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

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

  • View Poll Results: Should maintenance loans be based on parental income?
    Yes
    100
    50.25%
    No
    99
    49.75%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Absolutely. Don't go to uni then. It's not a divine right, or work hard, save up and go to uni later.

    You have to have an average wage of 35k over 30 years to pay off a 40k student loan. Many many students won't. Where's the rest of the money coming from?

    If someone's own wealthy parents can't be arsed to help with their privileged childrens' educations, then it beggars belief that they expect the rest of the hardworking parents/men/women of the UK to pay instead!

    Unbelievable. Just who do these people think they are?!

    SS
    This.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    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.
    My household income means I'll be getting the lowest loan; we haven't got enough disposable income to fill the gap and pay the rent for uni, let alone feed me.

    (Original post by PQ)
    The student finance system does account for siblings (and also pension contributions).
    Looking at what my loan will be, it doesn't do it very well
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    My household income means I'll be getting the lowest loan; we haven't got enough disposable income to fill the gap and pay the rent for uni, let alone feed me.
    To get the lowest loan your family is earning 70k+.

    That money hasn't just disappeared into thin air - it's been spent on things that were considered more important than their son eating at university.

    I'm not too keen on discussing individual situations but the idea that a family on 70k should get their lifestyle subsidised by someone earning 25k so they can spend more on more important things than their son eating at university is a sense of entitlement endemic in our society. And quite frankly, it's wrong.

    My apologies if you are estranged from your parents or if you've been vocal about not wanting to go to university until very recently.

    SS
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    To get the lowest loan your family is earning 70k+.

    That money hasn't just disappeared into thin air - it's been spent on things that were considered more important than their son eating at university.

    I'm not too keen on discussing individual situations but the idea that a family on 70k should get their lifestyle subsidised by someone earning 25k so they can spend more on more important things than their son eating at university is a sense of entitlement endemic in our society.

    My apologies if you are estranged from your parents or if you've been vocal about not wanting to go to university until very recently.

    SS
    Ok, maybe it's not quite the lowest but yeah. It's a case of us having been on about £40k a year until very recently (my dad starts the new job that bumps this up in a month or so. Most of the money has gone on trying to prevent the house from falling apart.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Ok, maybe it's not quite the lowest but yeah. It's a case of us having been on about £40k a year until very recently (my dad starts the new job that bumps this up in a month or so. Most of the money has gone on trying to prevent the house from falling apart.
    As I say, I'm keen to discuss general principles rather than specific situations as I don't know yours. Also, people understandably get defensive so it's difficult to have a rational discussion.

    If your family are on 40k or so (this is not rich, by anyone's standards as that's 2 people on 20k each), then you're fully entitled to 6.4k a year as a maintenance loan and with a part time job, that can be topped up to 8-9k. Should be plenty to survive on for the year.

    I'm sorry to hear things have been tough for your family recently! Hope things get better soon. It looks like things are on the up.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    As I say, I'm keen to discuss general principles rather than specific situations as I don't know yours. Also, people understandably get defensive so it's difficult to have a rational discussion.

    If your family are on 40k or so (this is not rich, by anyone's standards as that's 2 people on 20k each), then you're fully entitled to 6.4k a year as a maintenance loan and with a part time job, that can be topped up to 8-9k. Should be plenty to survive on for the year.

    I'm sorry to hear things have been tough for your family recently! Hope things get better soon. It looks like things are on the up.
    Yeah - main issue is that with my dyspraxia I wouldn't cope with uni and a part time job

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    The bit your parents complete asks about other dependents. Pension contributions are also deducted

    http://media.slc.co.uk/sfe/1617/ft/s...orm_1617_d.pdf
    Thank you very much.

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    You said you have a younger sister, student finance accounts for any dependents in your parents care. Maybe you overlooked it
    I'm hoping it is something that is asked to my parents and not to me.

