Your thoughts?
Personally I support deregulation of uni fees. It will give those snobby private school kids a lesson in the value of education. And I'm so glad they're adding more funding for school chaplains as I believe every child who comes to Australia should receive an education in what is morally right and acceptable.
They are being hard on everyone, there's not many people really benefiting from it (Except defence/research). So in that respect it's decent, because a certain group isn't targeted.
A harsh budget but necessary imo. We are living beyond our means.How are we living beyond our means?
People complaining about a $7 trip to the GP. Yet these people don't bat an eyelid when they purchase overpriced cigarettes and alcohol. I'd gladly give something back for my health.A lot of people upset about the $7 fee to see the GP don't drink or smoke. A lot of them have chronic illnesses and $7 a visit adds up over time. Medicare is a publicly funded scheme so you already give something back for your health if you pay tax.
I support the deregulation of uni fees. How does this prevent a child in the bush going to uni? HECS is still in place isn't it? Meaning you don't pay a cent until after you reach the income threshold. Perhaps now this will force unis to cut half of these mickey mouse degrees.Why do you support this? What argument do you possibly have to show that deregulation is a good thing? They're now giving students a potentially crippling debt with interest that they'll have to make back when they start earning $50k/yr. Tell me why this is a good thing for future generations.
People complaining about a $7 trip to the GP. Yet these people don't bat an eyelid when they purchase overpriced cigarettes and alcohol. I'd gladly give something back for my health.This makes no sense whatsoever. How does having to pay for the GP have anything to do with purchasing cigarettes and alcohol? The people that will be most affected by the co-payment is families and individuals that are living pay check to pay check and have barely any disposable income. Are you trying to suggest that 'these people' are the ones purchasing cigarettes and alcohol and then complaining about having to pay for the GP? Because I can tell you that there are plenty of poor families that don't buy either of those goods and certainly don't want to, but will struggle with having to pay to go to the doctor anyway.
I support the deregulation of uni fees. How does this prevent a child in the bush going to uni? HECS is still in place isn't it? Meaning you don't pay a cent until after you reach the income threshold. Perhaps now this will force unis to cut half of these mickey mouse degrees.It prevents prospective students from going to university for a number of reasons.
A harsh budget but necessary imo. We are living beyond our means.
Fairly succint and unbiased* account.
*if you ignore the identification of "winners" and "losers"
Firstly, the amount that we're able to loan from the government is actually capped e.g. for law students it's capped at $95,000 which is an issue for full fee paying UoM JD students who are being charged $110,000 and hence have to already pay $15,000 upfront out of their own pocket to study that degree.
Well I'm definitely not an economic expert but I don't see how taxing petrol/healthcare and cutting education can be good for our economy. I mean, people will have less money to spend, and in twenty years we'll have a generation of spasticated carpenters. Can also see the lack of a disability scheme hurting the long-term economy, as if we could target certain disabilities early, we could prevent a compounded disadvantage such that we'd save money on those people as well as have the able to enter the workforce. Unemployment is expected to rise slightly and growth to slow. So as harsh as this budget is, is it even valuable for the economy?The National Disability Insurance Scheme is something that this budget actually hasn't cut.
Current Commonwealth supported undergraduate student who is transferring their studies
Lyndal is enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts course at a public university. She will finish her first year of study at the end of 2014. In 2015, she will transfer her studies to a Bachelor of Visual Arts (at another public university).
Lyndal will not be affected by the changes to student contributions in 2016. Her student contribution cannot exceed the specified maximum student contribution rate until she finishes her study or until the end of 2020, whichever comes first.
I'm not sure how having an austere budget would be good for our economy or is in any way needed, let alone an austere budget that also attempts to raise revenues in really insensible ways (increasing the top marginal tax rate by 2%, but not closing tax loopholes and thereby allowing tax minimisation schemes to continue?)In truth, I have a bit more respect for the LNP. They've clearly prioritised the economy over their own popularity.Spoiler(http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1346/51/1346512449841.jpg)
I read somewhere about currently enrolled students not being affected financially by fee deregulation, is this true? If so, does being on intermission and soon-to-be enrolled to another course count as being enrolled?Yeah, you're safe. As long as you accepted and deferred before budget day.
Deregulation of university fees would likely not be the end of the world if they were keeping the HECS debt indexed rather than changing it. Free education would obviously be preferred but the changes to the payment system are worse than the changes to the fees.
Could someone please give some light/reassurance? :( I deferred my five year Arts/Law course for next year. Will I be affected by these changes? Because if I am, I would simply start mid year this year :(
GP copay is fine. In practice it may very well turn out to be poorly devised but I don't object to the principle of it or the ideology. Nobody is entitled to free universal healthcare, it's just a thing we attempt to provide if possible. Many GPs will waive the fee for the disadvantaged, which is the reason they get a net $2 pay raise per patient. Making it $7 for each item means there are going to be some stupidly expensive visits if they include a script and pathology etc. Some number of new GP places though, which sort of makes it better?I might agree with you here Russ if it was an actual necessity that people pay the fee. We're adding the copay which adds about $1.2bn to the budget but spending $22bn on defence, $5.5bn on the PPL and another billion or so dollars on asylum detention. Surely these other things could have been adjusted before we compromised our very robust and enviable universal healthcare scheme? I just don't understand why the first things attacked have been health and education, which should arguably be the most important cornerstones of any society.
Deficit levy is fine. Impact is relatively low looking at the numbers.I have no issue with the fiscal aspect of the deficit levy. The impact like you've said is truly minimal.
I might agree with you here Russ if it was an actual necessity that people pay the fee. We're adding the copay which adds about $1.2bn to the budget but spending $22bn on defence, $5.5bn on the PPL and another billion or so dollars on asylum detention. Surely these other things could have been adjusted before we compromised our very robust and enviable universal healthcare scheme? I just don't understand why the first things attacked have been health and education, which should arguably be the most important cornerstones of any society.What makes you say that $22bn on defence could be cut? We're also one of the only countries in the world without a PPL scheme (even though Abbott's one is shit), why shouldn't we spend money on it?
"The FEE-HELP limit will be removed and there will be no limit on the amount of FEE-HELP and VET FEE‑HELP assistance that a student can access. This change will apply for all students from 1 January 2016."
WAIT - this is real thing?
Ie, when I apply for Med, I can definitely use my guaranteed entry card if necessary and not expect my mum to front me ~120k?
Or only if you're enrolling from 2016? Like, could you start off in 2015 putting all your debt on HELP and then by 2016-2018 keep putting all of your debt on HELP because the start date for this new rule has passed? Or do you still have a limit because you enrolled before Jan 1 2016...?
I wouldn't call them sep, I'm under the impression fee deregulation will still allow for there to be a massive increase in the fees (potentially) that could fuck you over regardless of whether you are CSP or full fee domestic.
Current Commonwealth supported students who finish their course and immediately commence in another course as a Commonwealth supported student (either at the undergraduate or postgraduate level), will also be eligible to study under existing arrangements for the duration of their study or until the 31st of December 2020 (whichever comes first).
What makes you say that $22bn on defence could be cut? We're also one of the only countries in the world without a PPL scheme (even though Abbott's one is shit), why shouldn't we spend money on it?a) I'm not saying that we should cut the entire $22bn dollars, but cutting health and education before reducing (and in fact increasing) your military spending is absurd.
