc. Also, part-time work doesn't necessarily mean you break even. You might be working 20 hours, which is not great, but it also means you could be working only 3 days a week, which cuts the cost on daycare, gas, etc. Also it could be working nights which could mean dad takes care of the child. All of this is very variable, which is what I'm pointing out. In short, all I was saying was that not getting a job in your desired field doesn't mean you need to go without employment and you should seek reasonable options.

I will point out that working 3 days a week doesn't really save on child care -- 3 days a week, is considered full time for daycare standards. Daycare's are notorious for having odd part-time v full-time. Most daycare's consider 3 days a week full-time. Most daycare's consider 20 hrs /week full-time. Then you get into the issue of pay - most daycare's don't actually charge a daily rate; they charge a weekly rate. It's even worse if the person doesn't work the same schedule every week, which is very common in retail, restaurants, etc., etc. - then, in order to guarantee you child has a spot, you have to contract with the daycare for the full 5 days a week (automatically putting them at the full-time rate) even if one week you use 2 days, and the next week you use 4 days, and the next week you use 5 days, etc., etc.

That said, even with that, there are ways that someone can get around that - if they find someone that is willing to do a daily rate (usually this is a home-based daycare for individual) and only charge you for the days the child is actually there - most are not willing to do this because they want a set income also, not a variable income.

Working nights isn't really a good option (until the child is in school at least), unfortunately. The reason is that the person working nights needs to sleep at some point - usually this would occur when the other parent is at school and/or needing to study. This means that they would still need to pay for child care, just so the parent working nights can actually sleep. That said, it might make paying for child care easier - simply because night shift work often provides a shift differential (and it might be enough to make paying for child care not be the only thing the paycheck pays for).

Agreed - there are a lot of variables and there are ways to make these variables either work for you or against you. It's all about finding what works best and making sacrifices.

 

[sgemmell]

Those are all arguable points as to how much you'll make vs. no make, etc. Also, part-time work doesn't necessarily mean you break even. You might be working 20 hours, which is not great, but it also means you could be working only 3 days a week, which cuts the cost on daycare, gas, etc. Also it could be working nights which could mean dad takes care of the child. All of this is very variable, which is what I'm pointing out. In short, all I was saying was that not getting a job in your desired field doesn't mean you need to go without employment and you should seek reasonable options.

I will point out that working 3 days a week doesn't really save on child care -- 3 days a week, is considered full time for daycare standards. Daycare's are notorious for having odd part-time v full-time. Most daycare's consider 3 days a week full-time. Most daycare's consider 20 hrs /week full-time. Then you get into the issue of pay - most daycare's don't actually charge a daily rate; they charge a weekly rate. It's even worse if the person doesn't work the same schedule every week, which is very common in retail, restaurants, etc., etc. - then, in order to guarantee you child has a spot, you have to contract with the daycare for the full 5 days a week (automatically putting them at the full-time rate) even if one week you use 2 days, and the next week you use 4 days, and the next week you use 5 days, etc., etc.

That said, even with that, there are ways that someone can get around that - if they find someone that is willing to do a daily rate (usually this is a home-based daycare for individual) and only charge you for the days the child is actually there - most are not willing to do this because they want a set income also, not a variable income.

Working nights isn't really a good option (until the child is in school at least), unfortunately. The reason is that the person working nights needs to sleep at some point - usually this would occur when the other parent is at school and/or needing to study. This means that they would still need to pay for child care, just so the parent working nights can actually sleep. That said, it might make paying for child care easier - simply because night shift work often provides a shift differential (and it might be enough to make paying for child care not be the only thing the paycheck pays for).

Agreed - there are a lot of variables and there are ways to make these variables either work for you or against you. It's all about finding what works best and making sacrifices.

 

[rain4venus]

That said, even with that, there are ways that someone can get around that - if they find someone that is willing to do a daily rate (usually this is a home-based daycare for individual) and only charge you for the days the child is actually there - most are not willing to do this because they want a set income also, not a variable income.

Out of curiosity, can you pay someone less than minimum wage for this kind of thing? What kind of rate will someone usually charge per day?

 

[sgemmell]

Out of curiosity, can you pay someone less than minimum wage for this kind of thing? What kind of rate will someone usually charge per day?

It really depends on what the person charges, whether it will be more or less than minimum wage. The lady that watches my son before and after school charges me $60/week for this (it is, on average, 15 hours a week) - but, she cuts me a break because her son and my son are best friends. Normally, she charges others $30/day for all day care for potty trained kids; and $45/day for non-potty trained kids. She also requires that the parents pay for at least 3/days per week.

Some people have state licensed home day cares; others don't. Usually those that are state licensed charge more. Then there is always the option of hiring someone to come to your house to watch your child - in these cases, you will most certainly pay a lot more, because they are often watching only your child(ren). If you hire someone to watch your kids in your home, then you basically have to pay their entire salary, whereas if they are watching multiple children in their own home, their salary is being divided between all the parents.

 

[0123]

I was reading through the thread with all the oughts and shoulds and how dare you not be responsible with your finances. Don't start a day care, Ugg. Just have more kids and be done with it! You'll qualify for food stamps and medicaid and your wife will be able to stay home. Larger the family the higher the qualifying income. I looked up what ours would be if we wanted to apply, family of five, 2800 a month, sweeeet. That would give us almost 800 a month in food stamp benefits too. Wow. So really with benefits and if you include medicaid, dang, we'd be making close to 4k a month but only taxed on 2800 much of which might be recouped with child tax credits and EIC. Hmmmm. What incentive is there to work your cheeks off for an extra 300. Wanna talk about being smart with your finances. Sounds smart to me. haha. Plus you could enjoy building a family! How is this a losing option? Loans are for stupid people that enjoy paying stupid tax, interest. Remember as others have said you need to be responsible with your finances, doesn't mean you have to subscribe to their definition of responsible. Your goal is getting through med school the most comfortable and successful way possible for your family! . Best of luck it will work out my wife and I say get as much of a handout as you can because when you start earning and serving you will pay it back, that's for sure. Try not if you can to have your wife work, unless she want's to ofcourse, that would stink and good job on the scholarship, no debt is awesome. Take full advantage of the laws as they are there to ensure the greater good of society.... and your wife is unable to work so you deserve benefits.

 

[rain4venus]

you only get EIC if you have earned income...
Of course I assume the OP could qualify for it, since he does have earned income, but it wouldn't in general apply to a family with one med student and one SAH parent

 

[rain4venus]

It really depends on what the person charges, whether it will be more or less than minimum wage. The lady that watches my son before and after school charges me $60/week for this (it is, on average, 15 hours a week) - but, she cuts me a break because her son and my son are best friends. Normally, she charges others $30/day for all day care for potty trained kids; and $45/day for non-potty trained kids. She also requires that the parents pay for at least 3/days per week.

Some people have state licensed home day cares; others don't. Usually those that are state licensed charge more. Then there is always the option of hiring someone to come to your house to watch your child - in these cases, you will most certainly pay a lot more, because they are often watching only your child(ren). If you hire someone to watch your kids in your home, then you basically have to pay their entire salary, whereas if they are watching multiple children in their own home, their salary is being divided between all the parents.

Thanks!