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

kelloggs36

I certainly don't agree - how do they learn how to deal with money if they are mollycoddled like that? When my daughter works if she lives here, she will be charged rent - if she doesn't like it then she can find out what it is like in the real world!

kelloggs36

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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

It is very simple. Student of parents who have never worked will be assessed and given full loan and grants galore. That is not difficult to explain. How is that fair to a student of a family who are over the minimum but below the maximum who get partial grants, but end up no better off than somebody who gets nothing? They get no EXTRA help but have to struggle on with no help from their parents either, who cannot help. Thus showing that not doing a day's work pays dividends in the end!

The_One_Who

So those who come from families who have claimed benefits all their lives (I believe this number is probably quite low in actuality) should not get any help to improve their lot? They should not go to university and so will probably end up claiming benefits instead of doing a dead end job, thus keeping them in poverty?

Both of my parents have worked but they don't earn much. I need the financial help. My family have never been on holiday abroad, something most children take for granted, I've never had the fancy gadgets as soon as they come out. If I got a PlayStation for Christmas it was all I got. The vast majority of my loan money goes on train fare since I cannot afford to move out and I don't have the luxury of having parents who could help me out if I got in trouble, even if it was just sending me some food.

bestpud

kelloggs36 wrote: »

It is very simple. Student of parents who have never worked will be assessed and given full loan and grants galore. That is not difficult to explain. How is that fair to a student of a family who are over the minimum but below the maximum who get partial grants, but end up no better off than somebody who gets nothing? They get no EXTRA help but have to struggle on with no help from their parents either, who cannot help. Thus showing that not doing a day's work pays dividends in the end!

The point here (and a major one at that) is children from families that have never worked (and I mean layabouts now, not those who cannot work!) are very unlikely to apply for university anyway!

Unfortunately, so are the children of low income families who have worked for a living but not been fortunate (for a variety of reasons, I may add) to climb up the ladder and earn a decent salary!

These children are also more likely to receive the worst state education, from the worst schools, and live in the poorest areas. Now, that does not mean they have less intelligence, or are less deserving of HE imo.

It does mean their families work hard, but earn a low income and want better for their children, and cannot (truly CANNOT) afford to pay for them to go to uni! Many will have no savings whatsoever and many will have no pension scheme, or big mortgage either.

But they will have the working expenses that higher income families have, of course!!

Yet, these people should pay money that those on much higher incomes 'cannot' afford to pay themselves? :rolleyes: That is not fair because the end result would be those young people would not have the chance of going to uni at all!

Those from the higher income families will still go of course! That is why the govt helps low income families - they otherwise would not have the chances that money can bring, and that is wrong! The higher earners do find this money, funnily enough!

But, going back to your argument (and taking out those who are unable to work, or have had periods when they have been, as that affects overall earning power as well!), perhaps parents should be quizzed about their working background and all those deemed to be wasters will be told their children cannot go to uni until they have left home and supported themselves for three years? :rolleyes: There won't be that many to process though, and the savings won't be huge, as these young people just don't go into HE as a rule, like I said.

And lastly, a days work does not equal a high income at all!! Of course, it could be argued those doing manual labour work harder for their lower wage too, but that's a different debate!

Really, would you please stop inferring that those who get the maximum help have parents who have worked less hard, or less years - that is quite simply rubbish in, probably, the majority of cases for HE students!

The_One_Who

Thank you Bestpud, you said it better than me.

Also, poorer areas tend to be poor because they don't have a very good local economy so part-time jobs are hard to come by. So students working isn't common. They most likely won't have a car so driving to the nearest large shopping area isn't an option and public transport doesn't tend to be good in these areas.

silvercar

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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.

But you see no contradiction in expecting 20 year olds to fully pay their way while living at home, yet not be considered as independent when assessed for student grants.

So you expect a parent to subsidise a student, but wouldn't support them if living at home.

silvercar

Just as an aside, if the student gets married, they are automatically considered independent and assessed on their own income not that of their parents.

durhampoker99

silvercar wrote: »

But you see no contradiction in expecting 20 year olds to fully pay their way while living at home, yet not be considered as independent when assessed for student grants.

So you expect a parent to subsidise a student, but wouldn't support them if living at home.

Yeah I noticed that...seems a little inconsistent.

What I would say is that there is also a fundamental difference between not charging a child for spending time in his family home of x years as against handing them money straight from income to spend whilst at uni on rent and the like. For a start the costs to the parents are likely to be significantly different. What is the actual cost to them of having a child stay in their spare room for a year? A little more gas/electricity/water, sure, but not enough to warrant charging full "rent", especially assuming they are contributing towards the weekly shop etc.

Contrast that with actually paying for a student's rent on a place that they themselves (often) have chosen and subsidising the lifestyle that they themselves lead. A big difference, to me at least, exists here.

I would say at the VERY least your income should be assessed by a "child factor": the number of children who are still dependent on you. A £30k a year salary is nigh on poverty to a 10 child family as against a £20k salary to a family with only 1 child. Or is the number of children you have also a "financial decision"?

Oldernotwiser

silvercar wrote: »

But you see no contradiction in expecting 20 year olds to fully pay their way while living at home, yet not be considered as independent when assessed for student grants.

So you expect a parent to subsidise a student, but wouldn't support them if living at home.

Surely there's a difference between the amount of financial support that you would give a child in education, compared to that you would give to one who was working? Nobody would expect a school student of 17 to pay for their keep, whereas I would certainly expect a young worker of the same age to do so. It's more to do with circumstances than specific age.

Oldernotwiser

durhampoker99 wrote: »

Yeah I noticed that...seems a little inconsistent.

What I would say is that there is also a fundamental difference between not charging a child for spending time in his family home of x years as against handing them money straight from income to spend whilst at uni on rent and the like. For a start the costs to the parents are likely to be significantly different. What is the actual cost to them of having a child stay in their spare room for a year? A little more gas/electricity/water, sure, but not enough to warrant charging full "rent", especially assuming they are contributing towards the weekly shop etc.

Having had a teenager leave home not that long ago, I'm quite confident in saying that my outgoings went down by nearly £60 per week; the fact that you don't realise this is obviously because you've never had ahome to run. Whether you hand this money over to your child or just not take it from them as keep comes down to exactly the same thing, less money in the parents' pockets.