Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is all false, parents allowing a child to live with them in adulthood does not create fiscal dependence, nor does it create mounting debt when the parents die, it allows children to more quickly develop their lives. The reality of the situation is your first postcode, your first profession, the first company you work for, the first position you have in that company, and your first salary all determine the outcome of your future life. Under the situation you propose children are forced to work long hours in cheaper areas of the country, in cheaper areas of the country the schools tend to be less good, high paying jobs are not present, there is postcode discrimination when applying for a job, and choosing the wrong company to work for impacts your future career prospects.
    it really doesn't, the tough love approach is the only one which works well when you're a parent. I've seen peers who are used to hands out from their parents all the time and when that stops they suddenly hit a debt spiral. You may think it's the right thing to do but it doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility when you know mummy and daddy will bail you out if things go wrong. And actually under my proposal if all children are forced up north then no one is hurt...

    A child living in your system would struggle for the first decade of their adult life; be forced to send any child they have to schools that are likely to be of a low standard; run the risk of not being given a better job because postcode discrimination means employers employ a worker seen as more middle class; will always be behind their peers on the career ladder because it takes longer for the child to save up enough to afford a mortgage, which would allow the child to move to be nearer a better job, or start on the property ladder; and risks depression when the child succumbs to the stress of long hours, and trying to balance their fiscal budget: your system fails children.
    A bit of pain early on is better than a lot later. And evidence that employers have a middle class bias?

    To state parents allowing their child to live rent-free creates fiscal dependence is a lie, it does not create fiscal dependence, parents allowing their children to live with them rent-free allows the child to gain fiscal security more quickly. In the system I am proposing, a child does not struggle because the child can live with their parents rent-free to save for a mortgage, can have their own house quicker, can afford a mortgage more quickly, can move nearer the better paying jobs which tend to be in expensive cities, can take more leisure time which acts to refresh their minds which reduces stress to make them better workers, and can use some of the wasted money that pays for rent in your system on investments to provide fiscal security, or pay for school fees to better the educational prospects of their children.
    except that it doesn't... The child spends more money then they should because they don't need to spend money, then they suddenly have a dramatic life style change because when they move out they have to pay the morgage and aren't supliments by their parents income. Which is what inevitably happens when you live rent free. So either they borrow more to pay for the life they are used to or they end up working more hours and giving up lesuire time to supliment it because they don't want to fall out of the lap of luxury.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm sure Haringey Borough (my ends ) still play in the Essex Senior League 😂 I'll have to check sometime

    How is everyone? I hope it's raining where you all are

    Edit: Wait no, Haringey got promoted a couple of seasons ago Gonna wreck the Isthmian Division North this season


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Indeed! Great two nil win for the mighty Clapton against Tower Hamlets (formerly Bethnal Green United) today though. Ryman League next year with a bit of luck!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Indeed! Great two nil win for the mighty Clapton against Tower Hamlets (formerly Bethnal Green United) today though. Ryman League next year with a bit of luck!
    Clapton were in the Ryman League a few years back. A teacher I lnew is a Hendon supporter and I am sure they put eleven goals past Clapton once- and in the view of said teacher the Clapton goalie stopped many more.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    it really doesn't, the tough love approach is the only one which works well when you're a parent. I've seen peers who are used to hands out from their parents all the time and when that stops they suddenly hit a debt spiral. You may think it's the right thing to do but it doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility when you know mummy and daddy will bail you out if things go wrong. And actually under my proposal if all children are forced up north then no one is hurt...

    A bit of pain early on is better than a lot later. And evidence that employers have a middle class bias?