    I don't know why nobody said this, I think the majority of people who had an issue were those with siblings rather than just rich people wanting the same as the poor.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Yeah - main issue is that with my dyspraxia I wouldn't cope with uni and a part time job

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm sure you're entitled to some type of grant for your dyspraxia
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Of course they're entitled to, but they're responsible for providing for those kids. And in what way are university costs ridiculous?
    Then that also applies to lower income households - responsible for providing for their kids.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    Then that also applies to lower income households - responsible for providing for their kids.
    They are still responsible but can't afford to help as much as someone on a higher income so we get extra help..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    The problem I am identifying is not the parental contributions system but rather how this is measured. Income is not a reliable metric, and the only other filter is a confession from the student which many overlook without consequence for the benefit of higher loans and even grants

    Surely it is also a possibility that these politicians realise that they must pick their battles. It is not easy to get legislation through the House, and they may simply have decided to focus on other more pressing issues. That does not mean this is not a problem. I think you are inferring too much from the lack of action from politicians

    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.
    Fair enough, but I still suspect there is a better way of doing this than assessing parental income. At the very least it should be spied with siblings, which is not currently taken into account but has a huge impact on what students receive
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    There is currently a petition calling for student finance to not be based on parental income. I completely agree, why should the government care what income my parents make, why should the chavvy UKIP types studying PE get more money than me because of what their parents earn? Education is a right for everyone FACT so I should not be excluded due to low maintenance loans. I can't wait for 2020 so I can vote for Jeremy Corbyn who will give me free education and abolish these discriminatory loans. Do you guys agree everyone should be entitled to the same amount?
    Please don't purport to support Corbyn and proceed to use slurs like that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    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.

    .
    using your logic, why should the taxpayer subsidise the kids of low earning parent? The fact is the higher taxband parent is in all probability already subsidising poor kids as well as their own. There are so many assumptions being made in this thread and double standards. Let's be clear the majority of high earners pay their taxes. They aren't all Starbucks, Google and Vodafone! Why the hatred for people that have managed personal success? Why should those parents subsidise those who haven't? Is it their responsibility to make up for other people's failures to provide funding for offspring's education? Is that not feckless?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    They are still responsible but can't afford to help as much as someone on a higher income so we get extra help..
    I don't disagree with you. I just get annoyed when I read dumb statements about poor families subsiding better off ones. Simply at the end of the day every parent has 18 years to make provision for their children to go to university. Why should some be held more accountable than others? I ask this because the subtext of some of these posts is an incredible sense of entitlement from certain quarters.

    I won't be taking out a student loan because I'm lucky my parents will provide for me and I don't object to those whose parents can't do the same being subsidised by the state. I do object to illogical arguments though!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    using your logic, why should the taxpayer subsidise the kids of low earning parent? The fact is the higher taxband parent is in all probability already subsidising poor kids as well as their own. There are so many assumptions being made in this thread and double standards. Let's be clear the majority of high earners pay their taxes. They aren't all Starbucks, Google and Vodafone! Why the hatred for people that have managed personal success? Why should those parents subsidise those who haven't? Is it their responsibility to make up for other people's failures to provide funding for offspring's education? Is that not feckless?
    The logic is that if you're going to have a system of education is funded, or partly funded by the taxpayer - then the focus should be on helping those who can't help themselves. Not subsidising the already wealthy. Is that controversial?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    The logic is that if you're going to have a system of education is funded, or partly funded by the taxpayer - then the focus should be on helping those who can't help themselves. Not subsidising the already wealthy. Is that controversial?
    no it isn't controversial. On a personal and practical level I support state funding for all students, especially those from deprived backgrounds.
    I do not support the idiotic comments that suggest it's okay for some parents not to provide for their children but heaven help anyone who invests in a second property or car. Somehow they're considered feckless!! Why is it okay for some but not everyone. That's double standards. The same rules need to be applied to everyone.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    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.

    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.

    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.

    When we're talking about students who don't have jobs or money of their own, there's no difference between "rich" and "poor". They're all poor. Yes, some parents may give money to their children, but the point is they're not obliged to, so it cannot be assumed that they always will.

    If you expect the children of rich parents to be able to handle themselves in such a situation, where their parents are not contributing, then why should we not expect the children of poor parents to do the same, if it's that easy? Surely that would be fair.

    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.
    Part of the solution then, must be to alter the rates and boundaries that determine how much the student pays back, and when, so the taxpayer isn't making a loss.

    I certainly agree with helping the poor at the expense of the rich, but I think it should depend on how rich the student is personally (i.e. after graduating) rather than how rich their parents are. You can make the repayments higher for high-earning graduates, for example.

