students job seekers allowance

pondie1

are students able to claim this in summer if unemployed durin uni break

chezza262

I looked into this cos I couldnt get a job last summer as every local temp agency had about 100 students on their books but if you receive a student loan you cant apply. Well thats the info I got anyway.


http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/stellent/groups/jcp/documents/websitecontent/dev_011741.pdf

Blacksheep1979

nope you don't get JSA in the summer between years as you are still classed as in full time education. But as soon as you graduate you are free to claim.

rubuhoeikanaika

chezza262 wrote: »

I looked into this cos I couldnt get a job last summer as every local temp agency had about 100 students on their books but if you receive a student loan you cant apply. Well thats the info I got anyway - unfortunately if you dont get pregnant at 16 and start claiming benefits straight away theres no help!

Sorry to be so pessimistic but i've been really struggling just getting to uni lately and there is no help available - I dont even get my prescriptions free. One of my friends has just dropped out cos of money worries.

http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/stellent/groups/jcp/documents/websitecontent/dev_011741.pdf

Something is wrong here. I think you are pretty well misinformed.

It is true that you cannot claim JSA when you are a student. But there are many funds available to students and not to the general public - hardship funds, access to learning etc etc. Have you looked into these or are you just assuming you wouldn't get them?

"unfortunately if you dont get pregnant at 16 and start claiming benefits straight away theres no help!"

There's no need for this offensive nonsense - gonna start blaming asylum seekers next? How about the fact the state is massively subsidizing your education and giving you a real-terms interest free loan? How many pregnant 16 year olds get that?

"I dont even get my prescriptions free."

Either you get your prescriptions free or you are massively richer than the average student. Get form HC1 help with health costs - I have this and I get free prescriptions, free travel to see a doctor, free eye tests etc etc with the certificate. The form asks for your income, not your parents'.

If you have tried and don't qualify, then you have absolutely no business whingeing about being a poor student.

You've really put me in a bad mood - unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances, in which case I apologise - shut the !!!! up, stop whingeing and don't listen to what other ignorant students tell you.

rubuhoe

juno

Actually, if you receeive the full loan then you probably won't be eligible for a HC2 for free prescriptions. It is worth filling out the HC1 form, as you may get some help towards it, but a lot of students "earn" too much as they class the laon as income

rubuhoeikanaika

juno wrote: »

Actually, if you receeive the full loan then you probably won't be eligible for a HC2 for free prescriptions. It is worth filling out the HC1 form, as you may get some help towards it, but a lot of students "earn" too much as they class the laon as income

Are you absolutely certain about this? I got full loan, plus various Oxford Bursaries etc, adding up to about £7k. I always got the full HC2 (though rents in Oxford at extremely high, I was paying around £100 per week, this may have been a factor).

rubuhoe

juno

Yup. I know a lot of people who didn't get the HC2 which gives free prescriptions. They do ask for rent costs, so I would assume they take that into consideration. But just because someone is a student does not mean that they'll get one

rubuhoeikanaika

juno wrote: »

Yup. I know a lot of people who didn't get the HC2 which gives free prescriptions. They do ask for rent costs, so I would assume they take that into consideration. But just because someone is a student does not mean that they'll get one

Perhaps, and in that case I should have toned down my rhetoric. Nevertheless - if the rent really is the difference, then I stand by my claim that someone will get them if they are a "poor" student who would be hurt by the cost of prescriptions.

rubuhoe

Blacksheep1979

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

How about the fact the state is massively subsidizing your education and giving you a real-terms interest free loan? How many pregnant 16 year olds get that?

The 16 year olds have the option of education but choose not to take it. Anyway that 'subsidized' education is hardly subsidised when you go on to look at the comparible amounts of tax paid by university graduates compared to 16 year old single mums....

rubuhoeikanaika

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

The 16 year olds have the option of education but choose not to take it. Anyway that 'subsidized' education is hardly subsidised when you go on to look at the comparible amounts of tax paid by university graduates compared to 16 year old single mums....

So? The benefits available by having a kid are available to the childless student, and they have chosen not to take them.

My point isn't that students have it all, and I think you fundamentally misunderstood. I'm not saying students shouldn't complain - but it is damn wrong to imply that all the benefits go to teenage mums and nothing to students. Each group has plenty of subsidies and benefits, that the other side doesn't get. Students don't get JSA, mums don't get student loans and grossly subsidised tuition fees.

As for your point about these educational subsidies coming back as tax revenues... that may or may not be true on a grand social level, I suspect neither of us has access to the figures. It is certainly true that students earn more over their lifetimes, though this premium is massively down as people of lower and lower ability do relatively unhelpful degrees.

I might add that by paying generous benefits to single mums, the same effect comes about: kids are raised in more affluent conditions, likely to do better at school, and likely to get better jobs and pay more in tax.

But on an individual scale - you are quite free to take your massive subsidy and leave the country right after your degree, or to take a low paying job, as increasing numbers of graduates have to do.

Not to mention that the highest marginal rate of income tax is 40% - so whatever the graduate premium, you still benefit more than the government does.

Finally, it seems to me that the effects of students earning more through taxes would be just the same even if they had to pay the full cost of their education, and take out commercial interest loans, as in the United States.

rubuhoe

Blacksheep1979

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

So? The benefits available by having a kid are available to the childless student

I think that by defenitition they're not

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

I suspect neither of us has access to the figures.

Actually I have seen figures (although 10+ years ago) that showed the average graduate salary was noticably greater than a non graduate and from that the more tax - although as you point out with the increase in degrees in pencil sharpening from the University of West Middleton probably have lowered these figures a fair whack.

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

I might add that by paying generous benefits to single mums, the same effect comes about: kids are raised in more affluent conditions, likely to do better at school, and likely to get better jobs and pay more in tax.

I'm sorry but your logic there is totally squewed. Children raised on benefits don't live in more affluent areas and if more benefits were give so that they could, all that would be learnt is that hey - I get knocked up at 16 I get given loads of money and a house in a nice area - not the best lesson really is it?

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

Not to mention that the highest marginal rate of income tax is 40% - so whatever the graduate premium, you still benefit more than the government does.

hmm not really as you lose 40% or so straight off and then when you buy something 17.5% (or more) is tax to the government. Then you pay council tax, road tax, tv tax, breathing tax and whatever else - in the end all the money goes to the government really. And tbh why shouldn't you benefit from 3 years of hard(ish) work? Its communist thinking (which is another argument - and doesn't work in the real world/large groups) that states everyone should be given their equal share and tbh thats frankly not right. Why should someone who keeps a kid so they get a free house and free money benefit more than someone who is willing to work hard and put something back into the country?