This is beautiful:It really is about time, hey? Loved that speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxAlX6aOy8
I didn't realise you wanted to do Med, simpak. I know you sat the GAMSAT but thought you'd changed your mind.
a) I'm not saying that we should cut the entire $22bn dollars, but cutting health and education before reducing (and in fact increasing) your military spending is absurd.a) I think that would depend on what the current funding levels are. I don't claim to be an expert on defence spending, but I'm not sure that ours is too high at all, especially considering it's mostly spent on salaries (counterbalancing the public service cuts? :P)
b) Again I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a PPL scheme and I think it's an important thing to have, but the Abbott one like you've said is awful, and disproportionately benefits the people who least need government assistance. When this is happening at the same time as cuts to health and education I have issues with the scheme, how much it costs and whether it's worth, as well as the government's agenda behind it.
Was having an argument with someone in my family (she's abt 60) about the budget and is pretty right wing - needless to say I got shot down :( This is what she has to say about the budget:
"This budget is absolutely necessary and the low income earners need to have benefits cut. Why is it that in this country a driver, a person who didn't study at school, earns more than a doctor or an engineer? <At Ford a driver earns ~$120,000 per annum> They need to drop labourers' wages - this country pays too much to these labourers. They should pay wages acccording to your level of education. After all, the people who are struggling for money are only doing so because they drink and smoke and pay for hookers, and they cheat the system by earning cash in hand. They should get rid of the dole so these lazy people can go and find work.
Alternatively, the dole people should be kept in one place from 7 am to 5 pm and made to work or study under close watch. They should not be allowed to go out and spend money [on alcohol and cigarettes and hookers]."
Man, I was seething inside but I couldn't say anything coz I kept getting shut down and talked over. Also, I saw many similar attitudes in comments in newspapers as well :/
I might agree with you here Russ if it was an actual necessity that people pay the fee. We're adding the copay which adds about $1.2bn to the budget but spending $22bn on defence, $5.5bn on the PPL and another billion or so dollars on asylum detention. Surely these other things could have been adjusted before we compromised our very robust and enviable universal healthcare scheme? I just don't understand why the first things attacked have been health and education, which should arguably be the most important cornerstones of any society.
Instead of raising the pension age, a person's house should be classed as assessable income when considering eligibility for the pension. It should be assumed that you could reverse mortgage, say, 30% of the equity in your home if need be.
Instead of a deficit levy, reduce the tax benefits from salary sacrificing into super. It's primarily high income earners who are able to contribute extra to super anyway.
The new interest rate of HECS will screw up a lot of people who went back to uni and getting larger HECS debt under the assumption that it would not accrue real interest. Kinda unethical to apply it to existing debt imo.
I think #1 is already in the Budget? (Actually, maybe I'm getting confused with the commission of audit - pretty sure it was in there.) It's been debated for a long time and I don't know if even this government would dare to touch this. It can be problematic as well - for a lot of pensioners, they've been living in their family home for decades and it is their only significant asset, and including it in the means test is basically forcing them to take a reverse mortgage which I'm uncomfortable with.In the audit, not the budget I don't think. I see where you're coming from. Personally I would prefer this to potentially having people work for longer than they perhaps should. But thats just me, I do acknowledge your point though.
Lol fuck. Should've done undergrad med. Ahhh sigh. Y u no tell me this before I pick career path.
In the audit, not the budget I don't think. I see where you're coming from. Personally I would prefer this to potentially having people work for longer than they perhaps should. But thats just me, I do acknowledge your point though.
Doesn't a 99.95 net you a full scholarship regardless?
http://theconversation.com/how-much-student-debt-will-you-be-facing-post-budget-26712BUT MY ARTS DEGREE IS USELESS.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/s720x720/10259956_792357357441391_4065228730813619442_n.png)
It's a horrible budget. It's based on a manufactured "Budget Emergency" (the vast majority of the world would kill for our situation), allowing them to shunt through their neo-conservative ideology of the rich and big business. It's a trojan horse that'll leave a scar upon this great nation.You. I like you.
It takes a razor to some of the most cherished and worthwhile programmes in this nation and yet, it ignores the income side. I'm no economics professor but everyone knows there are two sides to a budget, income and expenditure. They're slashing expenditure without much thought for the in-flows. Yes, they have a temporary levy but that hardly fixes anything in the long term, it will expire. In a round about (and dishonest way), there is an increase in tax income because of "bracket creep" (average incomes will go up, i.e. people will get pay rises due to inflation, etc but they will not adjust the tax brackets to match, more people will move into the higher brackets). In-fact, this is the majority item that is fixing the budget, their bracket creep.
They are slashing all these programmes but ignore the fact that multinational mining companies are ripping wealth out of this country for a meager sum. Even 60 years ago, countries like Iran were charging 50%+ tax on their oil because they realised it was whats best for their nation, they didn't want to let rich, majority foreign, companies rip wealth out of their nation. Yet, we roll over and take it. If we taxed mining at a respectable rate, many of these cuts wouldn't be necessary.
This also ignores the elephant in the room, Abbotts absolutely massive paid parental leave scheme. In a time when he's trying to cut expenditure, he doesn't seem to keen to cut this.
Lol fuck. Should've done undergrad med. Ahhh sigh. Y u no tell me this before I pick career path.
A harsh budget but necessary imo. We are living beyond our means.
People complaining about a $7 trip to the GP. Yet these people don't bat an eyelid when they purchase overpriced cigarettes and alcohol. I'd gladly give something back for my health.
Nobody is entitled to free universal healthcare
Does everyone know that Churches aren't taxed? They would be giving over 40 billion dollars back to Australia. But no, Abbot ignores all the free money flow to his buddies over at the church and takes it out of education and scientific research.
Why shouldn't we be? Why shouldn't society as a collective provide one of the most basic needs to its citizens, health?
Are you saying that the greater the need, the greater the obligation to provide it? I reject that premise. In any case, shouldn't it need to be demonstrated that there is an entitlement to provision of 100% free healthcare?How do you reject that premise? Are you saying that walking past a hungry student on the street and reusing to buy them food is equivalent to walking past someone severely starving and refusing to buy them food?
It's not just churches, its any non for profit organisation. Churches aren't special, they're a class of non-profit organisations. The red cross isn't taxed for instance. I'm not 100% but your local kids scouting club isn't taxed either. Animal shelters, etc. The list on.
Churches pick up a lot of slack charitable work-wise where the government fails as well.
Yes, but the animal shelter doesn't use a big chunk of its money on 'missions' with absolutely no benefit to the country. With all their leaders living the high life whilst ignoring all the sexual assault and fraud going on around them.
They're a corrupt organisation in every way. A business with so many criminals + no income tax = disaster.
i think them forcing unemployed people under 30 to wait 6 months to apply for the dole made me angriest tbh.
the point of the dole is that it's an immediate source of relief when you lose your job to give you some time to get back on your feet. if you're between 25-30, and too old for youth allowance, if you find yourself unemployed you're basically screwed for 6 months unless you can get support from your family. if the idea is to galvanise people into looking for work, they need to stop watching today tonight stories on 'dole-bludgers' because the vast majority of people on the dole aren't on it because they enjoy being on it.
to me it just kind of shows that old elitist attitude of 'if you're poor, it's your own fault for not working hard enough'.