    If you try to make the system fair by making it depend on the wealth of parents, you incorrectly assume that parents are always totally happy to share as much wealth as need be with their children. In fact, this situation is quite unfair. There are many examples when the child of the rich parent ends up in a much more difficult position than the child of a poor parent due to lack of a maintenance loan and lack of financial help from their parents.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Absolutely. Don't go to uni then. It's not a divine right, or work hard, save up and go to uni later.
    If you're happy to say that to the children of rich parents (whose parents aren't funding them), you should be equally willing to say the same to the children of poor parents. Despite the difference in parental wealth, those two students themselves are just as poor as each other, when it comes to being able to pay for university. It would be unfair to treat them differently.

    You have to have an average wage of 35k over 30 years to pay off a 40k student loan. Many many students won't. Where's the rest of the money coming from?
    Higher repayments from graduates who earn more. Many will earn significantly more than 35k.

    If someone's own wealthy parents can't be arsed to help with their privileged childrens' educations, then it beggars belief that they expect the rest of the hardworking parents/men/women of the UK to pay instead!
    In the system I have suggested, I don't expect the taxpayer to pay anything, but to recuperate all their loans. I also expect rich people to pay more towards education than poor people. So what you've said here isn't true.

    You should pay more if you become rich, since you are the one financially benefitting most from the education system. It shouldn't make a difference whether your parents, friends or next door neighbours are rich, because their money isn't yours.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    Fair enough, but I still suspect there is a better way of doing this than assessing parental income. At the very least it should be spied with siblings, which is not currently taken into account but has a huge impact on what students receive
    yes it is
    (Original post by PQ)
    The student finance system does account for siblings (and also pension contributions).
    http://media.slc.co.uk/sfe/1617/ft/s...orm_1617_d.pdf
    Section 6 - there's then a standard deduction from gross income for the cost of dependants that is taken off for U18 siblings (and a calculated deduction for siblings also at university).

    http://www.practitioners.slc.co.uk/m...ide_1617_d.pdf page 10 explains how this works
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    When we're talking about students who don't have jobs or money of their own, there's no difference between "rich" and "poor". They're all poor. Yes, some parents may give money to their children, but the point is they're not obliged to, so it cannot be assumed that they always will.
    Assessment of parental income is the only fair way to do it. If you're on good enough terms with your parents that you have access to their income (in order to declare it to SF) and you're not estranged from them, it has to be assumed that you have a good enough relationship with them that they will support you just as they have been doing for the past 17years+ of your life. You can't assess each student independently because then they'd all be entitled to the maximum despite that fact that many of them will have their parents paying for their food/accomodation, so they don't need the full £8k.

    If you expect the children of rich parents to be able to handle themselves in such a situation, where their parents are not contributing, then why should we not expect the children of poor parents to do the same, if it's that easy? Surely that would be fair.
    There's a difference. Their parents are not contributing because they don't want to, lower income parents are not contributing because they are unable to. If your loan is the bare minimum or very close to the minimum, it means that your parents are earning a minimum of 60-70k, so why are they not helping you? Even with other children, they can afford to help.

    Part of the solution then, must be to alter the rates and boundaries that determine how much the student pays back, and when, so the taxpayer isn't making a loss.

    I certainly agree with helping the poor at the expense of the rich, but I think it should depend on how rich the student is personally (i.e. after graduating) rather than how rich their parents are. You can make the repayments higher for high-earning graduates, for example.
    They already make repayments higher for higher earnings, I just said 21k because it's the minimum. The more you earn, the more you pay back.

    If you try to make the system fair by making it depend on the wealth of parents, you incorrectly assume that parents are always totally happy to share as much wealth as need be with their children. In fact, this situation is quite unfair. There are many examples when the child of the rich parent ends up in a much more difficult position than the child of a poor parent due to lack of a maintenance loan and lack of financial help from their parents.
    Like I said, defer uni then or commute from home. If you know you can't afford it, why are you still going? If you know you can't afford your accomodation, why are you still signing the contract?

    Like I said, I come from a low income family and my mum (who is a single parent) has always helped or offered to help me. If your relationship with your parents is as good as you say, they should be the same.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.