how do you live off student loans if it all goes on rent

bestpud

silvercar wrote: »

But is it right that those who are able to work, but lived off benefits for the last 20 years, get help for their children, whereas those who have worked and sometimes financially struggled are expected to support their children, when they haven't got the money to do so?

Now, while I can see the general point you (and Kelloggs) are making, I find comments like this quite annoying!

Why do people assume that students with the maximum help come from families who have not worked, or are somehow undeserving of this funding?

Have people not heard of the minimum wage and is it so hard to imagine that some people actually live on this income AND work!!

It has also been suggested on previous threads that hard work equals good pay - well, not on this planet!

I find it staggering that people on relatively high incomes can say they CANNOT afford to give their children anything because their wages are eaten up with normal living costs ie food. How do people think those on much lower incomes manage then??? Sure, there are tax credits to cushion the gap somewhat, but the difference is still considerable and if people on more can barely afford to eat...

But of course, it would all be 'fair' if those on much lower incomes had to find the same money that those on the higher incomes say they can't!

Oldernotwiser

silvercar wrote: »

Years ago (80s) the grant means testing looked at expenditure as well as income. So if you had high outgoings (on things like mortgages rather than car loans & credit cards) your children got more money than if you had a high income but low outgoings.

We can argue about who should benefit all day, the fact is that the students who are most hard done by are those whose parents are expected to contribute but don't.

You're partly right about the expenditure but, unbelievably, it took mortgages into the calulation but NOT rent, as I know from personal experience. However, I still can't see, either then or now, why someone who chooses to spend money on a more expensive house should be subsidised by the student funding system.

I agree with your second point but not with your implied conclusion; if a student's parents don't contribute when they should then that's something to be sorted out within the family, it's not a case for government intervention.

bestpud

meester wrote: »

I chose my college at Cambridge because they had accommodation for 3 years.

So that's not true.

I think it's true for the vast majority of students though meester.

silvercar

I agree with your second point but not with your implied conclusion; if a student's parents don't contribute when they should then that's something to be sorted out within the family, it's not a case for government intervention.

But how? Its the parents that hold the purse strings.

Imagine that all students were given the same grants and the government took the money off those parents it now judges should be contributing (via tax penalties ).

Parent: I'd like some of your grant money back, because I need it for my mortgage/ rent/ clothes for your sister...

Student: sorry but I've looked at my budget and I can't afford to give you anything. I need to pay my rent/ books/....

Parent: without that money I'll go overdrawn/ into debt.

Student: well without that money I won't be able to complete my education.

Parent: I've supported you throughout your education, not just financially.

Student: Exactly, you've given me the support I need to get this far. Now I've reached this point you want to take the rug from underneath me. If I don't keep this money I won't be able to complete my education.

Maybe I've had too much wine

kelloggs36

bestpud wrote: »

Now, while I can see the general point you (and Kelloggs) are making, I find comments like this quite annoying!

Why do people assume that students with the maximum help come from families who have not worked, or are somehow undeserving of this funding?

Have people not heard of the minimum wage and is it so hard to imagine that some people actually live on this income AND work!!

It has also been suggested on previous threads that hard work equals good pay - well, not on this planet!

I find it staggering that people on relatively high incomes can say they CANNOT afford to give their children anything because their wages are eaten up with normal living costs ie food. How do people think those on much lower incomes manage then??? Sure, there are tax credits to cushion the gap somewhat, but the difference is still considerable and if people on more can barely afford to eat...

But of course, it would all be 'fair' if those on much lower incomes had to find the same money that those on the higher incomes say they can't!

Nobody is suggesting that, but it stands to reason that if you have never worked a day in your life, you will be automatically assessed as a student as being eligible for the full whack - that is what is being said. That isn't fair is it? Again subsidisng the lazy (not all but there are certainly those undeserving out there) whilst those who have worked hard and struggled up the ranks, claiming virtually nothing in return end up losing out. Nobody suggests that those earning low wages don't deserve help but the arbitary figures used, taking no account of true cost of living for those who are working makes life extremely difficult for students whose parents just don't have the money at hand to help out.

kelloggs36

Unfortunately even the tax credit system isn't fair either! By that I mean that because costs aren't taken into account, again headline earnings are the only figures used, those on lower incomes are sometimes left with much higher disposable incomes than those supposedly higher earners. The students from these families will get more help than the others, so the whole welfare system needs a complete overhaul to make it more realistic and fair.

durhampoker99

Just a couple of things to jump in and add from personal experience re. problems with the system.