    except that it doesn't... The child spends more money then they should because they don't need to spend money, then they suddenly have a dramatic life style change because when they move out they have to pay the morgage and aren't supliments by their parents income. Which is what inevitably happens when you live rent free. So either they borrow more to pay for the life they are used to or they end up working more hours and giving up lesuire time to supliment it because they don't want to fall out of the lap of luxury.
    That is a lovely story, dear, you tell it so nicely; your anecdotal claims do not work. If a child is raised properly in a family that teaches the importance of fiscal security the child does not choose to spend all money that is wasted on rent, on leisure which will lead to the same total debt. A child with good parents who taught life lessons in the child's upbringing will not waste money, nor become dependent on their parents, the child can still appreciate the value of money. It is an absurd, malicious claim to say children who live with their parents are incapable of appreciating the value of money, or are incapable of saving money, nor can invest money to bring fiscal security quicker. I thought you would have been a individual who reads the news, but knowing you do not, I shall suggest you conduct a Google search with the terms employers bias middle class to see 545000 results linking to lots of websites, and news articles that detail biases employers have.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is a lovely story, dear, you tell it so nicely; your anecdotal claims do not work. If a child is raised properly in a family that teaches the importance of fiscal security the child does not choose to spend all money that is wasted on rent, on leisure which will lead to the same total debt. A child with good parents who taught life lessons in the child's upbringing will not waste money, nor become dependent on their parents, the child can still appreciate the value of money. It is an absurd, malicious claim to say children who live with their parents are incapable of appreciating the value of money, or are incapable of saving money, nor can invest money to bring fiscal security quicker. I thought you would have been a individual who reads the news, but knowing you do not, I shall suggest you conduct a Google search with the terms employers bias middle class to see 545000 results linking to lots of websites, and news articles that detail biases employers have.
    But a child cannot just learn from being taught and scalded but by making the mistakes and being pushed out into the big wide world and having to sink or swim.
    To be fair all either of us can give is anecdotal evidence... I asked for citations earlier and you ignored my ask and instead expected me to provide the evidence to your claims myself.

    Also these words 'absurd', 'malicious' they all sound very grandiose but are also highly emotive. And I'm not saying they aren't capable of saving, just that they won't be used to paying for food, water, electricity, gas, Internet, landline, heating, morgage which they suddenly have to pay for. The children are nieve and sheltered from life and haven't had to earn what they have but been handed it on a silver platter all their life. I've known people to still be living with their parents into their late 40's early 50's due to your idea, one of the many, many, many reasons I'm against it.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    What are you guys planning post uni. Would you choose to live alone in a big flat but with a long commute and somewhat out of the way. Or would you cut you bills by £150, live close to work and in the city but at the cost of living with essentially a random person through spareroom ect..
    Definitely house sharing
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Giving an argument for. Looking at history one would have expected the cold war to have become a full blown war, however it didn't, and the only major meaningful difference in Warsaw Pact v NATO is the mass destruction capabilities.

    In other news, my train was cancelled but thanks to being on part of the network with multiple users I was able to put two fingers up to them and use a different service and reminded how odd Cambridge station is

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Funny how the Cold War could have ended earlier had Reagan abandoned Star Wars. But it was self-fulfilling, the USSR only began weapons testing out of fear of the US. The US nuked Japan as a sign of strength to share the Soviets. There were so many cheaper, simpler, safer ways to end the Cold War.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Funny how the Cold War could have ended earlier had Reagan abandoned Star Wars. But it was self-fulfilling, the USSR only began weapons testing out of fear of the US. The US nuked Japan as a sign of strength to share the Soviets. There were so many cheaper, simpler, safer ways to end the Cold War.
    Your right that the Cold War could have ended with compramise much earlier but you miss the point of why it did not. The US won, almost completely. Compramise would have kept half the world under Soviet rule.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    But a child cannot just learn from being taught and scalded but by making the mistakes and being pushed out into the big wide world and having to sink or swim.
    To be fair all either of us can give is anecdotal evidence... I asked for citations earlier and you ignored my ask and instead expected me to provide the evidence to your claims myself.

    Also these words 'absurd', 'malicious' they all sound very grandiose but are also highly emotive. And I'm not saying they aren't capable of saving, just that they won't be used to paying for food, water, electricity, gas, Internet, landline, heating, morgage which they suddenly have to pay for. The children are nieve and sheltered from life and haven't had to earn what they have but been handed it on a silver platter all their life. I've known people to still be living with their parents into their late 40's early 50's due to your idea, one of the many, many, many reasons I'm against it.
    That is perverse logic, the parenting mantra of allowing children to learn from their mistakes fails because children should not be allowed to make mistakes that can hurt them. If a child is sensible with sensible parents, that child listens to the advice parents give, children can learn if taught properly, it is not difficult to be fiscally conservative. No, I can use the logic of the claim, if children are not paying rent those children have more money to spend on other things, that money can be invested to accumulate more money in the long-run. To claim children always squander money they have, cannot learn to appreciate money if not poor, and need to learn from their own mistakes is suggesting the default mindset of a human is to waste money: that claim needs evidence.

    I am surprised you did not know something that was common knowledge, I shall direct you to this article from Pannone, this article from hrmagazine, an article from the Guardian, a research paper from the Chartered Institute of Personal Development, and another article from the Guardian, I expect to see research from your baseless claims children need to be punished in the big, wide world to learn the value of money.