I don't actually think it's a bad thing. Although the government should invest the money that they saved from this into providing more opportunities for employment, or education for that matter.Your parents were fortunate then. But not everyone are given these opportunities to be employed again. Finding a job isn't all about leaving the couch and just starting work and working hard.. Some people face discrimination because of age, level of education, criminal history, prejudices etc; these are where welfare should be reserved. I mean Abbott is on the record for saying homelessness is a choice to some - that his government can't stop people if they choose to be homeless. Like wtf?
If people really didn't enjoy being on the 'dole' they should actively try to invest in themselves and make a better future. My parents came from disadvantaged backgrounds, having to commit themselves in the beginning to 60+hour work weeks with insanely for them to set me up.
The government should just quit the allowances altogether and grant employer's bonuses for hiring these people. Would make more sense and encourage these people to work for their money.
I don't actually think it's a bad thing. Although the government should invest the money that they saved from this into providing more opportunities for employment, or education for that matter.
If people really didn't enjoy being on the 'dole' they should actively try to invest in themselves and make a better future. My parents came from disadvantaged backgrounds, having to commit themselves in the beginning to 60+hour work weeks with insanely for them to set me up.
The government should just quit the allowances altogether and grant employer's bonuses for hiring these people. Would make more sense and encourage these people to work for their money.
Your parents were fortunate then. But not everyone are given these opportunities to be employed again. Finding a job isn't all about leaving the couch and just starting work and working hard.. Some people face discrimination because of age, level of education, criminal history, prejudices etc; these are where welfare should be reserved. I mean Abbott is on the record for saying homelessness is a choice to some - that his government can't stop people if they choose to be homeless. Like wtf?
And of course, I am speaking for the minority; welfare will be abused by some but I believe no one would genuinely be content to be living off $36 a day; everyone innately will want the best future, but circumstances don't allow that... welfare is there as a safety net to help the most vulnerable to survive; we can't really cut it simply through making assumptions like "oh they spend so much on alcohol and ciggies anyway" or "oh they're just lazy bums who don't want to work"... Especially when we have all the means to provide each and everyone of us with some form of economic security.
'Fortunate' to be discriminated by being asian and getting paid 20% less than 'white' workers? Don't think so.Ok fine - even if accept your parents weren't fortunate, this does not preclude others from being more "fortunate" or having a secure, basic future. It's like saying "oh I experienced so much shit so you should too to see how it feels like"...
Because it reflects well on our humanity and morality as a society to help those who cannot get out of unemployment. You will see that it is always the same type of people being unemployed - those who don't have two arms, those with a criminal history, those who cannot speak English, those who never had the opportunities to get a decent education. These are structural, institutional barriers which cannot be addressed by forcing them to go to work; for example - never having good parenting. It's not about saying "oh here.. we need more plumbers... go learn how to plumb". This is not the society I want to live in - where we push people into roles that they cannot fill. We cannot start treating people as economic units - our fundamental role as human beings is is not to contribute to the GDP or the economy. There is something more humane than that.
Yes, we have the means to provide us with economic security, but why should we do this for the ones that don't do anything to contribute to society and don't want to either?
For example, there's a significant shortage of roof tilers in vic, these people can go do that. It doesn't take a 4 year diploma or something to learn roof tiling, yet there's a shortage. This is due to the physical exertion that is required from long hours doing so. Bakers are also in shortage, many supermarket chains (eg. Coles, Woolworths) want to hire more bakers. These jobs aren't something that requires a 6 year university degree or something ridiculous. They're all careers that can fit people who want to work hard.You're making way too many assumptions here. I mean we don't even force people who have committed crimes to work. We pay around $200 to keep someone each day to stay in a cell because they committed a crime... they haven't contributed to society; why are we spending millions each year to rehabilitate them?
Keep it nice everyone. This thread is great for sharing thoughts but any cheap insults or otherwise derogatory comments will be deleted. It's been above board for now but things are getting heated and I wouldn't want anyone getting banned over this! Consider this a friendly heads up.
Are you saying that the greater the need, the greater the obligation to provide it? I reject that premise. In any case, shouldn't it need to be demonstrated that there is an entitlement to provision of 100% free healthcare?
Aren't you an MD student? I thought you would've had more consideration for an issue like this.Yeah, I have similar concerns in that I feel there is more at stake than a $7 co-payment. It's not the $7 cost per se that is worrying. It is more a principled issue at hand - we are undermining the universality of Medicare, which when created by Hawke was meant to provide free healthcare for all, regardless of wealth, privileges or opportunities.
The problem with the copayment is that it establishes a culture where we implicitly discourage patients from seeking medical attention for issues they deem as unworthy of their own sacrifice. I don't need to explain to you how dangerous it is when patients start to assess the severity of their own medical concerns. I don't particularly like the idea of medical professionals conducting their own kind of superficial means test to assess whether someone is worthy of having their copayment waived, either.
The intrinsic flaw in this idea is that it is likely to disadvantage only the people who have actually have need of consistent medical care. I'm going to assume that everyone in this thread is a relatively privileged, middle class and healthy. To us, an extra $7 for the one or two times we visit a GP each year is nothing. To a disabled person living off government benefits who has to visit the GP regularly, for whatever reason, the copayment is going to be a lot more burdensome.
Even from an economic perspective (which I find a bit egotistical, to be honest), the copayment doesn't make sense. Discouraging people from visiting the GP will cause people to neglect their medical issues until they actually start to impact on the wellbeing of the patient - meaning that people are more likely to require more demanding treatment - in a hospital, for example. That would place a much larger strain on the health system than a free GP consultation.
Of course, if it actually remains at $7, I'm not that worried. I doubt it will, however. The purpose of such a small levy is that it makes it difficult to reject, but easy to increase. In doing so, the Liberal Party has subtly undermined the equality of the Australian healthcare - slowly paving the way to an Americanised system, and the class divide this budget seems to be trying to achieve.
Yeah, I have similar concerns in that I feel there is more at stake than a $7 co-payment. It's not the $7 cost per se that is worrying. It is more a principled issue at hand - we are undermining the universality of Medicare, which when created by Hawke was meant to provide free healthcare for all, regardless of wealth, privileges or opportunities.
Coupled with a $50 billion cut in spending in hospitals, a condition, or charge, for going to the doctor undermines the universality of health as an inalienable right in Australia. And really, if we are going to start introducing a charge, there is nothing stopping a future government from increasing that cost out of some stupid reason like inflation etc.
i think them forcing unemployed people under 30 to wait 6 months to apply for the dole made me angriest tbh.
the point of the dole is that it's an immediate source of relief when you lose your job to give you some time to get back on your feet. if you're between 25-30, and too old for youth allowance, if you find yourself unemployed you're basically screwed for 6 months unless you can get support from your family. if the idea is to galvanise people into looking for work, they need to stop watching today tonight stories on 'dole-bludgers' because the vast majority of people on the dole aren't on it because they enjoy being on it.
to me it just kind of shows that old elitist attitude of 'if you're poor, it's your own fault for not working hard enough'.
