Talking Politics

[1eyedtiger]

The rich aren't forced to lower their standards. If they wish to send their kids to a private school then that is their choice. But they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to fund it.

So why should the lower and middle classes subsidize the upper class, who as you have said, have enough money?

Are you seriously suggesting that wealth should determine that quality of education you receive? Why should the kid suffer because his parents are slack? With an education, the kid may one day become successful.
Without an education, the kid has no hope. Many successful people have come from poor backgrounds.

Einstein was right. Time travel is possible. Australia has just been transported back to the dark ages.

 

[Liverpool]

Dear me livers,surely you arent saying that poverty equates with a lack of ambition.I think there isnt a human being alive who doesnt have an ambition of a better life.We all strive for a better life,some are better at it than others,or circumstances dictate the outcome.
But the very fact that we get out of bed each morning ,in itself says that we have ambition to better oneself.

Well, you obviously don't get out much Barty Boy if you don't think there are people out there who are happy to plod along in life, receiving their welfare, and spending their life in front of a Playstation.

I personally know someone who has been on the dole for at least 10+ years.
He loves collecting his bit of tax-payers change and using his day to sit in front of his computer, or hang out in the city...and do his own thing.
He doesn't have kids (thank God).

The rich aren't forced to lower their standards. If they wish to send their kids to a private school then that is their choice. But they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to fund it.
So why should the lower and middle classes subsidize the upper class, who as you have said, have enough money?
Are you seriously suggesting that wealth should determine that quality of education you receive? Why should the kid suffer because his parents are slack? With an education, the kid may one day become successful.
Without an education, the kid has no hope. Many successful people have come from poor backgrounds.
Einstein was right. Time travel is possible. Australia has just been transported back to the dark ages.

Who said they have enough money?
One of my best mates and his wife send their kids to a private school.
If they didn't get the help of a Government subsidy, then they would be forced to send their kids to a public school, where the majority of the education would be paid for by the tax payer.
At least in a private school, the majority of their kids education is paid for by them...plus it helps keep the overcrowding of public schools down and therefore the quality of education higher, for al parties.

I'm stunned that people on here are NOT supporting the Government subsidising private education.

Look at the big picture people.

 

[barty boy]

livers this particular person you speak of,how broadly is that reflected acrosss the community?

 

[Liverpool]

livers this particular person you speak of,how broadly is that reflected acrosss the community?

Well Barty, you are the one who said there isnt a human being alive who doesnt have an ambition of a better life.
And I'm saying I know one, and I reckon most people on here know someone (if not themselves? :hihi) who have no ambition but to plod along, and wait for the handouts to come rolling in.

The rubbish part isn't that this is bad enough, but people on here are complaining that the rich people should not only be taxed to the eyeballs to pay for these bludgers, but they also should have to force their kids to a public school due to the Government pouring their money into the public school sector and neglecting the private school sector, therefore forcing parents to pay the whole 100% for their kids private school education.
The thing is, the more kids who have to leave a private school to go to a public school, because private schools would become even more elitist than they are now, then the MORE money and support would be required to cover these student additions into the public school environment....more money, more teachers, even more schools.

Just ridiculous.

 

[RemoteTiger]

There is an argument that the Government should apportion the same funding to each student no matter of his background or circumstances.

Where there is a problem is that funding the public student not only includes teacher salaries and text book subsidies but also includes school buildings etc. whereas funding the private student the parents are essentially paying for the extra money a teacher obtains for teaching at a private school and the parent also pays for the textbooks whilst the buildings have usually been there a while - but they to do need maintenance and some private schools also need new building facilities.

I personally do not have a problem with the Federal Government paying the same amount for a private student as they do for a public student - everybody is equal in the eyes of the government. And should mum and dad wish to send little Billy or Belinda to a private school so they can get a better education then mum and dad should pay for extra required.

Where I do have a couple of problems is that the equation for public students always includes the cost of school buildings whereas the Private student building costs are not included presumably because they have been paid for by other (by mum and dad's fees). I say take out the cost of infrstucture for public schools place it fairly at the feet of the Department of Finance and not repeat not out of the Department of Education's budget then provide the same amount per student public or private and the equation would be equal. With private students still getting the better education because of the extra fees mum and dad pay.

The second problem I have is the lack of funding for our tertiary education institutions which were once the foundation stones of Australia's Research and Development. e.g. The ANU in Canberra had a huge R&D reputation because of its work with the CSIRO (Monash in Melbourne was the same) and this attracted private sector support as the new inventions/findings were commercialised and realised profits for all concerned.

Now with budgetary cut backs to the universites and the CSIRO the R&D in the country has slowed to a trickle. Further proof of this is the Newcastle Universty Medical Faculty/Students and the Hunter Valley Medical Research Foundation have made some great findings in the area of a cure for Asthma - the Federal Government canned the funding and now the foundation and the university have had to sell their findings to an overseas company to gain funds to continue the research - more Intellectual Property lost overseas because the Howard Government could not come up with a lousy $35m - but it can spend billions on outdated helicopters and fighter planes for the Department of Defence and to keep on the good side of George W Bush.

