By Elizabeth Davies
Yesterday was Mother’s Day, a day created to honour mothers and acknowledge the hard work, sacrifices, and love involved in motherhood. Many label mother’s day an American commercial holiday, invented to encourage mindless consumerism, as if a ‘world’s best mum’ mug can really encapsulate your likely complicated relationship with the mother figure in your life.
Regardless of the meaning behind the holiday it still serves as a reminder that you weren’t always this independent and a huge part of your life and personality is formed either as a result of, or in spite of, your upbringing.
The nostalgia surrounding the holiday has given me cause to think about this somewhat strange concept of upbringing. More specifically, when does the ‘bringing’ end and when am I classified as being ‘up’.
A friend of mine started university for the first time at the beginning of this year. She is 24. Due to her age she is able to receive about $200 weekly in the form of a student allowance which she is not required to pay back. If you are under 24 your student allowance eligibility is determined by your parents’ income.
The implication here is that if you are under 24 years of age it is expected that you either live in your parental home or are provided some form of financial support from your parents. I personally don’t understand how the age of 24 is selected as the supposed threshold for financial independence.
If you are under 24 and have parents who earn over the allowance thresholds and who provide you zero financial support, you are only entitled to a financial allowance under ‘exceptional circumstances’, for example if your parents are in prison or psychiatric care facilities, or if you are a ward of the state.
These guidelines would have you believing that as a financially secure parent, your only excuse for not supporting your under 24 year old is complete absence, death or incarceration. What about if you’re trying to teach your child independence, or you’re a wealthy parent but not a particularly caring one? What if your child is just in fact a horrible person you don’t want to support?
Or perhaps you are just a normal, perfectly loving and capable parent that feels like you have probably done your bit financially, considering you have footed the bill for the last 21 years.
However if you are 24, living in your parental home and not working at all you are entitled to $167 a week. Now I’m a touch confused; shouldn’t these allowances be based on your personal finances rather than your age? I know plenty of financially independent people that are younger than 24 and a fair few over 24s that rely heavily on financial support from their parents.
What makes 24 so significant? At 16 we can legally have sex and drive, at 18 we can drink alcohol and vote. If your access to a student allowance is based on your entry into adulthood and financial independence shouldn’t the age be 18, when we are legally adults?
If you’re under 24 and are financially independent, congratulations, you are more successful than your government gives you credit for. If you are over 24 and still relying on your parents, it’s time to start transferring that dependence from your parents to the government.
--------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Davies is a 24 year-old graduate of the Auckland University of Technology post graduate journalism course. She lives with her partner in Epsom and spends her free time refurbishing vintage furniture and attempting to bake while fighting a daily battle against her bank balance. She writes a weekly article for interest.co.nz on money matters and financial struggles from a young person's perspective.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.