Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cutmeloose)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StacFace)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StacFace)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gungy)
    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
    Are You a proper noun? You don't need to capitalise "me".
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Cutmeloose)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noone29)
    This has to be Warwick or Oxbridge?
    It's not, those are like ~£4000. Highest I knew of was Imperial which gives £6000
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    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.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Cutmeloose)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    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!
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Cutmeloose)
    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!
    The bursaries are uni dependent though and vary year to year, Student Finance can't take account of them as they might think that a kid's getting none only for an alumnus to make a donation in August which means they actually get loads. Gets particularly complex with Oxbridge where the colleges all have their own systems.

    I think the system can be over generous when you take account of uni bursaries, but their fluctuating nature means it's probably quite difficult to take account of them in deciding loans and grants.

    Spose you just hope you make MC equity and can pack your kids off with 10k a month or something (My mate's dad is head of corporate at a major firm and once accidentally put an extra zero on his allowance for a term, it was so little to him he didn't notice til my mate pointed it out!)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acruzen)
    It's not, those are like ~£4000. Highest I knew of was Imperial which gives £6000
    Could be Lloyds Scholar Scheme as they give generous stuff and she goes to Edinburgh which is a participating uni.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cutmeloose)
    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.
    Unless you're earning over £100k you still get the same tax-free allowance people on low incomes do, so you don't have to work out the net income to know the household on the higher salary is still better off. One of the things that has always annoyed me is when students claim that although their parents earn a lot more than mine they "can't afford" to give anything. The very fact that I come from a household with a combined income of £18k is living proof that's not the case. I don't expect higher income households to only spend what my parents did, but it does show you can live comfortably on less than that and they could afford to give you that £5k and still have better lifestyles than my parents, which we were always happy enough with.

    I agree that £52k doesn't make you rich, but £37k is still over double my household income and we had holidays abroad (shopped around for cheap deals) and nice clothes (Primark, Tesco/Asda + the sale rails in places like Matalan). If your family can't afford that then it's because they're spending lots of money on other things instead. Some of that will be because London is more expensive than the north but the rest will either be because there's something else they're spending money on instead and/or they're not shopping around/budgeting properly and are actually wasting money paying over the odds for stuff.

    I'm not sure how the point about how the parents find themselves in that situation is relevant though. It's not like the student could be lazy like their parents and applying just for the money, since they have to turn up and study hard enough to at least pass in order to stay on the course and therefore continue to receive funding. They'd be better off going down the JSA route for that.


    (Original post by ed-)
    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.
    It's hardly giving them all your money, you would still have more per year than the low-income families. At the end of the day the grants are there to get students into university who otherwise would not even be able to consider it as an option because of the cost, as was the case when my parents left school before student finance existed. If I have kids, they go to university and they aren't eligible for the full loan & grant because I earn too much then I will happily pay the difference and be glad that I'm in a position where I can afford to support them through their degree.

    I never said that grants are based on the quality of gadgets you own, merely that if you have higher quality gadgets then you are better off. You can't say someone with £80pw grant money, a phone held together by sellotape, a slow laptop, not many clothes etc is just as well off as someone with £80pw parental contribution who has the latest gadgets and a wardrobe full of nice stuff. The latter student is clearly better off - not only do they have better stuff to start with but they are also less likely to need to replace things and are more likely to get more through things like Christmas presents.

    In the real world it's not as simple as foresight. When the current generation of uni students' parents were brought up it was much more difficult to move up to a high-paying job if you were from a low-income background. Then there's redundancies, cuts in hours trying to set up your own business etc. I've no doubt there are people who do choose to either live off benefits or get low-paying jobs and do the bare minimum but that doesn't mean that low-paid = lazy and high-paid = hardworking.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I get a grant/loan of £7500, but my accommodation is £6330. The first term's rent is more than the first term's loan so I'm skint from the off. Luckily, I get a £1000 bursary from my uni, but I don't get the first instalment of that til December :-/


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What can I do with £110 per week? I have already paid for catering (only dinner though)...

    Edit: Is that a decent amount for British standard?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SQ918)
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    £6500 from student finance + £3000 scholarship + £3000 bursary = £12500 - £3750 (for accomodation) = £8750 / 38 (weeks) = £230/wk.

    Without adding £1000 or so in savings or an overdraft I will be able to live very well, although I will be living in a very expensive town.

    Obviously I'm not going to spend this amount... (I hope)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElChapo)
    Do you live at home? How can student finance give you so little?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No I don't. I'm doing a degree in nursing.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    80 pound a week? What do people think? Is that a reasonable amount to live on or am I being ridiculous?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.