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.
12 Comments
I agree it makes no sense at all to means test the parents of someone between 18-24.
My parents had no money. I actually gave them scholarship money I won as an 18 year old to help out with a struggling family business. I also used this money to buy my families first computer. Yet still couldnt get max student allowance because of parent 'earnings'.
It makes as much sense as the assumption that a defacto couple have interconnected finances.
They should only means test the student, and require the student declear any income or assistance they currently recieve from parents.
I am a single parent earning just above the parental income limit of $84.016.80. My son who is 18 started Uni this year and is not entitled to any allowance (he lives with me), I also have another school age child, rent a home for the three of us and work fulltime (and do some weekend/after-hours work when it is available) - together with paying after-school care costs, etc and supporting the kids without any financial assistance whatsoever. It's not exactly easy, but we manage. My son actively looks for work and does whatever roles are offered to him (generally casual short-term work), nothing long-term as yet, and he contributes as well. We are a strong-knit team and look after each other. I pity the kids who don't have the same support structure and are trying to get ahead on their own - basically impossible I would say...
No lets throw away all our responsibilities and like every other western government give away freebies to all that ask until we mire ourselves in such huge debt that we cant possibly escape..........oh we have done that already. Well thats my initial thought Elizabeth. And quite possibly my final thought... Getting a good education should be tough, if it isnt, students muck around. In my day, which was a good while ago now, it was basically free, and we were paid a pittance, if you were lucky enough you got a hardship grant. Yet still the number of teenage idiots that thought it was an excuse to get drunk all day was incredible.
This was a real bug bear of mine when studying for 4 years.
Only, in my final year training as a teacher did I receive a student allowance at the age off 22 - I don't quite re-call how I managed it but it did involve living away from home for 2 years and supporting myself during that time.
I simply carried on with two jobs - stacking shelves Thursday and Friday evenings and relief milking which subsequently paid for my tuition fees of 3k per year.
Ironically both my parents had to work to support me and my two younger siblings (secondary school).Due to the fact their income was just over the threshold - no allowance was paid.
A mate of mine received full allowance - his parents were in business and their profit under the threshold. He would often laugh at the fact I was getting up at 4am to pay my way when his was paid by the government. For the record his lifestyle appeared far more lavish than my own!
I believe in a universal allowance for students. It cuts out the unfairness and loopholes 'wealthier' folk can tinker with.
Yes, there will inevitably be those fleecing the money or putting it to other uses; however, the large proportion of students need financial support to primarily focus on their studies.
Besides there are some folk misusing government money everyday, including our wonderful MP's!
There were times that I would skip lectures so I could earn my $20 to go towards petrol and fees.
To this day, I put my degree and Post Grad Diploma down to the fear of wasting hard earned money rather than engrossing myself in knowledge.
The long term trends are for the wealthy to push for societal structures that make it easier to preserve and expand wealth between generations. If the concept of standing on your own feat is fought by the wealthy, why should anyone else support it.
(Note, I actually think we are better as a society if people only receive modest support from their parents and each generation makes their own way, it is just not individually better for those with inherited priviledge).
I was financially independent at age 19. I had a part time job after uni everyday to pay for my rent and expenses. And I worked Two fulltime jobs in summer holidays to save up for tution fees and and books and other small luxeries. I got no help from the goverment or family but i made it and after 4 years came out of uni with a health sciense degree, no student loan and a deposit for a home loan. also a budget which I still can keep even after leaving uni over 6 years ago. The only fair way to go on this is for all students to be provided with 20 hours of work by government for $250/week allowance, in my opinion. It will not depend on any parents income, be flexible to work around studies, students will get work experience and money and government will be able to pay with free labour to businesses. there is a student job search but not enough businesses know about it to make use of it and I think the government needs to lend a hand.
I was financially independent at age 19. I had a part time job after uni everyday to pay for my rent and expenses. And I worked Two fulltime jobs in summer holidays to save up for tution fees and and books and other small luxeries. I got no help from the goverment or family but i made it and after 4 years came out of uni with a health sciense degree, no student loan and a deposit for a home loan. also a budget which I still can keep even after leaving uni over 6 years ago. The only fair way to go on this is for all students to be provided with 20 hours of work by government for $250/week allowance, in my opinion. It will not depend on any parents income, be flexible to work around studies, students will get work experience and money and government will be able to pay with free labour to businesses. there is a student job search but not enough businesses know about it to make use of it and I think the government needs to lend a hand.
Why cant IRD track student loan debtors overseas directly? All they need to do is legally force parents to pass on their address.
How many parents are paying their children's student loan repayments? For how long? Until what age?
This is an issue not just for degree professionals etc, many trades apprentices clock up student loans while doing their pre-apprenticeship courses at polytechnic etc. So they may be working on sub-wages as an apprentice paying loan debt.
Why do we have a student allowance at all? Are not NZ universities already subsidised by the taxpayer so as to make them more affordable? The government does not have a money tree from which these nanny-state benefits are funded; the money comes from the taxpayer and this taxpayer sees no reason why he should contribute to junior's beer fund when junior could just as easily get a job and pay his own way.
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.