Children Limit:

missbiggles1

missapril75 wrote: »

Partly true. Today's parents of older offspring are much less likely to have started out with debts from student loans and will have suffered far less from extended periods between employment and will not have suffered the disallowances and other benefit cuts because they were never as bad a couple of decades ago as they are now.

Not to mention house prices that made them affordable when today's parents of older offspring were younger.

Sadly there are more situations today where people need assistance than used to be the case. One only has to see the vast increase in food bank use to see that.

Better to use a foodbank than to scrounge off parents.

missbiggles1

missapril75 wrote: »

Perhaps you're a bit young to remember when student grants were universal. For everyone, not just a small minority. Plus benefits were available to all students. Claims in the vacations could be made - all students and assistance towards rent costs was year round. All students. Those days are long gone.

That's why students will have debts now that they didn't have previously. You can exaggerate or underplay the debts but the fact is they needn't have existed previously because grants and benefits used to fund students and now it's mostly loans. That means debts in any language.

Student grants were never universal - students from higher income homes frequently got nothing or very little.

I don't remember students being able to claim help with housing costs and I was a student in the late 70s, although you could claim a small amount of Supplementary Benefit.

(Student Loans aren't debt in the way that most people mean the word.)

Sorry to add to your woes.

evenasus

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I hope so.

But we won't know until the budget.

DKLS wrote: »

Would be nice if they limited it to one child,

Limiting to two would be best.

bloolagoon

He won't touch child benefits yet but he's never answered if the cap lowering will apply to workers. He's been clear DLA will exempt but not WTC. Given WTC and UC - it's going to be easy to limit children's benefits under the cap reduction.

missapril75

zagfles wrote: »

Just admit it and move on, you're starting to look pathetic. Try researching the facts before posting and not believing the propaganda you read in the Mirror.

The mirror? Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Tell you what, go back and read the mini thread that these posts are about. That would be the grown up "children" I mentioned in their 20s, 30s and even 40s relying on their parents...that would be those of late 40s and beyond and how they were better set to assist their offspring. Among the reasons mentioned was Student Grants routinely available for those of that sort of age making it less likely they had debts.

Then explain the relevance of current grants to the days when they were students and everyone got grants and then grants were abolished.

That they are available for those that followed, decades later, those not under the discussion, isn't really relevant to those completing their university time in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

I also mentioned the jobs for life of the past and affordable houses.

Now this should tell you that this was about an era some time ago.

The current system isn't really relevant is it.

Now go back to your Telegraph. Or is it the mail?

missapril75

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Student grants were never universal - students from higher income homes frequently got nothing or very little.

A minority. The vast majority of students got grants because the vast majority did not have parental contributions that cancelled the grant completely.

I don't remember students being able to claim help with housing costs and I was a student in the late 70s, although you could claim a small amount of Supplementary Benefit.

In the 1970s and into the 80s every student grant included the weekly equivalent of supplementary benefit for the short vacations and a higher rate for term time.

This meant that in summer vacation they could get full supplementary benefit. For the short vacation they didn't need it if, say, with parents, but if they were tenants there was a householder rate a little higher.It meant that during the short vacations student renters could get a little supp benefit. But the whole year round they qualified for rent allowance (what Housing benefit used to be called for private tenants) and this was the maximum in vacation time and a bit less in term time because their grant income was assessed as more - because it was more.


This is the point I was getting at. The students of that era - 40 years ago, making them about 50-60 now - had their funding from student grants (minus some token parental contribution) backed up by the full benefits system and, so, completed their time at university without the need for student loans.

I worked in the Supplementary Benefit system from 1974 and beyond when it was replaced by Income Support.

missapril75

I'm 58. I started work in 1973 at 16.
Had I gone to Uni, I'd have qualified for a student grant. I'd have been fully backed by the benefit system for any rent I had to pay if I was not living with parents.

I'd have completed my student days with no loan.
The students of the 90s couldn't do that.

I had a job for life unless I did something crazy. Those leaving school in the 90s - 20 years after me - didn't have that luxury. Nor did they have benefits to fall back on as there was back in the 70s unless they were over 18.

My modest pay enabled me to borrow a maximum £15k (2.5 times my salary) in 1984 to buy my £17k house. On my own.

I sold that house in 2004 for £155k and it was sold again 3 years ago for over £190k. How would those coming later afford that?

So people of my age had student grants, benefits, full benefits, job for life, chance to get on the housing ladder.

Those of 20 years later had none of these advantages and in more recent times they have to contend with a worse benefit system for spells between their fixed contracts.

With those advantages, people of my age were less likely to have debts and more likely to have their own home. Better able to help our adult offspring than those coming later.

FBaby

Today's parents of older offspring are much less likely to have started out with debts from student loans and will have suffered far less from extended periods between employment and will not have suffered the disallowances and other benefit cuts because they were never as bad a couple of decades ago as they are now

What you are leaving out though is that these parents didn't expect to have two cars even when they didn't both drive, they didn't expect to have new washing machines, large fridges, huge leather sofas, TVs, stereos and other gadgets, or to go on foreign holidays. These used to be what they aspired to get and saw as rewards for the hard work they put in. Nowadays, youngsters believe they are entitled to all these before they secure a decent job.

If they started more modestly, maybe they would find that they don't need mum and dad to help with essential bills.

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

What you are leaving out though is that these parents didn't expect to have two cars even when they didn't both drive, they didn't expect to have new washing machines, large fridges, huge leather sofas, TVs, stereos and other gadgets, or to go on foreign holidays. These used to be what they aspired to get and saw as rewards for the hard work they put in. Nowadays, youngsters believe they are entitled to all these before they secure a decent job.

If they started more modestly, maybe they would find that they don't need mum and dad to help with essential bills.

Plus of course people paid more tax when they started work.

I went to uni in the mid 80's, when I graduated and got my first job the basic rate of tax was 29%.

Now when students graduate and get their first job, the basic rate of tax is 20%, and they pay 9% student loan repayment.

Pretty much the same. NI was a bit lower, but then the 9% deduction doesn't start till about £21k, so that will more than make up for it for nearly everyone.

Martin has tried to educate people about this but it's obviously fallen on deaf ears espacially among those who have no grasp of basic facts and believe any old propaganda they read.

The far bigger issue is the cost of housing. That's what really affects young people today. Not student debt.

starrystarry

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Better to use a foodbank than to scrounge off parents.

Really? Better to take charity from complete strangers than from your own parents? Not in my world. Families look after each other. My parents would tear a strip off me if I went to a foodbank rather than asking them for help.