Student Finance: How is this fair??

I don't understand why it's ok for children of those with debts to be punished for their parents living outside of their means, but it's perfectly ok to do the opposite for children from a low income, some would say that this is also a lifestyle choice to some extent. Having a child when you're earning less then 20k could be deemed a poor lifestyle choice judging by your definition. I just don't understand how you can just dismiss it, with your parents got themselves in debt, so you'll have to suck it up!

why should the student be punished because their parents made bad 'lifestyle choices' as you put it. At 19/20/21 you're allegedly an adult. Can't understand how at 20+ the government expect your parents to still give you a weekly allowance.

Really depends on personal circumstances. A single mother on 24k with tax credits/single person discounts is going to be able to provide more for her child at university than a couple on 60k combined with a mortgage and 3 kids. Yet the former will be lavished with the full grant and a ****load of bursaries and financial scholarships. It's silly to assume that one size fits all.

It is ridiculous that they base your income for the next three years+ on one question. My parents own more than one of my friends', however I have three siblings, one of whom is disabled, and he's an only child. His parents are paying for his accommodation and living costs, mine can't give me a penny; he still gets a bigger loan than me. C'est la vie, I guess.

It's not for three years, you reapply every year because circumstances are likely to change and you get asked a series of questions to best assess how much your family earns, not just one basic question.

Some people will never earn more than minimum wage because - and it's not their fault that they were born that way - they're just a bit thick. Or they're disabled, and can't work more than part time, or at all.

Amazing bit of generalization there

Some people will never earn more than minimum wage because - and it's not their fault that they were born that way - they're just a bit thick. Or they're disabled, and can't work more than part time, or at all. Do you really think that they should be denied the right to have at least one child? I'd argue that they state should give support for up to two children. Three, perhaps, with an exemption made for multiple births (e.g. if you have one child and then triplets, all would be supported, but not any subsequent children). Giving state support for people with 10 kids (above and beyond education and NHS) is just ridiculous.

Your parents have to take responsibility for their actions and learn to provide for their children. Sorry, but it's how it is and you seem to have a massive sense of entitlement.

£60k is a comfortable household income, even if you do choose to have a mortgage and three kids. That's two above average incomes. You're hardly going to be struggling to eat unless you've bought a house that you can't afford and lavish your children with unnecessary treats. And there's the added security - it's highly unlikely that both parents will lose their jobs at the same time.

And whilst we're on the subject of fairness, life isn't fair. My dad got made redundant due to his caring responsibilities, and then he got cancer. He's essentially unemployable, through no fault of his own. And yet he's not eligible to claim housing benefit, job seekers allowance or pretty much any other benefit because he was responsible during his career and saved up. You don't see me on TSR moaning about how unfair it is.

I don't see why people say 'you'll just have to get a job' Why doesn't this apply to the poorer students? They are also capable of working part time while they study, so why shouldn't they have to make up the shortfall with part work. To me, the grant system is essentially an incentive and reward for poorer students. I'm not naive enough to suggest that the system should be based on student income instead of parental income or anything like that, but it does need to be more holistic.

People say it's a myth that some people can't afford to go to university, but if your parents can't support you and the government won't help then.. it may not be a myth.

I'm sure you're smart enough to see the point I'm making

Saying that people in minimum wage jobs stay there because they are thick or disabled is what i disagreed with. I actually agreed with everything else you said. I just meant that everyone is different and people deal with circumstances differently.

But that isn't quite what Origami Bullets was saying.

Someone might not stay in a minimum wage job because they are "thick" or disabled, but they may be stuck doing it for the foressable future (ie. during the time his or her offspring are at university).

Take a person who perhaps had a well paid job but suffered a brain injury or a stroke. This person had to give up their job as they could no longer work at that level. Then then return to work but find that they only work they can do know is minimum wage, routine employment. This person might have aspirations to work at a higher level, perhaps even higher than they were working, but this comes after much rehabilitation and time.

Saying that people in minimum wage jobs stay there because they are thick or disabled is what i disagreed with. I actually agreed with everything else you said. I just meant that everyone is different and people deal with circumstances differently.

I gave those examples of why someone might be on NMW, because they are all clearly examples which are not of the person's making. This was to respond to a previous poster's idea that being on a low income was some sort of lifestyle choice. I wanted to give examples that for many people, it isn't. For some people, it's a big achievement to be in any form of paid work whatsoever. Others are there as a stepping stone or a stopgap. But we all need low-paid workers (carers, binmen, teaching assistants, healthcare assistants, bus drivers, heck, even catering staff... for the most part without them the country would cease to function). I strongly dislike the idea that somehow if only poor people had worked a bit harder then they would be well off.

People who earn enough to put themselves in the 'comfortably off' bracket, and then choose things that they cannot afford, and then expect the state to pick up the tab for other things (as the OP's parents seem to have done) do annoy me though. It's far from outside the realms of possibility that OP's parents could have chosen not to get into so much debt, whereas claiming that someone could have / should have climbed the career ladder better is a rather harder thing to argue in many cases.

That's still three years income based off of one question, the question's just asked again.
What other questions are there? The student finance calculator just has one.

It honestly perplexes me the level of entitlement in today's society - everyone moaning that someone has more than them, it isn't fair etc etc.

Too right. People aren't entitled to grants and loans, they can be taken away any time so we're lucky to have them frankly.

Edit: Not saying you are one of them.