How much money will you be living off per week at uni?

Thing is bud, that people on here have a distorted version of reality.

Two parents at the peak of their earning on 26k =52k. No grant. around 4.5k loan. That is not rich. Comfortable is even pushing it. I would be pretty gutted to earn 26k when I'm pushing 60 in London.

That's my biggest gripe with the whole thing. People assuming that you're rich because you don't get a loan/grant.

I've worked since I was 16, haven't had a family holiday ever. Yet because your parents are broke and mine are careless and a little better off than you I suffer.

I worked full time for a year and earned around 18k. Anything below that is not a good salary in my book, yet I'm hearing off people within a household income of 12k with two 'working' parents?

This arguments just goes round and round. Seems like noone is able to see it from alternating viewpoints.

To be honest, I just think some people get too much. When you're able to save a couple of thousands of your loan per year, you're clearly getting too much. I'm quite content to live frugally like a student, but why do some people get £9000 per year incld uni bursaries? Are my parents meant to fork out an additional 5k across the year to level the playing field?

From what you've written it seems you have the distorted version of reality. £52k may not make you rich but it is plenty to live on. I know London is more expensive than the North but I'm sure it's not to the extent that £52k in London does not go as far as £18-19k in the North (my parents' combined salaries) and I would class us as comfortable. If you're not comfortable on a family income of £52k then yes that is your parents being careless so it should be them you are blaming.

I agree that below £18k is not a 'good' salary but the fact is there are many people who are not on 'good' salaries. Someone who works 40 hours per week on minimum wage would earn £12875.20 in a year. If you then reduce those hours to account for people who can only get part-time work and/or work in places operating a rota system who don't have guaranteed hours I don't find it hard to believe there are households with 2 working parents earning only £12k.

As for the last bit yes they are - £52k minus £5k is £47k, which is still around double the household income of the students getting those grants.

It's not the same position though is it? If you took your parents' incomes and subtracted their contribution to your accommodation + the £80 per week they're giving you it will not equal even the higher end of the 'low income' bracket to get the full grant. It's also likely you'll still have more than lower income students from things you haven't thought of including like a better laptop/phone/other gadgets you already own, having more spent on you on your birthday and at Christmas, being able to go to your parents if you need more money for something important etc. If you look at the whole picture and not just how much physical money you get compared to them you are better off.

Also it's not because they worked hard that they have to help with your funding, it's because they earn a lot. Student Finance don't monitor parents in their workplaces. The reason they give the most money to students from low-income backgrounds is because their parents could not afford to pay that money for them if they didn't.

I will have £211 give or take a few pence per week. Out of which I pay nothing..... I shall continue to live with my wife and 2 children, with all the bills covered by my spouses income. Even though I'm taking full advantage of the grants etc afforded Me for returning to education after been made redundant. It would seem the system works quite well for some, and TBH I'm disgusted by the amount they will give to people.

Some people will no doubt think less of Me for this. However I feel after fighting for this country in some hell holes. And working for longer than some most people on these forums have been out of nappies. It's about time the Gov coughed up some cash for Me, instead of people that just milk the welfare state. Don't get Me wrong after reading through this thread, I feel for the majority of you. You're doing the right thing in better yourselves, and living off less than the people that choose to be unemployed. And I will have no issue buying people on My course Subs and Mc D's if they look like their living off Pot Noodles :P

Thing is bud, that people on here have a distorted version of reality.

Two parents at the peak of their earning on 26k =52k. No grant. around 4.5k loan. That is not rich. Comfortable is even pushing it. I would be pretty gutted to earn 26k when I'm pushing 60 in London.

That's my biggest gripe with the whole thing. People assuming that you're rich because you don't get a loan/grant.

I've worked since I was 16, haven't had a family holiday ever. Yet because your parents are broke and mine are careless and a little better off than you I suffer.

I worked full time for a year and earned around 18k. Anything below that is not a good salary in my book, yet I'm hearing off people within a household income of 12k with two 'working' parents?

