Paying for 25 year old child

peachyprice

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

I don't get it....If a family earns well, why would they not have more spare income than a poorer family?


I mean other than basic food / bills - what are richer families spending their money on? Un-necessary luxuries? Holidays? Bad money choices and debt? Over reaching on house choices ending up with massive mortgages? Over reaching on school fees? Purchasing expensive items? Why would they not have savings or a safety net?

Yeah, right. Because a poorer family wouldn't spend more if they had it?

gloriouslyhappy

foolofbeans wrote: »

We have more than the average number of children but this is not taken into account, we are still expected to fund one child at the detriment of the others.

We have a high income so the only benefit we receive is child benefit. No help with rental costs which could equate to a third of our income.

We live in a rural area so have to run two cars, there is no public transport. This comes at a cost. Our household fuel costs are a lot higher than most as we don't have mains gas.

We get no help with childcare costs so any earnings can be reduced greatly when we have to pay for childcare. None of this is taken into account by student finance.

foolofbeans wrote: »

The government do expect parents to make up the difference but obviously they can't be forced to.
They can't be forced to but the expectation is high and as seen from this thread most people expect it too.

foolofbeans wrote: »

I understand our outgoings are our problem and I feel a bit of a failure in getting to this point where we do have to worry about each £20 payment that goes out each week. In reality it has meant that we are unable to commit to after school clubs or activities for our younger children which is surely unfair to them?

Guineapigsqueaks wrote: »

Children make a huge dent in your income, everybody knows that, but I would never begrudge it, I chose to have my children and I have a duty to give them the very best start I can manage. I do expect them to work hard and behave well in return, to get a job and pay their own way in due course and to come and visit me when I'm old!
Guineapigsqueaks x

[/QUOTE]“I don't get it....If a family earns well, why would they not have more spare income than a poorer family?

I mean other than basic food / bills - what are richer families spending their money on? Un-necessary luxuries? Holidays? Bad money choices and debt? Over reaching on house choices ending up with massive mortgages? Over reaching on school fees? Purchasing expensive items? Why would they not have savings or a safety net?
Originally posted by pickledonionspaceraider”[/QUOTE]

maman wrote: »

Although the discussion has widened, that's exactly the position the OP was in when they started the thread.
She said the family had a good income but was in so much debt that they wanted to stop giving her daughter £20 a week to supplement her loans although they'd promised in advance to help. Added to this they felt resentful because the 'child' had managed to work/save and could afford a holiday.

Am I the only one thinking if you choose to have "more than the average number of children" then they are your responsibility? Why moan that the younger children might be disadvantaged because the older children need support to get through university? Obviously with a larger than average family all the costs will be higher - rent, food, utilities, number of vehicles / transport costs. Having a large family is a choice, as is making spending decisions which lead to debt. I just find this very strange, coming from being brought up where you didn't buy something until you'd saved up to pay outright for it, and all spending was carefully thought through including basics like food and heating. We grew up overseas in a country with no welfare system to speak of, and we all managed just fine, although my parents were not well off, without free school meals, child benefit and the like which are taken for granted now.

Don't get me wrong, I think the state help available now is a good thing to make sure everyone has a good basic standard of living and access to education, but when it comes to the extras, parents really must take responsibility for their own children if they chose to have a large family, and I am completely in favour of the new rules on no child benefit after the second child.

Regarding this situation of the promised assistance with uni costs, I think if the promise of support was made, it should be followed through, and the parents should look to see where they can cut other costs, there is always something that can be done.

annandale

Millions of people don't have a good basic standard of living. Even with state help. There are millions of people living below the poverty line in the UK and many of them are in work. I'm on universal credit and single and if I work which I have done 63p in every pound gets taken from my uc. If I had kids I would keep 192 of my wages. It would actually double as I claim no housing costs. In work poverty is a very real thing. I get 317 a month. I don't automatically qualify for warm home discount as I'm on uc and I don't fall into a vulnerable category. I'm in fuel poverty. When I was working part time due to the uc taper I was paid 135 a month. My uc was reduced by 87 pounds as a result. And if two pays fell into one assessment period as happened to me in March. I got more money taken from my uc the next month as its counted as a double wage. In April this year because I was paid one day early by my employer I had 147 uc plus 135 wages to live on. I'm running a home on that. I live well below the poverty line even on 317 a month. I don't know how anyone can call that good. It's soul destroying. And it's hard to get work except very part time or zero hours. That's true for a lot of people.

Child benefit isn't much and certainly in England and Wales there are poor families who no longer qualify for free school meals.

In my area there are programmes running during the summer to ensure kids get one hot meal a day.

I'm completely opposed to the new child benefit rules. Particularly as to get child benefit for the third child women will have to disclose rape.

I'm digressing here. But don't assume that the welfare state gives people a good basic standard of living. It doesn't.

A food bank 10 miles from me almost closed its doors a couple of months ago because it could not keep up with demand. Usage has spiked since the universal credit roll out because people are waiting five weeks and sometimes much longer for their first payment

This is why it is so hard for people who are on basic benefits to send their kids to uni. Because there is often nothing spare to give their kids.

I don't think people realise it until they are in that position themselves.

Tabbytabitha

annandale wrote: »

Millions of people don't have a good basic standard of living. Even with state help. There are millions of people living below the poverty line in the UK and many of them are in work. I'm on universal credit and single and if I work which I have done 63p in every pound gets taken from my uc. If I had kids I would keep 192 of my wages. It would actually double as I claim no housing costs. In work poverty is a very real thing. I get 317 a month. I don't automatically qualify for warm home discount as I'm on uc and I don't fall into a vulnerable category. I'm in fuel poverty. When I was working part time due to the uc taper I was paid 135 a month. My uc was reduced by 87 pounds as a result. And if two pays fell into one assessment period as happened to me in March. I got more money taken from my uc the next month as its counted as a double wage. In April this year because I was paid one day early by my employer I had 147 uc plus 135 wages to live on. I'm running a home on that. I live well below the poverty line even on 317 a month. I don't know how anyone can call that good. It's soul destroying. And it's hard to get work except very part time or zero hours. That's true for a lot of people.