    The words are justified when you are making baseless claims about the inability of children to appreciate the value of money, or the inability of children to cope with paying bills if the child has not lived in poverty when compared to the lives the child lived at home. But your whole point does not work, you are changing the goalposts, the original debate was about parents charging their children rent, not a child living at home, a child who is charged rent will not have experience paying the bills you suggest because the child makes on lump sum payment to their parents who pay the bills.

    To state a child needs experience paying bills is clearly absurd because bills are not some monthly thing that need to be paid individually when living alone. The sensible things to do is have all bills paid from one account using a direct debit, with enough money to cover all bills being transferred to that account when paid, and it should be noted there can be an automatic, regular transfer of money from one account, to another account in the form of a standing order, meaning an individual does not need to worry about bills when the rate of bills is constant, when the bills change the standing order amount changes: budgeting is easy.

    When budgeting is common sense, it is wrong to make bold claims about children who choose to live with their parents at the start of their adult life being naive, and sheltered, it reads as envy, however, for all of the anecdotal examples you can give of some individuals you may know, there are counterexamples to prove the opposite in business executives, high-level politicians, and wealthy individuals.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    Nigel Farage MEP, you like to use a lot of wordage to try and bore your opponent don't you?

    1) it is a reasonable claim to suggest that children need experience to learn, most children aren't sensible or logical and go for the immediate pay off rather than waiting long term. That is evidently obvious and I find it hard to understand how you can deny that.

    2) I'm not saying that people have to live in poverty, I know you have had a nice cushy life and you probably see working for the minimum wage as poverty and grunt work but it isn't if you are sensible. I'm saying that there comes a time where you have to push your young out of the nest and if they don't leave you either force them out or make them earn their keep. A parents job isn't to protect their child no matter what.

    3) the use of envy (a) is a logical phallacy, my motives have nothing to do with the logic and correctness of my statement and (b) is only used by people who want others to be jellous of them. I'm not jellous of you at all, indeed I actually pity you.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Nigel Farage MEP, you like to use a lot of wordage to try and bore your opponent don't you?

    1) it is a reasonable claim to suggest that children need experience to learn, most children aren't sensible or logical and go for the immediate pay off rather than waiting long term. That is evidently obvious and I find it hard to understand how you can deny that.

    2) I'm not saying that people have to live in poverty, I know you have had a nice cushy life and you probably see working for the minimum wage as poverty and grunt work but it isn't if you are sensible. I'm saying that there comes a time where you have to push your young out of the nest and if they don't leave you either force them out or make them earn their keep. A parents job isn't to protect their child no matter what.

    3) the use of envy (a) is a logical phallacy, my motives have nothing to do with the logic and correctness of my statement and (b) is only used by people who want others to be jellous of them. I'm not jellous of you at all, indeed I actually pity you.
    I type things out properly, I do not do what you do by using words in sentences that tend not to make sense. On your first point, the evidence is not obvious, money management is not difficult, there are individuals who waste money but to claim children cannot apply well-taught, theoretical principles of money management for the first time after leaving home is an unfounded claim with no evidence provided by you.

    For your second point everyone is a loser in your system, for the children who work minimum wage jobs, they will never be able to accumulate enough wealth to pay for a mortgage: these individuals lose out. For children who are intelligent university graduates with good career prospects, paying rent to parents when starting off in a career delays ownership of a house, and it delays career progression because the ability to move closer to better jobs which tend to be in expensive cities is not present: these individuals lose out.