This arguments just goes round and round. Seems like noone is able to see it from alternating viewpoints.

To be honest, I just think some people get too much. When you're able to save a couple of thousands of your loan per year, you're clearly getting too much. I'm quite content to live frugally like a student, but why do some people get £9000 per year incld uni bursaries? Are my parents meant to fork out an additional 5k across the year to level the playing field?

This has to be Warwick or Oxbridge?

Most annoying is people getting SF benefits because they're already fiddling the system on a larger scale.

Guy from my college got the works from SF and his uni. His parents owned a house worth million plus at home, a ski chalet, a villa in France and both drove Bentleys. They were self employed accountants already putting their tax through some system where their earning were declared in the UK as 0, because the earnings were actually coming back through a shell company in Luxembourg. Result? The guy got a paid a bursary by the uni...to help fuel his BMW 135.

Exactly. People seriously underestimate the amount of people who fiddle the books or for some reason do not need the full loan/grant (i.e wealthy grandparents, inheritance, rich father etc.

To be fair to SF the cost of chasing down a tax avoidance scheme that elaborate would be way more than the cost of the extra loan (and HMRC's job), it's just annoying.

The bigger issue comes with those where it's easier to find out, like the ones you mention or your own situation with siblings able to fund it, but that's presumably still a difficult balancing act between the saving made in some cases compared to the blunt instrument of household income and the cost of employing people to find that information out, otherwise they'd do it in the current climate.

Yeah I guess so.

With my brother's input, I'll still just be over the maximum student loan available, so still get lower than those on full bursaries.

Just find the whole system hilarious really. My friend is in the low bracket, and is going to Warwick and has applied for the most expensive accommodation at about £5.8k and it's not even bloody catered!

It's not, those are like ~£4000. Highest I knew of was Imperial which gives £6000

Seems like you've got the distorted version of taxation then. 52k is roughly 37k post taxation.Counting gross income is basically counting money that you can't spend.. So assuming two parents have three kids, a mortgage, expenses on expenses, £5k is hardly a pittance across three years. In London, to be 'comfortable' I would argue that £50k would be the benchmark, by that I mean holidays abroad, nice clothes whatever. I was just responding to the rich kids jibe. £50k doesn't mean that your parents are driving a range. But the point is that not every family is the same.

My point was that £52k doesn't make you rich. £26k at the peak of your career isn't a good salary in my opinion. Hence why divorced parents is a stupid loophole.

Surely you must ask why people find themselves in that situation, not every unemployed person is the victim of circumstances. Some are just bone idle yet they are lavished with sympathy ffs.

Such discussions are futile, because everyone just supports their own agenda.

I'm fortunate that I have successful siblings who will make up the student finance shortfall, but not everyone is that fortunate.

You make fair points... My parents' income will still be comfortable I'm sure. But that's hardly the point. The point is that people claiming grants are better off than me just because my parents earn more money than theirs. And my parents still being comfortable is irrelevant. Would you want to give your children all your money?

So grants are based on the quality of gadgets you own and presents you receive? You're saying then that grants should be high enough to allow students to buy laptops and phones for themselves? Well they seem that high as it is and, personally, I don't think these things are necessities, which is what grants should accommodate for (e.g. food and a roof).

It's called foresight. If you want to earn a lot of money then you have to start working hard as soon as possible... If you don't want to work hard then by all means get a low paid job or even better, claim benefits. It almost seems encouraged.

In my first year I was living off £600 a month. Paid more than half of my accommodation myself which was £5981.98 for the whole year and my parents paid the rest. My mum sends me £300 a month too. My dad covers for my travel expenses to placements.

In my second year, my parents will be paying for my whole year's rent. So this year I'd imagine to live off £120 a week.

I get £2324 a year from student finance with no entitlement to any bursary from the NHS.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Do you live at home? How can student finance give you so little?

Posted from TSR Mobile