The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by adam321
So my mum is kicking me out soon and i wondered what benefits i would get i have ptsd so does that mean i can claim dla and income support? and what kind of place would they put me in? :confused: btw im 16 years old


I'd suggest trying to patch things up with your Mum before anything. If that simply can't work, go and talk to the services mentioned by others in the thread.
Reply 161
Original post by coopsyy
Not everyone can/wants to go to uni. Not everyone can afford to do UNPAID work placements and UNPAID internships. Regardless of how much experience and initiative they have, what if there just arn't any jobs?


People are able to university, whether they live with their parents while there, just to help funds or if they are out of contact with their parents, they get extra bursaries to allow them to do so. If they don't want to, as I say, that is a lack of initiative. Yes, as is said, they can either live with their parents while at the work placements or internships, or they can simply use the bursaries they have received to fund them through those also. There are the jobs, you just have to ensure you stand out from the crowd, get a good university degree, from a good institution, get a good internship and work ****ing hard rather than doing nothing and getting paid to do so.


Original post by coopsyy
Not everyone is lucky enough to go to uni, or find a higher paid job, regardless of how much initiative they have. If the only jobs in their area are at minimum wage, of course they're gonna take it. Not everyone has mummy and daddy to finance them until they find their dream job.


Well no, they may not have Mummy and Daddy to finance them but if they have the logic and initiative, they can go and move house, be it by finding a room to rent in an area that allows them to get a job. It has been done by people I know, but again, it requires work, something many people can't face.


Yes because every 25 year old is a uni grad. Plus, these days you'd be lucky to get a graduate job. I know many people who went to uni, came out, couldn't find a grad job, now working in offices for just above min wage or stacking shelves at sainsburys.

Well around 40% of our demographic go to and get through university, so I would say that if the benefit scroungers went, that would instantly shoot into the majority. Yes, why couldn't they get a job? Maybe they didn't work as hard as they could? Maybe they didn't go and get an internship or work placement to help them stand out on paper, that would get them an interview, at the interview, it all depends on how suited they are and how much they truly want the job. I only know of one graduate who wasn't able to immediately get a graduate job, he went to Lincoln university, got a 2:2 after doing next to no work, didn't do any work experience and then when he didn't get a job, went on to benefits. Why should the tax-payer fund his mistakes?

Original post by coopsyy
Your point was that wages are high enough. Yes, for high paid jobs. My original point was that minimum wage is NOT high enough. Which it isn't. As i worked out, for a 25 year old working for minimum wage which many, many people are, it is barely enough to live on.


Well yes, I know that minimum wage may not be enough to live on. But why are those people on minimum wage? Please just ask yourself that. I don't see why my parents tax money should go to fund those people on minimum wage, just because they can't be bothered to go to university and find a better job.
Reply 162
Original post by When you see it...
I have never seen a British person say 'mom'. I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about modern culture. No, I wasn't trying to correct them I was just pointing out the impact of American TV shows and **** on how we behave and what language we use. I'm also not necessarily saying it is a bad thing (rather, a neutral thing imo). Just because historically British people may have said 'mom', the only feasible reason why someone would use it these days is because of being exposed to US culture. BTW I'm not interested in having a debate on this, it just seems so silly.


No, you say the only feasible reason for doing so is being exposed to US pop culture? Well please ask yourself why the americans say it as Mom, maybe because people from the East Midlands, (where the word Mom is still widely used today) went over there, the Americans copied them in a belief that they were right. No, I use it these days because I enjoy being right. :smile:
Reply 163
Original post by glelin96
People are able to university, whether they live with their parents while there, just to help funds or if they are out of contact with their parents, they get extra bursaries to allow them to do so. If they don't want to, as I say, that is a lack of initiative. Yes, as is said, they can either live with their parents while at the work placements or internships, or they can simply use the bursaries they have received to fund them through those also. There are the jobs, you just have to ensure you stand out from the crowd, get a good university degree, from a good institution, get a good internship and work ****ing hard rather than doing nothing and getting paid to do so.




Well no, they may not have Mummy and Daddy to finance them but if they have the logic and initiative, they can go and move house, be it by finding a room to rent in an area that allows them to get a job. It has been done by people I know, but again, it requires work, something many people can't face.


Well around 40% of our demographic go to and get through university, so I would say that if the benefit scroungers went, that would instantly shoot into the majority. Yes, why couldn't they get a job? Maybe they didn't work as hard as they could? Maybe they didn't go and get an internship or work placement to help them stand out on paper, that would get them an interview, at the interview, it all depends on how suited they are and how much they truly want the job. I only know of one graduate who wasn't able to immediately get a graduate job, he went to Lincoln university, got a 2:2 after doing next to no work, didn't do any work experience and then when he didn't get a job, went on to benefits. Why should the tax-payer fund his mistakes?



Well yes, I know that minimum wage may not be enough to live on. But why are those people on minimum wage? Please just ask yourself that. I don't see why my parents tax money should go to fund those people on minimum wage, just because they can't be bothered to go to university and find a better job.