Child benefit isn't much and certainly in England and Wales there are poor families who no longer qualify for free school meals.

In my area there are programmes running during the summer to ensure kids get one hot meal a day.

I'm completely opposed to the new child benefit rules. Particularly as to get child benefit for the third child women will have to disclose rape.

I'm digressing here. But don't assume that the welfare state gives people a good basic standard of living. It doesn't.

A food bank 10 miles from me almost closed its doors a couple of months ago because it could not keep up with demand. Usage has spiked since the universal credit roll out because people are waiting five weeks and sometimes much longer for their first payment

This is why it is so hard for people who are on basic benefits to send their kids to uni. Because there is often nothing spare to give their kids.

I don't think people realise it until they are in that position themselves.

A child from a family on basic benefits will get a full maintenance loan and probably additional finance from the university so not really the situation being discussed here.

ska_lover

peachyprice wrote: »

Yeah, right. Because a poorer family wouldn't spend more if they had it?

Irrelevant response

annandale

Maybe if you’ve been on a low income and put kids through uni you might see how tough it is.

Living on a few hundred quid a month doesn’t compare to Tarquin not getting to his after school club.

There are projects in my area that are feeding kids in school holidays.

That’s poverty. Poverty isn’t not having 20 quid a week spare for your kids after school clubs.

foolofbeans

annandale wrote: »

Maybe if you’ve been on a low income and put kids through uni you might see how tough it is.
Living on a few hundred quid a month doesn’t compare to Tarquin not getting to his after school club.
There are projects in my area that are feeding kids in school holidays. That’s poverty. Poverty isn’t not having 20 quid a week spare for your kids after school clubs.

I can't even put in words how rude and pompous your responses have been in this thread. I'm so glad I know all about your life now but please don't think, for one moment, that you are in ANY position to judge mine.
Can I just clarify that when I said we have a high income I meant our net earnings are circa £30k. Not £100k as has been mentioned - I can only dream! I said it was high as it is higher than the average income and therefore takes over the magical £25k amount that gives access to benefits like tax credits and childcare help and maximum student loans.
For that £30k we both work so have to have two cars (rural area). We live in the south so higher rent prices than in the north. We are classified as being in fuel poverty as we pay more than 10% of our income on energy costs. And we have debts which we pay.
So our disposable income is very little.
And our youngest children don't go to after school clubs because we don't have that £20 spare each week. We eat well and they are clothed but forgive me for thinking that two parents working should mean that children could have some extra-curricular activities. I'm not talking horse-riding or lacrosse....just bog standard sports clubs. And we have sacrificed little perks like these so our eldest could be subsidised at uni but it's the fourth year now so forgive me for being irked that we have to wait another year before the young ones should get something to enrich their lives.

foolofbeans

annandale wrote: »

Surely given that your child is in their final year of university you must have had a chance to look over finance material by now. I assume the student loan company have a website. I could understand not knowing if your child was in their first year but they aren’t. Surely you have had plenty of time to find out that the cut off age is 25.

Which was the whole point of my first post!
We have had to subsidise eldest child for the past three years. Now in their final year I was under the impression that they would be classed as an independent student as they would be 25 when their course starts. On application it turns out that student finance require the student to be 25 on the first day of term but they define the first day as 1st September (even though NO uni starts that early). So yes, we knew we had to subsidise child but thought this final year would be different and never expected to have to contribute to a 25 year old

annandale wrote: »

Type in two words into google. Student finance. And it takes you to the government website where everything is explained.

Can you point out where in this government website it explains that students will have their loan amount reduced due to parental income AND the parents are expected to subsidise the student to at least the amount that is deducted from the loan given.
https://www.gov.uk/student-finance
I've looked through it and can't see it anywhere but as you are all-knowing perhaps you can find it for me?

foolofbeans

annandale wrote: »

This is absolutely not the case. A two minute google search of maintenance loans or student finance makes it absolutely clear that loans are assessed on the family finances and that the loans reduce the more the family earns.

But it doesn't state that parents should pay the child the same amount of money that the loan is reduced by.

foolofbeans

I mean other than basic food / bills - what are richer families spending their money on? Un-necessary luxuries? Holidays? Bad money choices and debt? Over reaching on house choices ending up with massive mortgages? Over reaching on school fees? Purchasing expensive items? Why would they not have savings or a safety net?[/QUOTE]

maman wrote: »

Although the discussion has widened, that's exactly the position the OP was in when they started the thread.
She said the family had a good income but was in so much debt that they wanted to stop giving her daughter £20 a week to supplement her loans although they'd promised in advance to help. Added to this they felt resentful because the 'child' had managed to work/save and could afford a holiday.

Resentful because the whole family has to tighten their belts so the eldest can be subsidised to attend uni. Not necessarily resentful at the eldest child but resentful at the fact we are expected to still contribute towards a 25 year old.
I added that the child had managed to go to festivals and have holidays just to show that they had worked hard in summer but had also managed to enjoy the summer. None of the other family members have had a holiday as we couldn't afford to. There was an expectation from eldest child that we would pay once they went back to uni and yet they probably could have saved at least £1000 for going back with.

annandale wrote: »

Except the Op and her husband are high earners and are struggling to afford to give their child at university 20 pounds a week.

Yes although 'high earners' means different things to different people. In reality we have net annual income of circa £30k between us.