Are you saying that the greater the need, the greater the obligation to provide it? I reject that premise. In any case, shouldn't it need to be demonstrated that there is an entitlement to provision of 100% free healthcare?
Yes, but the animal shelter doesn't use a big chunk of its money on 'missions' with absolutely no benefit to the country. With all their leaders living the high life whilst ignoring all the sexual assault and fraud going on around them.
They're a corrupt organisation in every way. A business with so many criminals + no income tax = disaster.
I don't actually think it's a bad thing. Although the government should invest the money that they saved from this into providing more opportunities for employment, or education for that matter.
If people really didn't enjoy being on the 'dole' they should actively try to invest in themselves and make a better future. My parents came from disadvantaged backgrounds, having to commit themselves in the beginning to 60+hour work weeks with insanely for them to set me up.
I don't actually think it's a bad thing. Although the government should invest the money that they saved from this into providing more opportunities for employment, or education for that matter.
If people really didn't enjoy being on the 'dole' they should actively try to invest in themselves and make a better future. My parents came from disadvantaged backgrounds, having to commit themselves in the beginning to 60+hour work weeks with insanely for them to set me up.
The government should just quit the allowances altogether and grant employer's bonuses for hiring these people. Would make more sense and encourage these people to work for their money.
'Fortunate' to be discriminated by being asian and getting paid 20% less than 'white' workers? Don't think so.
There are always options if you truly wanted to get out of the dole.
The problem with the copayment is that it establishes a culture where we implicitly discourage patients from seeking medical attention for issues they deem as unworthy of their own sacrifice. I don't need to explain to you how dangerous it is when patients start to assess the severity of their own medical concerns. I don't particularly like the idea of medical professionals conducting their own kind of superficial means test to assess whether someone is worthy of having their copayment waived, either.
The intrinsic flaw in this idea is that it is likely to disadvantage only the people who actually have need of consistent medical care. I'm going to assume that everyone in this thread is relatively privileged, middle class and healthy. To us, an extra $7 for the one or two times we visit a GP each year is nothing. To a disabled person living off government benefits who has to visit the GP regularly, for whatever reason, the copayment is going to be a lot more burdensome.
Even from an economic perspective (which I find a bit egotistical, to be honest), the copayment doesn't make sense. Discouraging people from visiting the GP will cause people to neglect their medical issues until they actually start to impact on the wellbeing of the patient - meaning that people are more likely to require more demanding treatment - in a hospital, for example. That would place a much larger strain on the health system than a free GP consultation.
Of course, if it actually remains at $7, I'm not that worried. I doubt it will, however. The purpose of such a small levy is that it makes it difficult to reject, but easy to increase. In doing so, the Liberal Party has subtly undermined the equality of the Australian healthcare - slowly paving the way to an Americanised system, and the class divide this budget seems to be trying to achieve.
Listen, its clear you don't like religion. I don't know if you just found out about the God delusion or Richard Dawkins but it goes much deeper than that mate. It's clear we can't have a reasonable argument with you because you seem so biased. A non-profit organisation can spend the money as it likes, within the limits of the law. Churches do this just fine. It might help if you view them as an non-profit social club, many of these exist, many have arguably little or no benefits to the wider community. I won't engage you on the rest because it's such a wild tangent from the substance of this debate.
(http://www.thecitrusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/7Nanx.gif)
Yup. I do sense that this can get out of hand.. and often it's easy to confuse passion with insults online. I apologise to hamo if what I said is in any way offensive above. Nothing personal/derogatory (not even a shade) was intended.
How do you reject that premise? Are you saying that walking past a hungry student on the street and refusing to buy them food is equivalent to walking past someone severely starving and refusing to buy them food?
Aren't you an MD student? I thought you would've had more consideration for an issue like this.
Also, you're right, nobody is entitled to free healthcare. Likewise, nobody is objectively entitled to a dole, to an education, to housing or food. Nobody has an obligation to be nice to each other, nobody is obligated to volunteer or help others.
Why do you think people do, then?
I don't know how you can be serious about your first claim. It seems axiomatic to me. Secondly, you were the one making the claim first, it's up to you to argue why we shouldn't be entitled to it, which you have not yet produced a convincing argument for at all (beyond deflections).
Most of the discussion, including what you're responding to, has been about me disagreeing with people over the right to free healthcare and whether or not you can justify changing the Medicare system in this way.
What's funny is that the fate of the higher education reforms rests in PUP's hands...
What's funny is that the fate of the higher education reforms rests in PUP's hands...
Students should start sending letters and phone calls to the offices of PUP senators.This is very true, especially if Palmer is serious about his aspirations for PUP in future years. He has to remember who the voters will be.
Let's not play the oppression Olympics, this has nothing to do with an argument about the dole. Yes, it sucks and i definitely feel for them but this is not a logical argument or evidence.
I don't think we're arguing necessarily about whether people want to get off the dole. I think we all agree its unpleasant (you seem to accept this). Likewise, you, like all of us here, accept almost all people do not want to stay on it for life, that is not how they envision the rest of their life. In these matters, there is no debate.
The debate, or so it seems to me, is whether we should at all have a dole at all. This seems to be what the other are arguing against. If we have no form of income support payments for people who have no income, they will live a horrible life. They will starve, beg or turn to crime. It's as simple as that. You seem to not understand people need money to (literally) survive in a society centered around money.
Hear, Hear!
It stabs at the very heart of the principals of our universal health-care system. Free (Gone!). Equally accessible to everyone (Gone! If you're of low income its much harder). Make no mistake this is a small wound yes but it is a deep one. As you very astutely point out, once we have a fee, a fee of any denomination, it breaks the very principals of the system, the most sacred tenets. Once we have a fee, even if it is tiny (arguably) like $7, what is to stop it ever increasing more and more in the future. Once you cede a power like this, a right we all deserve, once you throw those away they are extraordinarily hard to get back, this is shown time and time again in history.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/10257695_1419564401650039_4488605010035840197_n.jpg)
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ffnrV95U1r1vzzeo2_500.jpg)
Source: 9 news
with the higher uni fees post-deregulation, if you commence your degree in 2015, will you still be charged the old prices for your subjects in years 2016 and 2017, even though commencing students that year will have to pay the new, higher fees,
or do people who start in 2015 have one year of old prices then 2 years of the new prices (assuming a 3 year degree)
Is it true that the new uni fees have doubled?
I'm certain that the interest rates on hecs have increased -.-
Is it true that the new uni fees have doubled?
http://theconversation.com/how-much-student-debt-will-you-be-facing-post-budget-26712
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/s720x720/10259956_792357357441391_4065228730813619442_n.png)
I read in passing that someone finishing an old degree (pre-May this year) that immediately starts a new degree at completion of another one will be charged old fees for te postgrad. True or false?
What you fail to understand, however, is that there is a surplus of jobs in some undesirable sectors. DO something you don't want to. There will always be jobs for those to truly seek for it. If you break down the walls between 'this is a job suited for me' and 'there's no way in hell that i'd partake in this', then you'll find that the options expand exponentially.
At any one time, there are about 200,000 vacant jobs listed most of which are for skilled people with recent experience. Source
Equally, you don't exactly know that when this comes into effect whether people will turn to crime or starve or whether they will suddenly find this new sense of 'forced inspiration' and change their life around.
