Have Your Say on a possible replacement for EMA

ska_lover

Ooo that is different to here then devildog. It is free between 16-18 year olds

Saynoto23

maginot wrote: »

EMA should have never been brought in to begin with. All that happened was lower income groups became used to a system of benefits before they even started working.

It is often the case that EMA students would be able to go out regularly with their £120-£150 a month and treated education as less of a benefit itself that could provide better prospects.

There should be free public transport for ALL students that are in full time education, as this is the only cost that would hinder staying on. (Stationary costs pennies and for students who really can't afford this their school or college would likely have a fund to provide for this and parents should really being paying to feed their children - they still get child benefit if in full time education)

I AM IN ENTIRE AGREEMENT WITH YOU - bus passes should be provided and stationary does cost pennies.

HOWEVER - books and periodicals do not, photocopying does not, essential / compulsory study visits, art materials or any other such materials appertaining to course work do not. Further education is not a cheap means to evade paid work.

BESIDES - £30 a week was ORIGINALLY thought of as necessary by THE POWERS THAT BE. I really don't think that ANY GOVERNMENT is in the game to give students an 'easy ride'!

Saynoto23

bluetimone97 wrote: »

Our 18 year old son has used his towards the course trips cost (£200 a year compulsary), books, bus fare, printing credits etc, it does not cover all his costs and he has a part time job as well.
Our 16 year old son has £700 a year bus costs (and that is supposed to be subsidised) and trip costs on top, his EMA does not cover the full costs either and he has been unable to find part time work despite applying constantly, he leaves home for college at 6.30 in the morning and does not get home until 6 in the evening, most employers will not even interview him.

I wish we could help but our budget is extremely tight anyway and I cover the shortfall with our 16 year old.

I can't see how people use it to go out unless their parents subsidise more, in which case surely they can afford to, I know we cannot. Also some courses have alot of extra costs involved and I guess some do not, so maybe a fairer way is to help fund the bus pass, costs of trips, sports tracksuits (both my boys play for the college yet had to fund their own tracksuits) etc.

WELL SAID - MY POINT EXACTLY!

Obviously from the responses to this issue, very many have not had real experience of supporting a child through further education, or indeed have had to support themselves through the years it takes to obtain such qualifications.

It is hard and it does take guts and a great deal of 'going without'.

We should all be very careful of jumping of the government's ALF GARNET'S BANDWAGON.

Saynoto23

Pricey3916 wrote: »

I personally think EMA brings students into college, not them wanting to go to college themselves. I think when there will be no EMA a lot less students will be going to college!
I did a survey while at college and only 15% of students spent their EMA for the right reasons!!

YES - a lot less students will be going to college.

BUT NOT BECAUSE they do not want to BUT BECAUSE their parent(s) will not be able to support the additional expense.

Saynoto23

buzzard wrote: »

The idea of EMA was to keep children in education when they didn't need to be there by providing them with a small payment as a partial substitute for the wages their friends would receive. So it was legitimate to spend it on anything - as their friends could spend their wages on anything. At my child's school it was mainly spent on fares to school, residential trips deemed "essential" by the school, materials (not free in English schools) and the lucky ones who lived close to the school maybe could save a bit towards their university fees. If one or two bought a gig ticket - why not if it encourages them to get qualifications and save the taxpayer funding benefit at 18.

Child benefit and tax credits go on feeding and clothing a child and helping with the heating bills. School uniform is expensive and teenage food/clothing costs are comparable to an adults. Our school does have second-hand clothing sales, and sells stationery at cost. That is essential - but it isn't always possible to find the right clothing sizes when needed.

Part-time jobs are considerably harder to find than when I was a teenager. Government regulations mean very few places will take anyone under 16 and the opportunites for those over 16 are limited.

Since the government has decided to abolish it they need to provide some support for transport costs, material costs and essential school trips for those families who value education but struggle to support their children.

The school leaving age may have been raised but suggesting that is enough to keep children in school is naive in the extreme. Some will abscond at the first opportunity and be hanging around the streets making a nuisance of themselves or looking to raise money from burglaries and drug deals. If students do not get EMA they should be allowed to seek work, not be forced to stay in education.

WELL SAID BUZZARD - MY VIEW ENTIRELY.

AND ANYWAY, LEST WE FORGET .... This allowance was introduced originally ONLY to get this age group into full-time education as a CHEAPER MEANS of keeping those 'children' at home and thus reducing the cost of income support benefits and cutting the then rapidly escalating 'unemployment' statistics.

Saynoto23

Gerry101 wrote: »

I am very new to this site and found that I have had to respond to this article.

