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

Original post by Dinasaurus

What about parents who don't have a car or a house? Not every person who is above minimum wage is rich

Posted from TSR Mobile

We're talking about students who don't get a high maintenance loan because their parents are earning 50k+. People are arguing these people should get help from taxpayers, some of whom will be poor. A sentiment I vehemently disagree with. Not your bog standard minimum wage parents :smile:

SS

Reply 122

A$aprocky

2

all you stuck up rich kids complaining LOL

Reply 123

Diego Costa

18

Whilst there are some faults with the system itself, there are only really two ways of working out how much student finance each person gets and both have a major fault.

1) Everyone gets the same amount - some poorer students may not be able to attend university and some students don't get as much as people who's parents can afford to (and do) financially support them.

2) The money is delegated based on income - can disadvantage students who's parents won't give them money for whatever reason.

The ideal would be a form of compromise between 1) and 2) but I honestly don't think it's feasible.

Reply 124

A$aprocky

2

Any overcomplicated system has too high an administrative cost and will only make a difference to a small minority

Reply 125

tazarooni89

Original post by Supersaps

Parents have 18 years to save up for their children going to uni. Too bad, so sad if they spent that on a 2nd car/house. The state should not pick up the bill because your parents wanted to spend their money on something else.

But why should my parents spend it on me, after I'm an adult? If they want to, that's great, but I have no right to demand it from them. It's not my money, it's theirs.

So it's unfair, that some people get an automatic maintenance loan to help them through university, whilst some are at the mercy of their parents, who may or may not be able/willing to pay for university maintenance.

Why should a lower band taxpayer have to contribute towards a rich kids education as WELL as paying for their own children. An absolute mystery to me.

The fact of the matter is, you would subsise the lifestyle of the rich with the taxes of the poor, so they don't have to pay for their children to go to university. Absolutely. Mental.

Actually, student loans get paid back to the government once the student starts working. So students who get these loans are paying for their own education, not the taxpayer.

In exceptional circumstances, such as being estranged from your parents, you can be considered an independent student.

But even if you're not estranged from your parents, they don't owe you any money. What do you do if you're on perfectly good terms with your parents but they simply don't want to pay for your uni maintenance?

Reply 126

TorpidPhil

Original post by whorace

Education is not a right get a grip. Student loans should only be given to high achievers to begin with.

Agreed.

Reply 127

Original post by tazarooni89

But why should my parents spend it on me, after I'm an adult? If they want to, that's great, but I have no right to demand it from them. It's not my money, it's theirs.

They are expected to help you, and if your parents have money to give you but decide to let you starve instead then I'm stumped. My mum is on a lower income and she always helps me if I need her.

So it's unfair, that some people get an automatic maintenance loan to help them through university, whilst some are at the mercy of their parents, who may or may not be able/willing to pay for university maintenance.

You are not at the mercy of your parents. They should be helping you yes, but if they don't, then you help yourself. You don't cry about not having money.

Actually, student loans get paid back to the government once the student starts working.So students who get these loans are paying for their own education, not the taxpayer.

The taxpayer is paying for their education for the entire time the student is at uni...
Student loans are only paid back once the student starts earning 21k (which a lot of them wont). Even at 21k, they'll only be paying back something like £10 a month so they probably will never get round to paying off the entire loan before its wiped off.

But even if you're not estranged from your parents, they don't owe you any money. What do you do if you're on perfectly good terms with your parents but they simply don't want to pay for your uni maintenance?

I wouldn't call that being on 'perfectly good terms' if your parents are willing to watch you struggle your way through uni when they could be helping you.
If they do refuse, get a job whilst studying, and save through summer. Commute from home. Defer entry to uni. Nobody is forcing you to go to uni at 18.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 128

Andy98

Original post by cherryred90s

No. Someone with a family income of 80k shouldn't receive the same as someone with an income of 25k. How is that fair?

Because once you account for tax and the size of the family the disposable income may be the same, or less. Plus that assumes the parents willingness to help...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 129

username471863

I wish there was an option for "sometimes".