So there is an inequity in secondary education but in truth there always has been - the real sadness is the cut back in spending on tertiary institutions which has had a flow on effect into our private sector and loss of intellectual property overseas.........

 

[RemoteTiger]

I notice none of the Conservative supporters on this web site have gone into bat for the HR Nicholls Society who are currently dictating what the Inudustrial Relations Policy of the Howard Government will be - probably because it is impossible to defend the indefensible.

It is amazing that so few can dictate to so many whilst spinning the line that the many are really the scary ogres of the IR world.

 

[Liverpool]

I notice none of the Conservative supporters on this web site have gone into bat for the HR Nicholls Society who are currently dictating what the Inudustrial Relations Policy of the Howard Government will be - probably because it is impossible to defend the indefensible.
It is amazing that so few can dictate to so many whilst spinning the line that the many are really the scary ogres of the IR world.

No one responded Remote, because you're grasping at straws to try and compete against the 70% of the ALP being union members.
To try and allege that the HR Nicholls Society have as much power as the unions, is wreaking of desperation to try and counter this disproportionate figure that the ALP have in the ranks compared to the wider community.
We really know who will be running the country after November 24th, and it won't be Kevin Rudd.

 

[RemoteTiger]

No one responded Remote, because you're grasping at straws to try and compete against the 70% of the ALP being union members.
To try and allege that the HR Nicholls Society have as much power as the unions, is wreaking of desperation to try and counter this disproportionate figure that the ALP have in the ranks compared to the wider community.
We really know who will be running the country after November 24th, and it won't be Kevin Rudd.

And from an IR prespective it has not been John Howard over the last 3 years - you must like the idea of wealthy Australians becoming more wealthy on the back of ill rewarded work from their fellow Australians.

keep the peasants down - if they run out of bread - let them eat cake - for a worker like you are I am amazed you think the entrepreneurial way of the HR Nicholls Society and their free labour market will benefit you.

 

[mld]

I notice none of the Conservative supporters on this web site have gone into bat for the HR Nicholls Society who are currently dictating what the Inudustrial Relations Policy of the Howard Government will be - probably because it is impossible to defend the indefensible.
It is amazing that so few can dictate to so many whilst spinning the line that the many are really the scary ogres of the IR world.

No one responded Remote, because you're grasping at straws to try and compete against the 70% of the ALP being union members.
To try and allege that the HR Nicholls Society have as much power as the unions, is wreaking of desperation to try and counter this disproportionate figure that the ALP have in the ranks compared to the wider community.
We really know who will be running the country after November 24th, and it won't be Kevin Rudd.

Hilarious. Read your post, be intellectually honest and admit you are participating in a scare campaign.

 

[t-rob]

The rich aren't forced to lower their standards. If they wish to send their kids to a private school then that is their choice. But they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to fund it.

FACT:

The Government spends less per private school student than the costs associated with a student in the state system. Less by thousands of dollars per student.

Withdraw the funding and 70% of private students would join the state system causing overcrowding and an increased strain on resources and a massive blowout in the Education budget.

 

[Azza]

I agree that endeavour should be rewarded. The socialist and capitalist systems both have merit, and should be balanced against each other.

Quality of education of children however, imo is one of the things that should not be part of the reward for wealth. An excellent education should be the right of all kids. Otherwise we're entrenching the poor and wealthy alike. Rewarding a kid for having rich parents is the antithesis of Livers reward for endeavour. The kid has done nothing to earn the education. Let wealthy people have expensive toys, great holidays, expensive houses, etc, but lets give everyone the chance to get there ON MERIT.

I agree all kids should have the same amount of govt money spent on them for education. The trouble is, the govt has the priority wrong. It doesn't ensure an excellent baseline of education for public schools. It has an education budget which is inadequate for public schools, then tops up the private schools many of which have more than enough already. We've got to make sure that the public schools produce smart, motivated kids, not only for their sakes but for the economy. If there's not enough in the education budget, well we've all seen where Howard prefers to spend our money.

 

[Liverpool]

And from an IR prespective it has not been John Howard over the last 3 years - you must like the idea of wealthy Australians becoming more wealthy on the back of ill rewarded work from their fellow Australians.
keep the peasants down - if they run out of bread - let them eat cake - for a worker like you are I am amazed you think the entrepreneurial way of the HR Nicholls Society and their free labour market will benefit you.