I have two grown up children and have never ever claimed benifits apart from the child benifit, which used on my child or put aside from them. I think that it was mine and my wifes decision to bring children into this world and that it was our role to provide for them until the day we can no longer breath. I believe that it is the parents who should be support their children or even the childrenhelping th support theirselves in gettin g part time work. Why should the goverment pay out to people who WANT to continue their education. These days there is far to many people relying on others to pay for them. Across the board, people who want something out of life should put something in. The country is in deep debt and if we thing we can get a benifit for this or a benifit for that, we are never going to get back on out feet as a country. Stop being soft with the benifits is the only cure. Not everyone will agree but think of the bigger picture and not just yourselves. there is 24 hours in each day for you and your children. Getting a second job will give you more income, getting your child to get a part time job or finding weekend work will replace your lose in benifit and give the child a sense of worth and maybe teach them that working for their goals is more satisifactory and than just holding out their hands.

I think your attitude is commendable.

I also think that you are more than fortunate that, in the years between conception and further education, your personal financial circumstances have remained so perfectly alligned to your needs as to be capable of fulfilling the obligation you assumed when planning your family all those years ago.

So many are not so blessed. So many, despite their initial aspirations, find themselves now in a position to be unable to fund their child's ambiiton or to have someone to step in to do this for them.

Take a look back into history and reflect on the selflessness of our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents in fighting tooth and nail - often at great expense to their personal well-being - for a genuine socialist state which would have gladly supported such inititiatives as this.

It is wise to remember that wonderful motto - 'THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD' ....... and so many contributors to this blog have a good while to think on this maxim.

Saynoto23

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Students don't have to stay in education, they have to be in education or training. This includes apprenticeships and jobs with training.

Have a look at BUZZARD'S post again. I think you are saying the same thing. You have just chosen to take your quote out of context!

Saynoto23

happyinflorida wrote: »

My eldest son, now at University, had nearly finished college by the time he got his EMA approved. It took us ages to get it and was a fight all the way through, goodness knows why!

I believe kids should be encouraged into going to college and to give them up to £30 per week to help is essential.

It should be means tested and anyone on an income over £25,000 should not be entitled - there are cut backs people can make.

My husband's on a low income, he works in the local hospital and his take home is £253 per week. I'm on ESA - benefits. Our mortgage is £600 pm and we do not have cable tv, mobile phone contracts - we have pay as you go and spend approx £10 every 6 months each!

We still struggle due to the high council tax - £161 pm, gas and elec costs - £120pm and the heating is off all day whilst I'm home, I freeze but we cannot afford to heat our home during the day.

We don't eat as well as we used to and we very rarely go out - maybe once every 6 months for a cheapish meal. We have cut down completely and still struggle but we have no debt at all - I won't do that!

Yes kids should get EMA - we cannot afford to give our kids pocket money so please give them something otherwise life will not be worth living as everything is so expensive nowadays.

YOU ARE THE KIND OF FAMILY WHICH HAS MY WHOLEHEARTED SUPPORT

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR SPELLING OUT SO VERY CLEARLY WHAT I FEEL IS AN INCREASINGLY DESPERATE NEED TO KEEP FIGHTING THIS 'THATCHERITE 'ON YOUR BIKE'' GOVERNMENT FOR.

Goodness me, can anyone advise us what party to vote for to support the likes of us. Or - as the enormously brave young man campaigning against cutting Warwickshire Youth Service and UNISON members' jobs said in his speech outside Warwick County Council offices last Tuesday - should we each stand for parliament ourselves in order to maintain all those human and civil rights that our parents, grandparents and greatgrandparents fought so long and hard for.

Dear David - Forget THE BIG SOCIETY and remember SOCIETY.

Saynoto23

jennie65 wrote: »

Im sorry you live in cloud cuckoo land if you think child benefit and tax credits can be used toward education, it goes toward food, rent, biils, clothes, etc etc etc. I work full time and the ONLY reason we can afford to get by is because we get tax credits as my rent is so high in the area that i live, and no i cant get cheaper rent their is nothing cheaper, I dont qualify for housing in my area, because I work. Only people on benefits get housed where i live.

My 2 use EMA for bus fares and stationary and trips, and occasionally the odd item for themselves. They have both tried to get jobs but again not easy when they are at college full time.

OOOOOH! you are so BRAVE. I too thought 'cloud cuckoo' but did not dare!

There seem to be so very many posters who have been sucked into 'the Government stance' without (possibly) thinking it through or - to be REALLY KIND - any experience or knowledge of how things were in the past and, thus, the reasons behind the philanthropic introduction of such social measures.

DON'T GET A LIFE - GET A BOOK AND READ ABOUT THE HISTORY OF what was BEHIND OUR (rapidly eroding) SOCIAL STATE.

Saynoto23

Heinz wrote: »

My view is that the EMA was introduced purely as a political ruse to keep school leavers off the unemployment list.

Getting rid of it will, similarly, become a political football because, naturally, people don't like benefits being taken away.

YOU ARE RIGHT - SO GOOD SOMEONE REMEMBERS THIS POLITICAL CHICKANERY. But then - at least some good came out of it. A good that this government appear to be determined to stamp out.