I can't even be bothered to reply to you anymore. You obviously have no idea what it is like to live in the real world. Think everyone is lazy and has no initiative. Think everyone should go to uni when this isn't always possible for many many people. You say live at home during uni to save money, I wouldn't be able to do this as my Mum is on a low income and with spending all my money on travelling and course costs, i wouldn't be able to pay my way with the share of bills and rent. I know many people in the same situation.

As for 'your parents tax money', everyone HAS to pay taxes. This money goes to fund a lot more than just benefits. Get off your high horse and realise without taxes, this country wouldn't run.
Reply 164
Original post by coopsyy
I can't even be bothered to reply to you anymore. You obviously have no idea what it is like to live in the real world. Think everyone is lazy and has no initiative. Think everyone should go to uni when this isn't always possible for many many people. You say live at home during uni to save money, I wouldn't be able to do this as my Mum is on a low income and with spending all my money on travelling and course costs, i wouldn't be able to pay my way with the share of bills and rent. I know many people in the same situation.

As for 'your parents tax money', everyone HAS to pay taxes. This money goes to fund a lot more than just benefits. Get off your high horse and realise without taxes, this country wouldn't run.


That is exactly what the purpose of the maintenance loan is for. So you can either live in halls or pay your way at home. I know without taxes the country wouldn't run, I just don't agree with the way a lot of the money is spent.
Reply 165
Original post by coopsyy
I can't even be bothered to reply to you anymore. You obviously have no idea what it is like to live in the real world. Think everyone is lazy and has no initiative. Think everyone should go to uni when this isn't always possible for many many people. You say live at home during uni to save money, I wouldn't be able to do this as my Mum is on a low income and with spending all my money on travelling and course costs, i wouldn't be able to pay my way with the share of bills and rent. I know many people in the same situation.

As for 'your parents tax money', everyone HAS to pay taxes. This money goes to fund a lot more than just benefits. Get off your high horse and realise without taxes, this country wouldn't run.


And as for not knowing what it is like to live in the real world, my blood Mother is on a low income. But she works 55 hour weeks to allow herself to have the luxuries that she wishes, she would never sign on to benefits unless she had a short term spell where she was out of work, then it would be the basic safety net and not every benefit of the sun that many people use to support them throughout their lives.
Original post by XxelliexX
I was being hyperbolic when I said they were benefit scroungers. I don't care how much they do, the fact that they were born into a set position in life and have their expenses paid for them by the rest of the country is wrong. The idea that the queen should be considered as any more important or worthy of tax-payers money just because she was born into a certain family is wrong, and goes against the whole notion of equality, hard work and social mobility.

Edit: And no, it wasn't thoughtless. I have thought about it lots.



I've seen somewhere that the queen inherited a lot of land and that's where she gets most of her money from, people paying her to use/live on it.
Original post by laura94
Wow you clearly know nothing.


Wow, you're clearly right. Because of one comment which you disagree with it is now obvious that I am an idiot who knows nothing about anything.
Original post by iSoftie
omg yeah **** sorry im thick -_-


Lol don't worry about it :')
What is PTSD?
Reply 170
Original post by IgorYakov
I've seen somewhere that the queen inherited a lot of land and that's where she gets most of her money from, people paying her to use/live on it.


Yes she did, but all the money she gets from it she donates to the treasury. This has been done by all the royals for quite a few generations now, though I forget who started it.
Reply 171
Original post by XxelliexX
Wow, you're clearly right. Because of one comment which you disagree with it is now obvious that I am an idiot who knows nothing about anything.


Ok well sorry, I was implying that you clearly don't know much about the royal family, as if you did you wouldn't describe them as benefit scroungers when they literally donate millions of pounds to the treasury every year.
Original post by sarahthegemini
What is PTSD?


Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Reply 173
shouldn't of got yourself knocked up missy
legally your mum is required by law to be responsible for you til you are 25 just remind her that what she is doing is a criminal offence
Original post by glelin96
No, you say the only feasible reason for doing so is being exposed to US pop culture? Well please ask yourself why the americans say it as Mom, maybe because people from the East Midlands, (where the word Mom is still widely used today) went over there, the Americans copied them in a belief that they were right. No, I use it these days because I enjoy being right. :smile:


lol whatever I've never met anyone who uses mom. If they did I can assure you that it would be due to US influence rather than old British.
Reply 176
I do hate people that are blissfully ignorant. Go to the west* midlands, sorry i made a mistake in my last post. And it is more common for them to use Mom than Mum. I personally don't use Mom, but I don't proclaim that it is wrong.
Reply 177
Original post by kopite493
legally your mum is required by law to be responsible for you til you are 25 just remind her that what she is doing is a criminal offence


No, she isn't, how on earth do you think people get adopted? The blood parents are not responsible for them, their new guardians are.
Original post by glelin96
No, she isn't, how on earth do you think people get adopted? The blood parents are not responsible for them, their new guardians are.


and when they sign the contract adopting them they are then responsible for them til there 25 :rolleyes:
Reply 179
No they are not. They are legally responsible for the child up until the age of 16, hence why they can then move out with the parents permission. At the age of 16, one is seen as being capable of becoming independent by the law.

Latest

Trending

Trending