Is it time to stop student finance being based on parental income

Scroll to see replies

Marry/civil partner a friend also going to university. For a £50 civil ceremony you both get classed as independent and get full funding for your entire degree (even if you get divorced after first year ).

Reply 61

username1148663

Original post by PQ

You shouldn't have to

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 62

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by paul514

You shouldn't have to

Posted from TSR Mobile

You shouldn't have to grow up with a household income below £25k either.

As systems go student finance is a piece of piss to work around if you don't think your family can support you but earn above £40k after allowed deductions. There's no political incentive to remove the income assessments so rather than bemoaning how unfair the system is why not take positive steps to improve your individual situation and that of a friend?

Reply 63

username1258398

Original post by Dinasaurus

Yeah but don't act like the only difference is bad luck, especially considering most of these families had an advantage being born here.

What?

The only difference between who? Being born where?

Reply 64

nulli tertius

Parental contributions have been a part of the student funding system for almost 60 years. No government has ever proposed abolishing the system. I cannot think of any individual politician who has suggested this. The only people whoever advance the suggestion are over-entitled students. There is more chance of a government abolishing income tax than abolishing parental contributions.

Reply 65

Maker

I remember student grants from the 1980s. How much you got depended on parental income. The maximum was around £1800 a year if your parents' income was too low to make a contribution. It was rumoured one student got a grant of 28p paid in 3 instalments.

The system could be gamed though. One student I was sharing a flat with got the maximum grant even though his parents lived in a big house in the posh part of Manchester and had a car so definitely not poor.

Reply 66

Fawkesgirl33

The system is unfair to those on middle incomes, but at the same time basing it on parental income levels the playing field- I get more than most because my parents can't support me financially at all. However, it does seem weird that when you go off to Uni at the age of 18 (usually) your parents still matter in that sense- as an adult, surely your parents income is supposed to be irrelevant at that point?

Reply 67

Reue

The financial aid entitlement of one adult should not be based upon the financial situation of another adult.

Reply 68

Dinasaurus

Original post by StrangeBanana

What?

The only difference between who? Being born where?

You make it seem as if my parents are 'lucky' and anyone who earns less than them is purely going through bad luck.

So basically if my parents chose to work less and not save up for a house, I could've gotten more money.

Even low income people have those things.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 69

TheNextDigitalis

I find it it hard to take seriously when its written like

'Student finance is a joke on the way they assess how much money each student gets. They base it on how much your family earns. But myself and others fend for ourselves, We don't rely on our parents for financial help. Also at the end of our courses, we are the ones paying it back not our parents.'

Sounds like a kid from a seriously deprived area, give him student finance!

Reply 70

cherryred90s

Original post by Reue

The financial aid entitlement of one adult should not be based upon the financial situation of another adult.

How else should it be based?

Reply 71

Reue

Original post by cherryred90s

How else should it be based?

Upon your own circumstances, which for 18yr olds is going to be a totally level playing field for the huge majority.

Reply 72

cherryred90s

Original post by Reue

Upon your own circumstances, which for 18yr olds is going to be a totally level playing field for the huge majority.

That cannot work. If we based it on your own circumstances, everyone would be entitled to the absolute maximum. If that were to happen, the maximum would be lowered considerably to accommodate everyone, this would result in the richer kids having money to waste on luxuries whilst the poorer students who actually need it are struggling.

If your parents can afford to pay for your accomodation or can afford a large chunk of it, what do you need £7k for?

Reply 73

kickingstitches

I have a suggestion. Scrap loans altogether 😊

Reply 74

Reue

Original post by cherryred90s

I don't think it would be lowered considerably, especially with the removal of grants and being replaced with loans.

What difference does it make what someone's parents can afford? We are talking about independent adults here. If your parents or friends or church or neighbours or anyone else wants to help you out: thats great.. it just shouldnt be relied upon by the government.

Reply 75

999tigger

It woul be grossly unfair if you expect the existing limited pot of money to be shared amongst all students rather than on ability to pay. It would make it even harder for poorer students to get to Uni and would be a preserve of the better off.

If you wnat all students to have maintenance loans or grants or no education fees, then the only way to change that is by government policy, so be thoughful in who you vote for. More loans will mean more taxes.

Its a shame but its not long ago when there were no fees and limited grants rather than loans.

Rather than fighting rich against poor, its really only government that have the power to give the people complaining what they want. Someone has to pay for it though.

Reply 76

Tiger Rag

People from low income households may receive more loans; but they also have far more to pay back.

When I was at uni, my parents couldn't afford to give me money. In fact, I was lending them money at some point. Meanwhile, I lived with 2 students who as well as receiving a loan, received quite a lot of money from their parents. My parents couldn't afford to do that. And no, it's not because my parents are lazy. They work damn hard.

Reply 77

username1258398

Original post by Dinasaurus

Your parents are lucky, and most people who earn less than them are simply less fortunate. The idea that people on minimum wage are on it because they're lazy is beyond delusional.

You would be in a more desperate financial position, so yes - naturally - the Government would give you more financial support. Since your parents are earning more money, and hence have the ability to support you themselves, the Government expects them to do so. They're your parents. We can all stop acting like university students are completely independent and mature adults: most of them would be living at home if they couldn't live on campus.

Have what things?

Reply 78

a noble chance

Original post by nulli tertius

That no individual politician has suggested reforming a certain law is surely not much of an argument in favour of not doing so

It is not entitled students to suggest doing so but those in possession of their wits surely. How can it possibly be right that students whose families are in possessions of good money but little income receive more as a result of parental instalments than those whose families are on low incomes?

I should not have received as much as I did and I witnessed the unfairness first hand, as a result of my mother being a single mother and an early retiree. It is a terrible system and should be reformed to increase real terms means-testing.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 79

Dinasaurus

Original post by StrangeBanana

It's not just about laziness, I wouldn't even factor laziness in. Probably just less willing.

Just because they earn more money doesn't mean they have more money, using the example of someone I know, single parent earns 28,000, after tax and NI, they take home 1844 a month, say they spend 100 a month on utility bills I have no clue if this value is accurate, and 30 on internet. Then subtract council tax, once again I have no idea what this is but lets say you subtract 120.5, this person still has 1593 left. Even if they have other bills, they can still probably have some money left over to give to their child at uni.

Now in a household like mine, say there's 2616 take home pay, subtract the same amount for internet, utility and council tax, which is 2635 . Then you subtract rent which is like another 800 which is 1565.5. Then because I am not at home anymore, they need to find a nursery to put my sister in, searching for a nursery in my area, I can't say how normal these prices are but this would be 414 a month. Meaning 1151.50 left over.

Obviously I've not even factored in things like food and transport, but in this scenario, my friend will get more loan and more help from their parents.

I also have a friend who is putting down their father's household to get more loan but they live down the road from their mother and stepfather, his stepfather has a very high up position in a company and makes a healthy, six figure salary. This friend already has 6000 to spend for uni and they'll get help from their mother's household, but he will also get more loan than me.

I don't think people who are on the lowest salaries should be affected but I find this unfair.

In my example, my parents will have to spend 147.50 a month to match the amount of loan the first example got, despite already having less disposable income.