Nurses and Kids Going to College?

Paying for a child's education and saving money at the same time is hard. Nurses Announcements Archive Article

Most of us must choose and that's not an easy thing to do - but it could be crucial to your retirement.

Many Americans, nurses included, will find that they will have to delay retirement and work longer to reach their financial goals. We are living years longer and it takes more money to make that work.

A principal reason retirement is delayed, too, is that too many parents prioritize saving into a child's college fund over their own retirement plans.

Putting money into future college classes isn't going to help your kid if they end up having to support you in your old age - right when they should be saving for their own retirements.

It can be a difficult conversation, one I have often with clients, and it's no easier a conversation between clients and their own kids. Who wants to deprive their children of their dreams?

Nurses especially have a tough time of it. The hours are long and the opportunity to learn about investing are few. After working long shifts, parenting and the grind of a commute there isn't much mental energy for thinking about money.

Here's the quick version: Don't put money in a 529 account for your child. Put it in a retirement account for yourself. Your son or daughter can get a loan for college. You can't get a loan to pay for your retirement.

The big reason is time. You cannot make more of it, while your kids have nothing but time. The whole reason that saving regularly for retirement works is compound interest, and that requires serious time, decades.

The money you set aside today into a tax-deferred IRA will grow and compound over the years. Compound growth is like magic. A dollar saved turns into two, then four, then eight. Prudently invested money cannot help but grow into a major nest egg.

Picture a pond. It has one lily pad on it. The lily pad doubles every week. There are two lily pads, then four, then eight. The pond is filling up all by itself.

In the second-to-last week, the lily pads cover half the pond. By the very next week, the entire pond is covered! Remember, the lilies are doubling. All of them.

That's how compound interest works. You need to save early and consistently, but by the end of your saving years the amount of money in your account can be enormous.

People underestimate how powerful and important time is to long-term investments. They chase immediate priorities, then fail to use that time when they are young to get started saving and investing. It costs them big in the long run.

Yes, buy a house if you like. Pay off your student debts, of course. But definitely make retirement saving a priority, and you should make it a higher priority than higher ed for your children.

You can always help your kids later, when your retirement is secure. Give them tax-free cash (the IRS allows it) that you don't need to spend. Buy them cars or vacations if you like, anything.

Just don't give them those dollars now, while that money could be invested and compounding into real retirement security for you. If you end up not needing it all, they'll get it anyway, right?

I often tell my clients that choosing retirement over higher education doesn't mean that you can't help your children financially. It doesn't mean you are a bad parent.

It does mean that you are taking your own future seriously, and that's a powerful lesson for any child at any age.

Specializes in Case mgmt., rehab, (CRRN), LTC & psych.
I completely disagree with your parents' philosophy regarding higher education. Education gives people more options, not to mention the intangible benefits that come with learning new things and expanding one's mind.
Don't get me wrong...I also disagree with my parents' views toward higher learning. Education widens our worldviews and makes us well-rounded citizens. Moreover, I am less vulnerable to layoffs and economic downturns due to my educational credentials.

Nonetheless, conversations about 529 accounts and saving for college are only taking place in middle-class households where education is valued. After all, the very rich do not need to save for college, while those on the bottom economic rungs frequently do not see the value of higher learning.

Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
If you have an excellent retirement program at work, which my husband and I both do,

then you are very lucky indeed. I am funding my own retirement via a 403b. There is no pension, there is no employer contribution, there is no employer match. I contribute as much as I can, and I'm likely going to have just enough to squeak by when I retire- as long as I retire at 67 or older, don't have huge expenses, don't have to leave the workforce early, and inflation isn't much beyond what the predictions are. There just isn't money to set aside in a 529 for my hypothetical future children. I paid my own way through college with the exception of about $1000 in $25 savings bonds gifted over my first 18 years by my grandparents. I didn't expect anything from my parents, and if I have kids, they're going to be raised to expect to have to work for what they want. Anything I'd be able to contribute would be a bonus, not an expectation.

Specializes in ICU.

I grew up poor. Because there was absolutely nothing there for me money wise, I went to work after high school. My parents didn't owe me anything, but having just a little something, may have given me a little confidence to go to college.

My son has a 529 with a healthy amount in it. I'm not forcing him to go to college, but I want him to have the option. I did not. I also have a decent retirement. I contribute to my 403B which my employer matches. My benefits are excellent. They match my FSA as well and if I decide to retire there, I will get a hefty chunk of money to retire from there. I still have many years to retirement, but it's an appealing amount.

While I appreciate the advice, my financial adviser has advised me differently.

I'm going to be very controversial and say that I think would be parents should limit their number off offspring to which they can afford to launch into society with a means to earn a living wage. I do think we owe them.

And then those who suffer unforeseen circumstances can benefit from a less burdened pool of resources.

I also question the logic of kids can simply pay off their own student loans.. That's while they're also contributing to their own retirement, correct? That would mean we expect them to make two different contributions that we are unable to make ourselves.

I'm not against student loans as a supplement to paying for education, but I don't think it should be the only plan we have for our kids. I don't think it is a plan at all actually, it's just happens to be what's available due to lack of planning.

Specializes in ICU.

