←back to thread

Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

(news.mit.edu)
581 points gnabgib | 3 comments | 20 Nov 24 16:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
TheJoeMan ◴[20 Nov 24 19:26 UTC] No.42197249[source]▶
This is a great step in the right direction. I can't speak directly for MIT, but there are issues with how these programs don't apply to parents with small family businesses. My parents had a small business, with my father taking home a salary of $XX,XXX. Duke University used the business assets to determine the EFC (expected family contribution) of literally 90% of the salary. Essentially saying to sell off the family business for the college fund, which was a non-starter.

Small businesses are allegedly the backbone of America, and I feel these tuition support programs overlook this segment of the middle-class.

replies(18): >>42197538 #>>42197658 #>>42198000 #>>42198518 #>>42198630 #>>42198802 #>>42199002 #>>42199120 #>>42199126 #>>42199269 #>>42199949 #>>42200245 #>>42200451 #>>42200630 #>>42200685 #>>42200902 #>>42201562 #>>42202117 #
s1artibartfast ◴[20 Nov 24 22:09 UTC] No.42198630[source]▶
Isn't the entire point of these assessments to look at total assets, and not just annual income?

I dont think this was an oversight or mistake. I think the expectation was that yes, people should sell assets if they have them .

replies(3): >>42198884 #>>42199290 #>>42199534 #
xboxnolifes ◴[20 Nov 24 22:39 UTC] No.42198884[source]▶
The "mistake" is that the assets themselves are the source of income. Sell them off, and the income goes away too. It's the equivalent of expecting the parents to use 100% of their income to put their kids into college, which is impossible.
replies(2): >>42198953 #>>42199287 #
1. Dylan16807 ◴[20 Nov 24 22:49 UTC] No.42198953[source]▶
A bunch of stock is a source of income too, but it wouldn't be wrong to use some of it.

If the business is worth enough then selling it can replace all the income you would have ever gotten from it. It's not as simple as "income goes away". The specific numbers make all the difference.

replies(1): >>42199183 #
2. bb88 ◴[20 Nov 24 23:21 UTC] No.42199183[source]▶
> A bunch of stock is a source of income too, but it wouldn't be wrong to use some of it.

Normal US tax law that most people fall under says no, stock itself is not income. It's only taxed at the time of sale. If you ask for mark to market taxing then any increase in market value during the calendar year will count as income -- even if you didn't sell anything throughout the year. But usually those people are drawing a direct income from trading.

replies(1): >>42199310 #
3. s1artibartfast ◴[20 Nov 24 23:36 UTC] No.42199310[source]▶
Yes, but I think these tests look at both income and assets (like stock). That is why people get dinged for owning assets, even if they are a source of income.