Firstly...society deems us an adult aged 18. By the age of 18 the classic family make-up has had many opportunities to dissolve, treating HE as a normal "family decision" as if the child were still a 13 year old wanting trainers is unfair. We are independent from our family in every other way and yet how much support we receive when deciding (for ourselves) whether or not to enter into HE is dependent on their income. Seems a bit off to me.

Secondly...as for those "the pot's only so big" arguments...they're nonsensical. The point being raised here is that the money is unfairly SPLIT, not that there's too little of it (that's entirely different - possibly also valid). Re-allocating money is the way this is dealt with, not just throwing more at it.

Thirdly...a general flaw with the system - disincentives. A parent may be actively worse off overall (when taking into account the amount of money they lose in grants/loans) by receiving a pay rise at work. An extraordinary situation. Even in many less extreme examples the incentive to work harder and achieve promotion/payrises at work is massively diluted. Hardly an ideal policy from an economic growth point of view.

Fourthly the "separation" problem which applies directly to me. I'm fortunate enough to come from a family with a total income of about £250k. Unfortunately my mother and father are divorced, I live with my mum who receives maintanence payments of somewhere in the region of £125k p.a. from my father. These count not as income, though, but as a "transfer payment", the result of which my assessed household income is £0. I qualify for full grant/bursaries increased by the fact that I'm at Oxford who's own bursary is £4000 per year. Between this (which may parents are unaware of), my loan, my grant and money from my parents I live very well at uni and outside of term time. It's something, however, that I don't particularly agree with (seems an obvious loophole to me, I've disclosed everything asked of me).

With apologies for the long post...I would say that although the system has worked out fabulously for me it has some serious weaknesses. Not least of all the ones noted by the OP and kellog.

Oldernotwiser

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that, but it stands to reason that if you have never worked a day in your life, you will be automatically assessed as a student as being eligible for the full whack - that is what is being said.

I really wish you'd stop confusing the student with the parents! This statement makes absolutely no sense and completely confuses the issue.

Oldernotwiser

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Unfortunately even the tax credit system isn't fair either! By that I mean that because costs aren't taken into account, again headline earnings are the only figures used, those on lower incomes are sometimes left with much higher disposable incomes than those supposedly higher earners. The students from these families will get more help than the others, so the whole welfare system needs a complete overhaul to make it more realistic and fair.

But what costs do you want taken into account? Large mortgages?Two cars?Foreign holidays? Basic living costs don't vary depending on what you earn, only the choices that people make over and above these. Obviously people who earn more money tend to have better houses, cars and leisure activities, but why you think that these choices should be subsidised by the taxpayer completely escapes me!

Oldernotwiser

durhampoker99 wrote: »

Just a couple of things to jump in and add from personal experience re. problems with the system.

Firstly...society deems us an adult aged 18. By the age of 18 the classic family make-up has had many opportunities to dissolve, treating HE as a normal "family decision" as if the child were still a 13 year old wanting trainers is unfair. We are independent from our family in every other way and yet how much support we receive when deciding (for ourselves) whether or not to enter into HE is dependent on their income. Seems a bit off to me.

Welcome to MSE and thank you for your intelligent post, although I disagree with much of it.

I just want to pick you up on your first point, although what I say won't apply to you personally.

On the Family board there's often discussions about what a parent should take from a young adult for their keep. Although a small minority believe, as I do, in making them pay a full economic amount, the majority opinion is always that only a token payment should be made, if any. Those that advocate taking more normally say that they'll save it for them.

I use this to illustrate the fact that most parents don't see their young adult children as fully independent of them and do believe that it's their role to support them financially well into their twenties. It strikes me as contradictory that so many people should think it normal to subsidise a 20 year old living at home but unreasonable to subsidise him/her when away at university.