The only people who can take advantage of this “strategy” are at least 50 when their kids start university, and are willing to retire on social security at 62 including whatever penalties for taking it early.
You’re looking at people who are poor, but started having kids later in life (33-34), that’s already a small overlap. Then their kids have to get into university, and they have to either get into an expensive university, or the parents have to be so poor that they consider it better to forgo a decent income in retirement to save tuition at a modestly priced university. Not to mention have to plan to die with no assets or inheritance for their kids. Then they have to have the financial planning acumen to implement this strategy. They also have to be the type of people that read Forbes.
I think the “intended” audience for this article doesn’t exist. I think this article is there to generate one of two reactions either “this is a late capitalist dystopia” type grief, or anger towards these poor people exploiting the system “welfare Queen” style. That’s why it’s ambiguous in whether it’s judging the people doing it or encouraging it.
This article is pretty stupid.
The only people who can take advantage of this “strategy” are at least 50 when their kids start university, and are willing to retire on social security at 62 including whatever penalties for taking it early.
You’re looking at people who are poor, but started having kids later in life (33-34), that’s already a small overlap. Then their kids have to get into university, and they have to either get into an expensive university, or the parents have to be so poor that they consider it better to forgo a decent income in retirement to save tuition at a modestly priced university. Not to mention have to plan to die with no assets or inheritance for their kids. Then they have to have the financial planning acumen to implement this strategy. They also have to be the type of people that read Forbes.
I think the “intended” audience for this article doesn’t exist. I think this article is there to generate one of two reactions either “this is a late capitalist dystopia” type grief, or anger towards these poor people exploiting the system “welfare Queen” style. That’s why it’s ambiguous in whether it’s judging the people doing it or encouraging it.
It’s just classic rage bait.