But when we're talking about those who are essentially capable of doing so, but they refuse to take part and do something because it's deemed to 'physically difficult and draining', why should we continue to support these people?
Is it true that the new uni fees have doubled?
I'm certain that the interest rates on hecs have increased -.-
True.Great news. Now I don't know whether to finish Law or go straight to an MA
http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/helpfulresources/pages/studentoverview_budget2014#ChangestoSC
I suspect that is partly to accommodate people who may wish to transfer courses, since that would constitute acceptance of a new CSP.
Proof, where is your proof? It might as well be a useful lie unless you prove it. From my prior readings, many of the jobs in shortage, are, believe it or not, skilled jobs. These jobs by their very nature aren't readily open to everyone. You start with the basic, flawed and hateful assumption that Australian society is just full of bludgers who don't want to work. Whether you do this deliberately or you just haven't read very widely i am not sure. Time and time again though, the evidence proves all your assumptions wrong.
According to Professor Eva Cox from the University of Technology, Sydney:
On the Truth-O-Meter, your claim that there are plenty of jobs out there and people just don't want to do "hard" or "icky" jobs is dead false. You don't even need evidence to see it, you can even work it out logically. Everyone can offer labor, it is not surprising that anyone can hire anyone to do labour (stack boxes, etc). It's much harder to filled skilled jobs because (duh) you require skills. This is why that the vast majority of openings require skills and prior experience.
You're taking a bet on this? You're willing to run society on such a cruel principal? Where is your heart, where is your compassion? This is not the sort of political ethos i want to see in Australia.
Force people to starve or turn to crime, in an effort to get the few bludgers who really do exist off centerlink to save you a cent of tax? In this effort turning many more to the street and crime? That is not at all pragmatic, kind or compassionate. It fails on all three.
This is a highly empirical claim with again, zero proof. Without proof, all this is a fantasy that is constructed in the mind to justify brutal policy decisions.
http://docs.employment.gov.au/node/30587
http://employment.gov.au/national-state-and-territory-skill-shortage-information
Yes you require skills. Why don't you go learn them instead of sticking around and not doing anything? But then again, none of us are sure whether this is a 'correct' or 'wrong' process.
If none of the proclaimed benefits ensue, then by all means return to the previous model.
And where is your proof that people will resort to crime? Running the new model for a brief 3-6 month period won't be as drastic as what you suggest. Show me some proof that these people will resort to crime.
The problem here is you don't realise the awful condition that some of these people in welfare are in
You voice support for people who are disabled and suffering from severe prejudice
Yet you are under the false impression that these people are in that state because they don't work hard enough
The problem with Tony Abbott and his stupid budget is how he is appealing to the people who are uninformed regarding the true situation. Yes there are dole bludgers, a substantial number. However the vast majority are not in this situation
That's what I thought previously too until I signed up for community service
http://docs.employment.gov.au/node/30587Yes, there's a skill shortage. How are you not to know the people on the "dole" aren't actively seeking out these skills? The majority are in fact trying to better their lives. How do you expect these people to earn the skills needed if they aren't making any money and are virtually homeless?? Why do you treat people as mere economic pawns, merely tools to increase economic growth, while completely ignoring basic human values of compassion and empathy??
http://employment.gov.au/national-state-and-territory-skill-shortage-information
Yes you require skills. Why don't you go learn them instead of sticking around and not doing anything? But then again, none of us are sure whether this is a 'correct' or 'wrong' process.
If none of the proclaimed benefits ensue, then by all means return to the previous model.
And where is your proof that people will resort to crime? Running the new model for a brief 3-6 month period won't be as drastic as what you suggest. Show me some proof that these people will resort to crime.
http://docs.employment.gov.au/node/30587
http://employment.gov.au/national-state-and-territory-skill-shortage-information
Yes you require skills. Why don't you go learn them instead of sticking around and not doing anything? But then again, none of us are sure whether this is a 'correct' or 'wrong' process.
If none of the proclaimed benefits ensue, then by all means return to the previous model.
And where is your proof that people will resort to crime? Running the new model for a brief 3-6 month period won't be as drastic as what you suggest. Show me some proof that these people will resort to crime.
Yes, there's a skill shortage. How are you not to know the people on the "dole" aren't actively seeking out these skills? The majority are in fact trying to better their lives. How do you expect these people to earn the skills needed if they aren't making any money and are virtually homeless?? Why do you treat people as mere economic pawns, merely tools to increase economic growth, while completely ignoring basic human values of compassion and empathy??
The facts are already very, very clear and we simply don't need to do a "brief 3-6 month" trial (also if you understood the nature of the budget you would realise it is pretty difficult and will cost so much admin costs to adopt a "3-6 month" trial)because the facts have already established that it would have little benefit and cost so much.
And, are you serious that you think that people who have nothing and will literally starve to death if they don't get something somehow will simply lie down and starve and not resort to crime??
I think you should probably read the executive summary of the report you included. It supports the converse of what you're arguing, especially considering the 7 year trends. I won't go into much detail with that.
Stopping everything to receive an education in the conditions these people are in is impossible (especially without government support.. ironically? How do you expect people to fund themselves while they 'study'?). Not everybody can pull open their laptop to do their uni assignment while mum cooks dinner at night. Some people have you know, families to look after. Not to mention just.. so many other things wrong with the assumption that anyone can just go get 'qualified'. I won't even go there, I think you're bright enough to figure it out.
India is proof. Basically any African country is proof. Your scruples are reminiscent of the Chinese working ideology - and no offense to anyone Chinese in this thread, but I'm not particularly convinced that the competitiveness of their working class and the cut-throat nature of their society is something I want to adopt in Australia. Their quality of life isn't exactly superb.
Basically, just have a little empathy dude. Just, try to be nice. Empathy is a really valued quality and people will like you more for it. You'll have a happier life if you can learn to put yourself in someone else's shoes and consider what will make them happy as well. You're not going to have a happy life treating people the way you do now, and people won't like you. That's the crux of it really. I hope I don't offend you, I'm not trying to - but maybe it'll make you reconsider why you have the opinions you do. That's all.
I'm going to concede something here.
I have never personally delved deep into the living conditions of people on the dole and thus, have limited knowledge. And that's the stem of my problem which you guys helped address.
I've been horribly misguided and did not truly grasp the extent of this situation for which I apologise to anyone who's been affected by my comments.
I'm going to concede something here.
I have never personally delved deep into the living conditions of people on the dole and thus, have limited knowledge. And that's the stem of my problem which you guys helped address.
I've been horribly misguided and did not truly grasp the extent of this situation for which I apologise to anyone who's been affected by my comments.
----Clive Palmer to oppose deregulation (???!)
----Clive Palmer to oppose deregulation (???!)
Would be interesting if deregulation is completely rejected in the senate to see what the LNP does, I mean, is this really a big enough issue for them that they would call a double disillusion if the senate absolutely will not pass it? I suppose if the LNP thinks they could gain enough support in a re-election to get back in with greater numbers they could do it, but if the polls are correct, they would have trouble doing that and may end up in a worse position than they started with.