For a 'worker like me', I want the dream and aspiration to remain, where people can become more and more successful if they are clever with their money, work hard, or even if they inherit a fortune.
What incentive would there be for people, (like a John Ilhan for example), who work hard from scratch, be clever with their money, and become more rich and successful...while all along, providing employment for thousands of Australians?.
If people like you want to tax the eyeballs out of them, and to punish their success....to prop up the countless plebs out there whose only goal it is, is to get their Centrelink cheque each fortnight and spend it on a bottle of bourbon...then why would the John Ilhan's of this world even try to begin with? what incentive would there be for anyone to try and make something out of themselves, if they know they are going to be punished for it?

FACT:
The Government spends less per private school student than the costs associated with a student in the state system. Less by thousands of dollars per student.
Withdraw the funding and 70% of private students would join the state system causing overcrowding and an increased strain on resources and a massive blowout in the Education budget.

Thanks T-rob.
Spot on and what I have been saying so far.

 

[Liverpool]

Quality of education of children however, imo is one of the things that should not be part of the reward for wealth. An excellent education should be the right of all kids. Otherwise we're entrenching the poor and wealthy alike. Rewarding a kid for having rich parents is the antithesis of Livers reward for endeavour. The kid has done nothing to earn the education. Let wealthy people have expensive toys, great holidays, expensive houses, etc, but lets give everyone the chance to get there ON MERIT.

Azza,

What you are ignoring is that many politicans out there, as well as successful members of our community in both business, sport, and entertainment, etc had a public school education...at a normal high school.
I think too many of you have a chip on your shoulder regarding people who have money and you have some sort of jealousy towards the private school sector, because at the end of the day, if an individual has a talent, has an initiative to learn, and to do well for themselves...they will do it, regardless of a private or public school education.

Going back to the 'quality of education' remark.
Quality isn't always what you pay big bucks for.
In the case of education, quality could be the number of teachers per head of students attending that school....it could be the buildings/grounds around the school and whether they meet a minimum requirement...or it could be the number of computers, books, and resources available for the number of students attending that school.
These "qualities of education" that public schools may have now would be in jeopardy if private school subsidies were withdrawn....and as I and T-Rob has said...an overcrowding of public school due to private school childern having to go back to the public school sector, would put the 'quality of education' you speak about under a lot of pressure....all because a few people have a chip on their shoulders.

 

[Tiger74]

Liv, I think the thing that sets off most who have posted on this is that my old public school (just for the use of a typical example) struggles to get funding to keep facilities repaired and equipment/text books up to date, yet several of the key private schools get grants to subsidize significant capital works. On the surface it comes off bad.

To appreciate this situation though, the following must be remembered:

1) Public schools are run down because we want low taxes. Regardless of party in power, both jurisdictions are reluctant to open the cheque book for a mass upgrade of public schools because it would cost a bucket load. better to repair a few, shut a few, build a few, and make a few "elite" campus facilities, with the rest effectively left to beg the public/corporate sector for the rest of the funds (which is difficult given the restrictions public schools have on partnerships and advertising).

If you want better public schools, we will need to pay for them.

2) Not all private schools are elite. Most Catholic and "independant" schools are pretty average, and struggle for resources. Federal funding is supposed to make up for the lack of state money their students receive (i.e. the money the student would cost if they were in the public system - thus saving the state sector $$$).

3) We then have the Proto schools, which have been cases of good news and bad news. Good news is like (2) their students do save the state purse a few bob, so some cross entitlement is warranted. Good news is also some of the recent funding is being directed at scholarships, which help those who cannot afford to get in to get in.

On the bad side though is the image. Some schools have promoted the need for more govt funds to avoid charging their students (numbers just hypothetical, no time to google for the article - its a little old) $18000 instead of $15000. This does not sell well, as it comes across as wanting a subsidy for the well to do above what most can afford.


In my opinion, school funding comes down to what we (as a society) are prepared to pay, which is why vouchers are great. Make them across the board, and that way public schools will benefit most (as they have most the students), and the poorer private schools (which also tend to be student heavy as their fees are lower) will receive a better benefit too. For the rich schools, their benefit will be now tied to numbers rather than perceptions of old school affiliations to key poli's on either side of politics.

I know this policy is hated by most, but it will make schools accountable as they will have a direct link to student retention and promoting themselves to encourage more entrants.

 

[evo]

Agree.The voucher idea is a good one.

 

[Harry]

Agree with Liverpool. Let the poor eat worms and grubs so us rich folk can enjoy our lives. I say cut all social welfare, public education and public hospitals and let everyone fend for themselves.

 

[Six Pack]

And stop making the assumption that the quality of education in private schools is superior to that in govt schools. Another generalisation.

Select entry can do wonders for yr ENTER scores!

 

[t-rob]

And stop making the assumption that the quality of education in private schools is superior to that in govt schools. Another generalisation.

Select entry can do wonders for yr ENTER scores!

Select entry for who?

The Private or Public system?

???

 

[Six Pack]

Private

 

[t-rob]

Private

Most (98%) don't have selective testing.

...and there are an increasing number of state schools that do.

Talk facts not *smile*.