Reasons To Disagree
21 would be too old too and that uses traditional reasons!!!
childeren pay tax at 16 and yet get no choice in their services, government,etc. this is wrong. it eliminates choice.
people turn a blind eye to how hard it is to study these days. it is very hard to earn any money at all AND MOST PARENTS DONT GIVE THEIR CHILDEREN ANYTHING while they are studying...
No responsibilty needs to be learnt and so does respect if you take that away you will only anger people who have made the right choices in life
No, thats rediculous! How many peoples parents help them out financially when theyre 19/20 let alone 25!
Once someone has left home(of their own choice) -They should become fully responsible for their actions. If they can't get a job - diddums! It's about time the government stopped deciding what they feel is 'right'
This is a blanket argument - plainly, not all 24 year olds are financially dependant on their parents.
By the age of 25, some people have already left home, gotten married and had full time jobs. They may have shed their parental dependencies. Some may have returned home because it's cheaper to live with their parents. Either way, we allow 18-year-olds to drink, vote, get married, smoke, join the army etc, so why should we suddenly treat them as children and dependent of their parents at 25 when many people have families by then? It's just an attempt at cutting costs.
people normally get their first job at the age of 16 while still going to school and living at home..what does that tell you?that they arent getting anything from their parents so they get a job to buy their own stuff.at 16 most of my friends were paying board because they had a job.wrong in a way but also teaches responsibility.i dont see what is wrong with a student loan or something like that because its something we still have to pay back,it would be exactly the same if our parents paid our fees.most parents would expect some amount of money back.
It's ridiculous that the government thinks a person is financially dependent on their parents until the age of 25 - especially for student allowances. Most people have finished university by then and are working so the government never needs to pay any allowance to these people, despite a lack of support from parents because they can't afford it. I smell a rat.
some kids have crap parents. Ones the'd never choose as a lifestyle choice. You can't punish kids (withold support) for that. The point of government is to support people making good decisions, not subsidising those who make bad one.
Hell no! i havnt finacially depended on my parents since i was 16 and im WAY better off for it
I havent lived or had financial support from my parents for well over two years, yet am not eligible for many loans/allowances because of their income, which I feel is irrelevant to my circumstances.
I was financially inderpendent at 16 and had moved out of home. I am unable to get any help from the government because my parents eaarn to much. I havn't spoken to my parents in close to 2 years. One age for everything.
I believe that once children gain the vote, can enter bars and pubs, they are deemed to be adults by the Government and financially independent
This would not work, really it is a ridiculous suggestion. Some parents are able to support their children after school age, but there are many who have struggled for years and could not sustain supporting themselves AND young adults with young adult needs. Not only that, this society has been fostered as individualistic, the whole system supports this through neoliberal concepts. Parents are being asked to save for their own future - this is not sustainable if they are supporting the youth in society to the age of 25. Do we think some youth would not take advantage of this concept??
This has been my biggest problem. I was in a situation where my parents wouldn't support me and they refused to write a letter to WINZ and studylink to help me obtain my weekly benefit. I have spent the last 5 years since leaving school struggling because of this and I imagine it will go on for up to 3 more years as I am 22 now.
It is up to parents to decide how long they will finance their kids - not the gummints!
the system were some people get allowances and some have a loan is ridiculous, it is disadvantaging the furture leaders for soemthing they have no control over.
No way, you are considered an adult at 18. The gov should remove the term fees.
Usually a child is no longer conisdered dependent when he/she is an adult that is no longer at school. Which is usually 18. Most children leave home between 18-21 and therefore not directly dependent on parental income.
Absolutely not, From the moment I was 18 I had no financial support from my parents at all.
No, that's idiotic. I am nineteen and I had to go on the benefit, my parents wouldn't help me, but their income is high enough to. My boyfriend is 20 and his dad won't help him, and I don't blame him either.
It is unfair on the parents to be expected to provide financially for a 25 year old
That's just ridiculous! If anything that age should be lowered!
Benefits are proceeds of theft; pure and simple. Money is taken from those that work, without their consent, and given to those whom the government deems necessary to subsidize. This is morally indefensible.
The majority of children are lucky to get any financial aide from parents past 18.
What no I'm 21 , my partners 24 and we have a two year old son and our own house , cars etc , both have jobs but if something happened to put jobs and we needed to go on Winz your saying we couldn't because we're under 25. That is way to old and everyone has different circumstances plus my parents live hours away