This is why I love the bicameral system, no government goes formally unquestioned (well, most of the time at least)
also not sure if fee deregulation constitutes a supply bill considering how intrinsically tied it is to government expenditure
While I'm in favour of this, the dude flipflops more than Mitt Romney.
Not sure if its linked but clive palmer declared he opposes the rise in uni fees (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/19/clive-palmer-opposes-deregulation-university-fees).
Abbott is too much of a coward to request a double dissolution because he knows he'll lose. The Governor General could dissolve the House of Representatives without a DD or he could dismiss the PM if he feels that parliament has lost faith in him or whatever. But then we'd probably end up with Pyne as PM.
The Libs aren't stupid enough to call an election before they're forced to. They'd get decimated right now.there was a poll from the age which showed that abbott's approval ratings are at something like 34% at the moment, which is abysmal.
there was a poll from the age which showed that abbott's approval ratings are at something like 34% at the moment, which is abysmal.
of course he's still got the daily telegraph on his side - one of the most disgusting headlines i've seen.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bn_V_jiCUAAdyev.png)
there was a poll from the age which showed that abbott's approval ratings are at something like 34% at the moment, which is abysmal.
of course he's still got the daily telegraph on his side - one of the most disgusting headlines i've seen.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bn_V_jiCUAAdyev.png)
Abbott is too much of a coward to request a double dissolution because he knows he'll lose. The Governor General could dissolve the House of Representatives without a DD or he could dismiss the PM if he feels that parliament has lost faith in him or whatever. But then we'd probably end up with Pyne as PM.Not sure at all that Pyne will be appointed. If supply is blocked, merely switching heads won't solve anything. The precedent, if supply is blocked through the Senate, is to appoint the Opposition Leader the PM. Of course, that precedent is highly questionable. I think directly dissolving the House of Reps is more likely. This will be a HoR-only election, as barring a double dissolution, the Senate operates on fixed terms.
Alrighty, I said I would endeavour to reply to your comments so here is my scrappy attempt! Firstly, guys, it is clear to me that what we are debating here is a matter of opinion rather than facts. There is no clear right or wrong answer. Of course, if any of my facts are incorrect, please correct me. So let’s proceed with an open frame of mind that allows for differences in opinion. Most of what I said and am about to say is opinion, not precise factual information that can be proved or disproved. This applies to your hypotheses too.
RE “our debt is not as big as other countries” points: We should not wait until the budget is in crisis before we start repaying a debt. A national debt, no matter how small in comparison to other countries, is still a debt. It is billions of dollars in interest that can be saved, rather than slowly giving our creditors more power over us.
RE “labourers etc cannot work till 70 due to physical constraints” – no, they certainly can’t. In fact, how many 50-something year olds do you see working in labour-intensive jobs? By this logic, all people involved in laborious jobs should retire by 40. However, what actually happens is that people progress onto more managerial/training roles rather than doing the same heavy lifting as when they started out in their teens/20s. Some people will possibly have to re-train, but given that the average person now undergoes 3 career changes in their lifetime, this is not a new concept. The $10,000 grant to businesses who hire older employees (for a minimum of 2 years) will also help.
RE “$7 is aimed at the poorest” – it is not aimed at anybody, it’s a universally applied co-payment. And as mentioned several times, for people who need it most (those with chronic illnesses, concession cards, kids under 16), there will only be a maximum of 10 payments of $7 in a year. Any more visits will be free. Furthermore, if people are struggling and cannot pay, the doctor is more than likely to waive the $7 fee, given that $2 from every payment will go to the doctors, to allow them to do so. In the long run, the jobs and money created through medical advances (through research) will be of enormous benefit to the country, given that our mining boom won’t last forever. We need to invest in the next big thing – medical research.
RE “6 months is too long to wait for the Dole” – this proposal will only apply to people under 30, and presumably not to disabled people, as they would be applying for the disability pension, not these benefits. While 6 months is indeed a long time if you have no savings/family, there are many jobs that people could take up (e.g. cleaning, pizza delivery, casual labour work) but under the existing welfare arrangements, sometimes bypass these types of jobs to wait for something better (while on welfare). In my opinion, this is the proposal that will most likely be watered down anyway – if people risk being made homeless, they will probably be given more immediate assistance. BUT this is a big if, so we need to see how the debate plays out. If not, there is always public housing and emergency shelters – in reality though, no government would risk such a huge public backlash by doing nothing for 6 months while a person’s condition becomes worse. I believe that this measure is being proposed to push people to take whatever job they can find, rather than rely on unemployment benefits until they find something better. Also, [name redacted] – I disagree with your statement that welfare is an investment. Education and infrastructure are investments, but not welfare, certainly not on borrowed money.
RE “the government is prioritising serving big business through military spending”: [name redacted], you are suggesting that this military spend is exorbitant and unnecessary, and I admit that I am no expert in this area, but in my opinion, we need to stay ahead of the game in military capability. If we only spent on military when there was an immediate threat, we’d be too late. Being militarily advanced also acts as a deterrent to potential invasions, and while I admit again that I don’t have any deep understanding of this issue, it just seems logical to me to be prepared for potential attacks. Also, I looked up the short range and CTOL (learnt something new!) jets and I didn’t really understand what the problem was there. Doesn’t short range just mean that it can’t go for as long a distance without fuel stops? And CTOL is basically a traditional jet that needs a runway to take off and land (so it might not be as mobile?) I mean these jets could be sent elsewhere and be used from there, perhaps more usefully than in Australia. It might be just a case of supporting our allies (without starting a new topic on that!) Anyway, our military spend is tiny compared to what we spend on welfare (6% versus 35%). I don’t think it’s a waste, for the reasons above.
Lastly, education was touched upon too. The government would allow universities to uncap fees. However, there has been no suggestion of removing the HECS system. This may be a way of addressing the issue of oversupply of graduates, who are left without the job they thought they’d get, and instead with a big debt. In other words, it might deter people from pursuing tertiary education (although HECS would still be available to all), but I don’t think this is a bad thing, given the state of oversupply in many areas (e.g. law). We need to actively encourage alternatives to university for school leavers, and this might be the impetus for doing so. Also, online courses are probably going to increase affordable tertiary education options, so you could also argue that that would act as an incentive for universities to keep fees reasonable.
“our debt is not as big as other countries” points: We should not wait until the budget is in crisis before we start repaying a debt. A national debt, no matter how small in comparison to other countries, is still a debt. It is billions of dollars in interest that can be saved, rather than slowly giving our creditors more power over us.
labourers etc cannot work till 70 due to physical constraints” – no, they certainly can’t. In fact, how many 50-something year olds do you see working in labour-intensive jobs? By this logic, all people involved in laborious jobs should retire by 40. However, what actually happens is that people progress onto more managerial/training roles rather than doing the same heavy lifting as when they started out in their teens/20s. Some people will possibly have to re-train, but given that the average person now undergoes 3 career changes in their lifetime, this is not a new concept. The $10,000 grant to businesses who hire older employees (for a minimum of 2 years) will also help.A fair few 50-something year olds, actually. Should retire by 40 lol. My Dad's going on 50 and isn't in a managerial or training role. He lifts shit. A friend of mine's Dad - 50+, still paints houses full time (very intense job). Regardless, let's do some basic thinking - there are more fucking labourers than there are managerial or training roles, aren't there? "some" will "possibly" have to retrain. Please.