I agree. My parents helped me with my first two degrees and I greatly appreciated it, but I am paying for my current degree out of pocket myself and I am doing just fine. Paying for a child's school is no guarantee of a return on investment, as I know plenty of people in my high school graduating class who are stocking shelves with their useless expensive bachelor's degrees because they can't find meaningful work. It was a waste of time for them, and it was certainly a waste of money for their parents.

I'm going to be very controversial and say that I think would be parents should limit their number off offspring to which they can afford to launch into society with a means to earn a living wage. I do think we owe them.

I couldn't agree with you more. We need a love button on here, not just a like! :inlove:

Specializes in Case mgmt., rehab, (CRRN), LTC & psych.
I'm going to be very controversial and say that I think would be parents should limit their number off offspring to which they can afford to launch into society with a means to earn a living wage.
For roughly half of all American adults, this would mean having no offspring at all. 50 percent of all U.S. households generate less than $50,000 annually.

We must be honest with ourselves and admit a few points...(1) people bring children into this world primarily for emotional reasons, and (2) a huge swath of people are not college material. Society needs to stop touting college as the only route to success when many tradesmen earn more than certain degree holders.

In addition, working-class and lower-income people should not go childless due to notions from middle-class society that parents must send their kids to college. Why is the educated middle-class blueprint on how to live our lives considered the right way to live?

The biological purpose of our existence is reproduction. We were not created/born to earn degrees, or buy real estate, or secure high-income jobs, or plan for the future, or attain someone else's arbitrary version of the American dream.

We were created to reproduce. To be blunt, if the less-moneyed citizens of society were not having children, the U.S. would have zero or negative population growth, which would result in a new set of problems for future generations.

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.
For roughly half of all American adults, this would mean having no offspring at all. 50 percent of all U.S. households generate less than $50,000 annually....

We were created to reproduce. To be blunt, if the less-moneyed citizens of society were not having children, the U.S. would have zero or negative population growth, which would result in a new set of problems for future generations.

And if I could "LOVE" this post, I would.

"People shouldn't have children if they can't afford to send them to college" is probably one of the most elitist things I've heard in a while.

Specializes in ICU.
I have to wonder how many have really looked HARD at what it takes to retire, just being "comfortable". People are living longer and retirement funds may have to stretch out to age 90 or beyond. I have longevity in my family. I have to really plan ahead if I want to be able to live at all near comfortably. AND not be a burden to my kids. And I don't think it selfish to want to live comfortably working and raising them all my adult life. I think I deserve a bit of comfort and security in my old age. Is that so selfish?

Exactly!

We're also not guaranteed to be able to work tomorrow. There's no guarantee I'm going to live past today. There is no guarantee I'm going to be healthy enough to work past today. There is no guarantee for either of those for my fiance, either. I think having "enough for retirement" is a lie if you don't have enough to retire off of in the bank right now.

I just wonder, out of curiosity, how many of the posters saying they have enough money to fund their children's educations as well as their retirement have already saved up more than a million dollars? I certainly wouldn't retire on much less than that. A million dollars would last around 30 years if all you needed was $30k/year. I would wager most people would need more than that to live off of. My mom's social security payment is $800/month, so keep in mind you can't count on social security for everything, and life gets much more expensive once you have to take prescription medications and you fall in the Medicare doughnut hole every year.

In addition, working-class and lower-income people should not go childless due to notions from middle-class society that parents must send their kids to college. Why is the educated middle-class blueprint on how to live our lives considered the right way to live?

I didn't interpret the previous post as meaning everyone had to be able to pay to send their child to college. Means to earn a living wage, to my thinking, was desire to work hard and be motivated enough to accomplish goals. I'm thinking all a parent has to do to ensure a child can make a living wage is teach them that working a minimum wage job should be a starting point, not an end goal. As long as that mentality is there, a child can pay his/her own way.

And if I could "LOVE" this post, I would.

"People shouldn't have children if they can't afford to send them to college" is probably one of the most elitist things I've heard in a while.

Living wage, not college education. I think it is wrong to have kids with no intention of facilitating a skill set. That is a pragmatic view, not an elitist one.

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.
Living wage, not college education. I think it is wrong to have kids with no intention of facilitating a skill set. That is a pragmatic view, not an elitist one.

It was said in the context of saving money for college.

It was said in the context of saving money for college.

It was not. It was in the context of what we owe our kids.

The only statement that alluded to college was my opinion that we should not rely on student loans as a primary plan. Given the student loan bubble, I don't think I'm off base.

I'm going to be very controversial and say that I think would be parents should limit their number off offspring to which they can afford to launch into society with a means to earn a living wage. I do think we owe them.

And then those who suffer unforeseen circumstances can benefit from a less burdened pool of resources.

I also question the logic of kids can simply pay off their own student loans.. That's while they're also contributing to their own retirement, correct? That would mean we expect them to make two different contributions that we are unable to make ourselves.

I'm not against student loans as a supplement to paying for education, but I don't think it should be the only plan we have for our kids. I don't think it is a plan at all actually, it's just happens to be what's available due to lack of planning.

I will always stand behind these statements. The second part in context of OP's advice to rely on student loans.