What bugs me is that factors such as the number of siblings you have and those of them who are currently at university are not taken into account. My parents are hard workers and in middle class jobs but they have a lot of kids and each of us are either at uni, have graduated or are preparing for it. During my second year of undergrad I struggled a lot because SF gave me the minimum maintenance loan and no grant. My parents sent a weekly allowance but that only covered living costs so I still didn't have enough for my accommodation and often felt too guilty to ask them for a top up. I tried and failed to get a part-time job because even retail places seemed to want retail work experience.

Reply 130

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by Andy98

Because once you account for tax and the size of the family the disposable income may be the same, or less. Plus that assumes the parents willingness to help...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Even after tax, it's still substantially higher than people on 25k. I'll give you size of the family, but that's a rarely the issue. It's unlikely that a parent would have say 3 kids of university age all at the same time, but there are also those on lower incomes with more than one child of university age so in that case, the student on a lower income would need it more anyway.

Parents should be helping. If they're on 80k, they have more disposable income than someone on 25k. If they don't help at all, it's because they don't want to, not because they are unable to. I question those parents.

Reply 131

PQ

Original post by Andy98

Because once you account for tax and the size of the family the disposable income may be the same, or less. Plus that assumes the parents willingness to help...

Posted from TSR Mobile

The student finance system does account for siblings (and also pension contributions).

Reply 132

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by PQ

The student finance system does account for siblings (and also pension contributions).

Doesn't it account for dependents(u18s) but not other siblings at university?

Reply 133

PQ

Original post by cherryred90s

Doesn't it account for dependents(u18s) but not other siblings at university?

Nope

It accounts for dependents u18 AND other siblings at university. In fact iirr the deductions for university siblings are higher in most cases for households with incomes close to the upper threshold (because they deduct the assessed contributions)

Reply 134

Original post by PQ

Nope

It accounts for dependents u18 AND other siblings at university. In fact iirr the deductions for university siblings are higher in most cases for households with incomes close to the upper threshold (because they deduct the assessed contributions)

Oh wow, did not know this. Learn something new err'yday :tongue:

Reply 135

nulli tertius

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by a noble chance

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 a justification. It is a reality check. That an idea, which seems so obvious to a wealthy 18 year old has not been adopted by any politician at all, ought to send a signal about just how outrageous the idea is.

Politicians, of left and right, accept that that the vast majority of parents who are able to do so continue to provide financial support to their children until they achieve a financial independence equal to that of their parents and to abolish the parental contributions system would be a subsidy to wealthy parents at the expense of the rest of the public.

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.

All means tests are a trade off between completeness and simplicity and government has taken the view that establishing capital wealth is a complexity too far. Government is in a different position to independent schools when fixing bursaries. Government decisions have to be rule based and cannot be impressionistic.

School bursary applicants do have to produce details of capital but schools don't have to get to the bottom of trust funds and other complex sources of wealth. A school can take the view, "we are not giving this child a bursary because Daddy drives a Porsche" or "the more complicated the arrangements to prove the parents have nothing, the greater the rat the school smells". Governmental organisations can't do that.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 136

Dinasaurus

22

Original post by PQ

Nope

It accounts for dependents u18 AND other siblings at university. In fact iirr the deductions for university siblings are higher in most cases for households with incomes close to the upper threshold (because they deduct the assessed contributions)

Why does the student finance estimate not have an option for siblings?

When filling it in it didn't ask me if I had any siblings.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 137

PQ

Original post by Dinasaurus

Why does the student finance estimate not have an option for siblings?

When filling it in it didn't ask me if I had any siblings.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The bit your parents complete asks about other dependents. Pension contributions are also deducted

http://media.slc.co.uk/sfe/1617/ft/sfe_pff2_form_1617_d.pdf

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 138

Original post by Dinasaurus

Why does the student finance estimate not have an option for siblings?

When filling it in it didn't ask me if I had any siblings.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You said you have a younger sister, student finance accounts for any dependents in your parents care. Maybe you overlooked it

Reply 139

user73867