$7 is aimed at the poorest” – it is not aimed at anybody, it’s a universally applied co-payment. And as mentioned several times, for people who need it most (those with chronic illnesses, concession cards, kids under 16), there will only be a maximum of 10 payments of $7 in a year. Any more visits will be free. Furthermore, if people are struggling and cannot pay, the doctor is more than likely to waive the $7 fee, given that $2 from every payment will go to the doctors, to allow them to do so. In the long run, the jobs and money created through medical advances (through research) will be of enormous benefit to the country, given that our mining boom won’t last forever. We need to invest in the next big thing – medical research.Of course, it's not aimed at anybody. It's universal. Consider a scenario where every rich person in a country has a bomb shelter and the poor people don't. Pretend we drop a bomb on every inch of the country. Of course, it's not aimed at poor people. It's a universal bombing. Who it's aimed at is irrelevant, it hurts the poorest. Someone find me a person who will say "Oh, only $70 bucks a year? That's no worries! What a relief!". Dreaming. Medical research is again removed from $7 co-payments. If you want to invest in research then find a method that isn't inevitably going to fuck people over.
“6 months is too long to wait for the Dole” – this proposal will only apply to people under 30, and presumably not to disabled people, as they would be applying for the disability pension, not these benefits. While 6 months is indeed a long time if you have no savings/family, there are many jobs that people could take up (e.g. cleaning, pizza delivery, casual labour work) but under the existing welfare arrangements, sometimes bypass these types of jobs to wait for something better (while on welfare). In my opinion, this is the proposal that will most likely be watered down anyway – if people risk being made homeless, they will probably be given more immediate assistance. BUT this is a big if, so we need to see how the debate plays out. If not, there is always public housing and emergency shelters – in reality though, no government would risk such a huge public backlash by doing nothing for 6 months while a person’s condition becomes worse. I believe that this measure is being proposed to push people to take whatever job they can find, rather than rely on unemployment benefits until they find something better. Also, [name redacted] – I disagree with your statement that welfare is an investment. Education and infrastructure are investments, but not welfare, certainly not on borrowed money.Oh good good. I forgot that 29 year olds without a job don't need to eat. I wonder if she's every actually tried looking for one of those jobs that are easy to get. "Always public housing". This is fucking offensive. For one, take a trip to The Pines and see how well-kept public housing is. Two, if a single mother with two kids has to wait more than six months for public housing after fleeing an alcoholic boyfriend, how the fuck does she suppose that people are just going to up and go into public housing once they don't have a job or the dole? They'll have the dole a year before public housing becomes available for them.
Not sure if its linked but clive palmer declared he opposes the rise in uni fees (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/19/clive-palmer-opposes-deregulation-university-fees).I actually just watched these videos. To be honest, I've resented Clive Palmer since the last election for being a massive wanker (but I think I was more resenting that people were voting for such an oaf because he had a funny advertising campaign). This wasn't even packed full of rhetoric. He didn't need to be inciting, inspiring etc. He was just saying it how it is. Pretty fucked to think that Clive Palmer has more integrity than the major parties o.o
As i linked a page or two ago, part of their policy document is free education for all. It's been like that since the last election (which is when i last read their policies). Nice to know they're sticking to their guns. Clive is actually a refreshing breath of air. Some people might crucify me for this but i think he's doing a good job, certainly, much better than i expected of him. That's probably the surprising aspect.
I'm not sure whether it counts as a supply bill either. More likely, the coalition will just do behind the scenes horse trading and then pass a budget thats pleasant to all (with some kind of compromise).
Here are some recent palmer videos:
<snip>
Friend posted this on Facebook. It's the only thing I've read that defends the Budget without being all "people on the dole are lazy and entitled and how dare they have any govt assistance because fuck people in need!!!"
While I disagree with some of it, particularly her comments on education (which I find especially concerning, considering she's studying to become a teacher...) a lot of it makes a surprising amount of sense. Thoughts?
Alrighty, I said I would endeavour to reply to your comments so here is my scrappy attempt! Firstly, guys, it is clear to me that what we are debating here is a matter of opinion rather than facts. There is no clear right or wrong answer.
RE “our debt is not as big as other countries” points: We should not wait until the budget is in crisis before we start repaying a debt. A national debt, no matter how small in comparison to other countries, is still a debt. It is billions of dollars in interest that can be saved, rather than slowly giving our creditors more power over us.
RE “labourers etc cannot work till 70 due to physical constraints” – no, they certainly can’t. In fact, how many 50-something year olds do you see working in labour-intensive jobs? By this logic, all people involved in laborious jobs should retire by 40. However, what actually happens is that people progress onto more managerial/training roles rather than doing the same heavy lifting as when they started out in their teens/20s. Some people will possibly have to re-train, but given that the average person now undergoes 3 career changes in their lifetime, this is not a new concept. The $10,000 grant to businesses who hire older employees (for a minimum of 2 years) will also help.
RE “6 months is too long to wait for the Dole” – this proposal will only apply to people under 30, and presumably not to disabled people, as they would be applying for the disability pension, not these benefits. While 6 months is indeed a long time if you have no savings/family, there are many jobs that people could take up (e.g. cleaning, pizza delivery, casual labour work) but under the existing welfare arrangements, sometimes bypass these types of jobs to wait for something better (while on welfare). In my opinion, this is the proposal that will most likely be watered down anyway – if people risk being made homeless, they will probably be given more immediate assistance. BUT this is a big if, so we need to see how the debate plays out. If not, there is always public housing and emergency shelters – in reality though, no government would risk such a huge public backlash by doing nothing for 6 months while a person’s condition becomes worse. I believe that this measure is being proposed to push people to take whatever job they can find, rather than rely on unemployment benefits until they find something better. Also, [name redacted] – I disagree with your statement that welfare is an investment. Education and infrastructure are investments, but not welfare, certainly not on borrowed money.
(http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2013/05/get_a_job-100038022-orig.gif)
RE “$7 is aimed at the poorest” – it is not aimed at anybody, it’s a universally applied co-payment. And as mentioned several times, for people who need it most (those with chronic illnesses, concession cards, kids under 16), there will only be a maximum of 10 payments of $7 in a year. Any more visits will be free. Furthermore, if people are struggling and cannot pay, the doctor is more than likely to waive the $7 fee, given that $2 from every payment will go to the doctors, to allow them to do so. In the long run, the jobs and money created through medical advances (through research) will be of enormous benefit to the country, given that our mining boom won’t last forever. We need to invest in the next big thing – medical research.
Lastly, education was touched upon too. The government would allow universities to uncap fees. However, there has been no suggestion of removing the HECS system. This may be a way of addressing the issue of oversupply of graduates, who are left without the job they thought they’d get, and instead with a big debt. In other words, it might deter people from pursuing tertiary education (although HECS would still be available to all), but I don’t think this is a bad thing, given the state of oversupply in many areas (e.g. law). We need to actively encourage alternatives to university for school leavers, and this might be the impetus for doing so. Also, online courses are probably going to increase affordable tertiary education options, so you could also argue that that would act as an incentive for universities to keep fees reasonable.
i dont really know anything about politics and stuff.. but why punish people who go to uni and work hard?