    Your third point is not a point at all, your claims do not have logic in them because in your first claim there is no evidence to say theoretical knowledge cannot be applied, and in your second claim all groups of young adults in the early years of adulthood lose out. You are making statements which you claim to be logical truisms that cannot be debated, but your statements are not logical, nor do you statements contain evidence.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Just found that I was actually eligible to vote in the 2015 GE or whenever I live in the UK. Oh well, there's always next time.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Your right that the Cold War could have ended with compramise much earlier but you miss the point of why it did not. The US won, almost completely. Compramise would have kept half the world under Soviet rule.
    Hmmmm, if only the actual logic was that moral. I'd have been optimistic that under Gorbachev they would have promoted regional independence anyway. The US had no right to "crush" communism purely because it was an ideology they couldn't understand and feared. I also would argue that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, if Vietnam was toned down and SALT2 talks progressed as planned, the whole process of demilitarisation would have sped up. Your attitude highlights the difference in goals. Would Khrushchev have felt compelled to crush the risings in Hungary and Prague except to show strength before the US? I don't agree that USSR attitude would remain undeterred if the US toned down.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Renting a property is wasting money, it is bad financial management to rent a property, you should take out a mortgage, buy a house outright, or live with your parents to save for a deposit on a mortgage.
    Sorry but this is just outrageously misleading. The money saved/earned through appreciating property values and lower monthly costs rarely adds up to the potential income from other relatively stable investments one could make with one's capital.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Sorry but this is just outrageously misleading. The money saved/earned through appreciating property values and lower monthly costs rarely adds up to the potential income from other relatively stable investments one could make with one's capital.
    That is not true, the average monthly mortgage repayment in Britain is £687 where the average monthly rent in Britain is £816, an initial analysis shows renting wastes money. I will accept using average does not give an accurate picture because averages is distorted by extremes in property values, but when the average three-bedroom, semi-detached house is taken, it is cheaper to pay the monthly mortgage rates than the monthly rental rates for the property, that depends on the mortgage time span being taken as the UK average of 25 years.

    But we can deeper, if the difference is monthly cost does not matter, the important point is the relative wealth of the individuals. The difference of a monthly mortgage compared to monthly renting is small, the difference is not going to generate more money than the appreciation in house prices, nor will the difference be invested, the likley outcome is the difference will be spent on leisure because the value of the difference is small. When the value is spent on leisure a mortgage will always work out better value than leisure because leisure is not an investment.

    You assertion does not work for most groups of individuals, for the poorest individuals the difference will not generate more than appreciation because the difference is spent on leisure: your point does not hold. For the middle classes with medium levels of wealth the difference is still small as a value to invest, and it tends to be the case a mortgage is better value because average appreciation is 5%, when year-on-year quarterly values are compared, which is far higher than interest rates in a bank, or the return on investments on the stock market: your point does not hold. For the wealthiest in society mortgages are chosen because appreciation in the price of property is of little value, it works out better value to take out a mortgage at an interest rate below the rate of inflation, which makes buying property free in a way, and frees up capital that can be invested in other things to accumulate more wealth. In a few, very niche circumstances it may work out better value to rent, but those circumstances are scarce.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Just found that I was actually eligible to vote in the 2015 GE or whenever I live in the UK. Oh well, there's always next time.
    Next time could be your local election where you will be able to vote Green! Hope the trip was all you hoped for.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    What are you guys planning post uni. Would you choose to live alone in a big flat but with a long commute and somewhat out of the way. Or would you cut you bills by £150, live close to work and in the city but at the cost of living with essentially a random person through spareroom ect..
    To stay put. Your question assumed that we are all full-time students who started uni post A levels, which some of us are not. There are several students whom I know who live at home and so the question in a sense does not apply. For those I know who are post uni and share houses or flats, it seems unless it has been as one of a group of friends, it has been a fraught experience.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Housework all done, ready for my pyjama day!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    What are you guys planning post uni. Would you choose to live alone in a big flat but with a long commute and somewhat out of the way. Or would you cut you bills by £150, live close to work and in the city but at the cost of living with essentially a random person through spareroom ect..
    I have the convenience of already living very close to work

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Parents who expect their children living at home to pay rent are bad parents, when children are starting in life with little money, parents who demand their children pay rent for living at home are setting their children up for a life of financial instability, are failing in their role as parents to provide the best start for their child, and are not giving their children a boost in the early stages of their adult child's life.
    They're also doing the best by eking them out of this bubble of childhood, or are you trying to be worse than university and having people in their thirties unable to adult properly through sheltering parents?

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Renting a property is wasting money, it is bad financial management to rent a property, you should take out a mortgage, buy a house outright, or live with your parents to save for a deposit on a mortgage.
    Basically what I'm doing, or at least planning on trying to do

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Funny how the Cold War could have ended earlier had Reagan abandoned Star Wars. But it was self-fulfilling, the USSR only began weapons testing out of fear of the US. The US nuked Japan as a sign of strength to share the Soviets. There were so many cheaper, simpler, safer ways to end the Cold War.
    As Rakas said, the cold war didn't just end, it was won by the West. Personally I see it more as being dormant with a dominant West. The other thing that has to be remembered is nuking Japan won't primarily have been to deal with Japan, it was a "don't **** with us" message to Stalin. I would also call peace safer than war on the whole.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

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