giving richer people less public support is generally acceptable for most people (and i agree), right? we see it in tax contributions most commonly. but what about the children of rich people? at university age, we're almost all adults and most of us don't get pocket money, less a big monthly grant from our parents, rich or poor, even if we need it
especially since, at 18, we're expected to pay our own rent, bills and expenses just like any other adult (for the most part). to draw a possibly problematic comparison: if you don't go to uni, live at home but get a job, the government doesn't charge you a lower tax rate according to your parents income (ie the government doesn't give you more financial leeway just because your parents income is lower) and yet the same isn't true for the maintenance loan
even if some people do get money from our parents, it's certainly not guaranteed - the government doesn't mandate that children of rich people have their maintenance loans topped up by their parents so if they can't pay for the living expenses themselves, the option is generally to get a part time job. not a terrible solution but surely a little unfair because if you have poorer parents this isn't a problem even though you, the child, have no bearing on your parents' wealth and yet you're at the mercy of it (and their generosity) when it comes to funding
this is an anecdote but i get the maximum maintenance loan and i've got more money than i can spend. meanwhile 'rich' students who don't have their parents support have to squeeze in work hours around their days. are they really the people who should be feeling the brunt of income inequality?