students job seekers allowance

rubuhoeikanaika

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

I think that by defenitition they're not

You misunderstood me. Of course by the time they become childless students they've made their choice - they too could have taken the pregnant at 16 route. Your belief that one route is better than another doesn't change this - the choice is there.

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

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?

Don't be obtuse. More affluent kids tend to do better in education. Kids raised with greater levels of benefit are more affluent than kids raised with lower levels of benefits. We are not comparing benefit vs work, we are discussing one of the hypothetical implications of higher vs lower benefit levels.

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

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.

Haha the communist bogeyman - I am pretty considerably rightwing, which is why i think students should be exposed to market forces just like everyone else.

If you are so anti-communist, you will apreciate that students will benefit economically from their 3 years of work if and only if the market is willing to pay them for the skills they've acquired. Why should they be shielded from the costs of their education, given that it will benefit them?

And by the way, considering our looming population crunch, more kids are arguably a much better contribution to society than a 2.1 in economics or media from a mediocre university - and not to offend anyone, but by that I mean non top10 in the subject.

rubuhoe

dellfanatic

Don't mind me butting in...

...but it does matter WHEN you apply for the HC2 certificate - if you apply during the summer, the idiots in the assessment centre only take account of your income (student loan, even though you haven't had an instalment since easter) but they won't accept any rent outgoings as it's out of term time. Phone them up and they want you to apply again and make sure they're kept busy earning taxpayers' money :rolleyes:

Therefore, try applying now, whilst in term-time so you get the rent taken account of, there is no way your disposable income will be high enough to reject an HC2. Also capital allowance of £16k means you can have savings too

Blacksheep1979

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

You misunderstood me. Of course by the time they become childless students they've made their choice - they too could have taken the pregnant at 16 route. Your belief that one route is better than another doesn't change this - the choice is there.

Well I do believe (and am sure many others do) that by maybe waiting until you personally can afford to have a child and not soley live off benefits (which is the general case of the graduate), benefits the country.

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

Don't be obtuse. More affluent kids tend to do better in education. Kids raised with greater levels of benefit are more affluent than kids raised with lower levels of benefits. We are not comparing benefit vs work, we are discussing one of the hypothetical implications of higher vs lower benefit levels.

Yes children who are better off do better in school - and guess what, they generally come from a family where at least one of the parents is a graduate. If you increase levels of benefit so people on benefits can live a comparable lifestyle there would be no motivation to further yourself or work as I pointed out above. So again baing a graduate benefits the country as your children are also more likely to do well.

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

Haha the communist bogeyman - I am pretty considerably rightwing, which is why i think students should be exposed to market forces just like everyone else.

If you are so anti-communist, you will apreciate that students will benefit economically from their 3 years of work if and only if the market is willing to pay them for the skills they've acquired. Why should they be shielded from the costs of their education, given that it will benefit them?

Yup I do believe that the cost of education should be reclaimed, but often not on a purely fiscal measure. People such as nurses and teachers provide resources that far outweigh their tax payments. Whereas people who do degrees in pencil sharpening (used as an example so as not to offend english lit students ) obviously don't (generally) benefit the country as much.

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

And by the way, considering our looming population crunch, more kids are arguably a much better contribution to society than a 2.1 in economics or media from a mediocre university - and not to offend anyone, but by that I mean non top10 in the subject.

rubuhoe

Yes but kids from a graduate family or a family that can afford to support themselves are a much better bet for the country than from some 16 year old who relies soley on benefits.

chezza262

Sorry I didnt mean to offend or start a row I was in a really bad mood due to ill health!

It got to the point recently where I nearly had to miss time off uni cos I couldnt afford to get there (am a home student) so yes I did apply to ALF and hardship but because I live with my partner (who earns about £150 over the limit) I wasnt entitled to any help. I have a part time job but am trying to not let this take over so my grades suffer.

You may say well if our household has that income then we dont deserve help but my partner is older than me and pays maintenance for his children which they dont factor into the equation. As we are not married I dont see why he should have to pay all my bills but then I suppose I shouldnt have the expectation of anyone to help me. You get back what you put in I suppose.


Apologies to anyone offended,

C x

Blacksheep1979

chezza - don't worry I didn't see it as a row more just a discussion on points of view. No real point getting upset over someones point of view about something like this.

Anyway hope you managed to sort yourself out.

Hapless_2

Yes but kids from a graduate family or a family that can afford to support themselves are a much better bet for the country than from some 16 year old who relies soley on benefits.

Who is to say they will not return to university at some point? Or maybe their children will go? You cannot judge individuals by their income or how they get their income.

I have known girls get pregnant at 16 who then go on to get a decent job by studying at home through the OU.

I have known kids from "graduate families" go out get pregnant at 16 and go and live in a council flat on benefits.

I have yet to hear of any of my old school friends who went to Uni actually doing the job they went to uni for. A degree guarantees nothing.

If every child now in school in the UK went on to A-levels and then university, all achieved degrees then the degree system would very soon become worthless. After all there will alway be a need for road sweepers and bus drivers!

Swings and roundabouts.

Blacksheep1979

Yes and someone who was born to a single mother could become the next Richard Branson/Alan Sugar etc but I would put my money on someone from a family where both parents are graduates doing better....

Nealmason1986

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

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

you talking !!!!!!!!. I applied for help with prescriptions and i didnt get it. I only got help if my dental bills were over 110 pound. I dont have much money and i get the full studen loan and the full grant which shows my mother doesnt earn much. So get tyour facts right mate. Not everyone gets full help coz im 1500 over drawn and i dont have a penny and i dont qualify. So before you slag people off make sure your right.

Daisies

I found it was much easier to get holiday jobs actually at uni, rather than back at home (although I think the OP said s/he was a home student anyway?). I had to pay rent for a full year for my student house anyway, so it seemed daft not to live in it over the summer, and there was loads of work available at the uni over the vacations - I worked as a cleaner in halls of residence (let out for conferences) one summer and then in the library moving all the books to new accommodation the next summer. There were all sorts of other jobs going too - catering, car park attendants, language school work. I never even got as far as registering with a temping agency as there was all this stuff right on the doorstep!

kat2302

I've been watching this thread and I'm quite appalled at the mishaprehensions going around here. I've been a student for 2 years and its the best decision I've ever made - but the money situation is so tight you wouldn't believe. In April we get given just under £1700 which sounds like a lot doesnt it? But I'm paying £235 a month in rent, its murder trying to find a job, I have to also pay for books, my food...the list is endless. I'm going to have to eat away my overdraft this summer just to pay the rent. I know that a 16 yr old single mum doesn't have it easy money wise but its unfair to compare the two! We're in two very different circumstances