I say reduce the centerline money given to those who stay home doing nothing instead of increasing uni fees.
video version is better
I actually just watched these videos. To be honest, I've resented Clive Palmer since the last election for being a massive wanker (but I think I was more resenting that people were voting for such an oaf because he had a funny advertising campaign). This wasn't even packed full of rhetoric. He didn't need to be inciting, inspiring etc. He was just saying it how it is. Pretty fucked to think that Clive Palmer has more integrity than the major parties o.o
it makes ok sense. and someone else made a toplel military-industrial complex argument. if you can find out what he said i wanna know
^And then contrast everything said above with the fact that they found it necessary to spend 12 billion + on the F-35 JSF project and 300 million + on new Northrop Grumman Triton marine drones. Those are core costs not bringing in the peripheral figures of training and infrastructure. Considering that the F35 is a short range and CTOL jet, those aircraft aren't going to do much more than sit hangared at Australian Airfields and look menacing. They're being bought mostly because of diplomatic alliance equity thats tied up in Washington and considering the fact that the previous government gave the USMC a base in the Northern territory, i don't think we had a problem in that regard. All this is coming at the expense of education, health, and the environment because apparently theres a budget crisis?
it comes down to priority and whether you believe a government should serve big business or its constituents and in respect to that, It feels like this government is stuck in the Thatcherite 80s.
Heres the way I see it. This particular gripe isn't just about big business but rather misaligned priorities and archaically hawkish defence values that belong in the 80's. We're an island nation and in terms of pure defence, our force projection needs to be able to cope with the strains of maritime logistics and longer distances. So conventional take off, short ranged stealth strike fighers don't really seem of much strategic vantage especially considering that the PLA(N) has blue water naval ambitions and a short, land based fighter won't be of much help in a naval conflict in say the Straits of Malacca/South China Sea which is the most likely scenario were we to be dragged into an incredibly unlikely war with China. Compound this with spirited debate due to the f35s long and troubled production history as to whether it can compete with its main rival (the new generation Su30 Flanker series) and i have my doubts as to why the government has purchased 58 of them.
Its true, funding had been provided to buy 12 JSFs since 2008. Defence has always ben committed to the idea of buying a few. This was to be bolstered with the purchase of new generation f/a18 super hornets and e/a18 growlers last year for a much more well rounded fighter fleet. These are planes that not only outrange the jsf by a good 1000 kms but that Australian pilots and technicians are already familiar with and for which there will not have to be a huge infrastructure overhead cost to make operational. While its a capable jet and we do need to modernise defence platforms with the times, the purchase of 58... 58 new jsfs makes my mind boggle. the only reason to buy so many has to be pressure from corporate and political power brokers in Washington because they need to make this troubled, delayed programme that they've invested so heavily in since the late 1990s pay off. Whether this money was 'squirrelled away' or not, it still seems like an inefficient and clunky use of funds.
All that jargon aside, i really believe that the only way to 'win a war' is to stop or cauterise it before conflict and killing gains momentum. The ADF has a proud history in humanitarian affairs. everything from East Timor to RAMSI brought us international brownie points. The vast majority of our deployments overseas since Vietnam have been non warlike or humanitarian in nature. And the few warlike theatres that we've been involved in are far from conventional. Counter insurgency, asymmetrical conflicts etc that we see not only in the middle east and Afghanistan but also in the Indian ocean (Sri Lanka) and the South East Pacific (Aceh, P&G) aren't won by out-killing the adversary, they're won by out-governing them because the adversary is integrated in a sort of human terrain that gives it support... i.e stabilising regions in which disenfranchisement and violence perpetuate in cycles... where people with little prospects align themselves with violent groups because at least their autocratic militia style governance brings some stability or because they pay financial dividends. In this sense, the ADF can be a vital tool of Australian foreign and humanitarian policy BUT it has always needed some partnership with the development sector (NGOs & State Aid) to consolidate the changes it has tried to make...
...but nup, we cut the foreign aid budget too...
Everybody else here seems to know more than me about health, economy etc so i'll leave it at that long personal ramble about defence policy but fundamentally i think i'm probably just a bit more left leaning than you are
/my2unnecessarilylongwindedcents
Well I have to admit I wasn't enamoured of the previous govt either. None the less I think they were a bit more measured in their defence and aid spending. The commitment to purchase any JSFs was a bit more gradual (beginning with a commitment to buy just 2 which was enlarged to a single squadron size of 12) and the content of their white papers since 2008 seemed fairly logical. I.e. tailoring defence to suit Australia's unique demographics. Focusing on modernising the navy while downsizing and specialising the regular army and trying to increase focus on the reserves. Considering that were a small country this made sense to me without breaking the bank. There was also quite a bit of focus on starting up a new cyber warfare agency. Other than that I have to concede that I find both parties somewhat similar when it comes to defence and any real answer to your question will only really become apparent when the Abbott govt releases their defence white paper. But I wouldn't have supported labour either had they chosen to make such a huge commitment to the JSF programme
"I say reduce the centerline money given to those who stay home doing nothing instead of increasing uni fees."
=> Actually, most people on Centrelink benefits do work; you're thinking of the Newstart payment (i.e. the dole). The dole is for people who are temporarily unemployed and looking for work. Sure, there are some dole bludgers, but its a small price to pay to ensure that those who need money to get by whilst looking for work get that.
Well either way something is obviously flawed with the system.I think what you're looking for, then, is "I say reduce the amount of people cheating the system". Obviously the system is flawed, but that doesn't mean welfare is. If your parents are in factories, you should be for welfare, because that's what's going to save the workmates of your parents (or even your parents) when whatever company decides they need to save money and make half their staff redundant.
I'll give you a little example.
My parents work their ass off in factories yet because they meet (just) the limit, i don't get any youth allowance while people get 200 bucks of youth allowance a week because while both of their parents work the mum works in a nail salon, gets paid in cash and doesn't report it. Not to mention we have to pay 60 bucks for meds while they only pay five bucks.
Too many people cheat the system.
I think what you're looking for, then, is "I say reduce the amount of people cheating the system". Obviously the system is flawed, but that doesn't mean welfare is. If your parents are in factories, you should be for welfare, because that's what's going to save the workmates of your parents (or even your parents) when whatever company decides they need to save money and make half their staff redundant.
The $1.8 billion in overpayments in 2011-12 was up from $1.7 billion the previous year.-The overpayments also include honest mistakes people make when filling out applications so only a small subset is actually people abusing the system. It is also worth knowing a very very small amount of cases actually resulted in a conviction for fraud, indicating serious fraud is very rare in the Australian system, I will however concede with the high conviction rate for those charged with such frauds, the probably don't charge people unless they have definitive evidence and it is of the most serious cases, probably because the cost of mounting a prosecution probably exceeds the debt the wrongful claimers actually owe back, again just how miniscule the issue of fraud actually is.
Human Services Department spokeswoman Andrea Fox said the figure of payments wrongfully claimed was "relatively low" when compared to how much money was paid out in total.
My parents work their ass off in factories yet because they meet (just) the limit, i don't get any youth allowance while people get 200 bucks of youth allowance a week because while both of their parents work the mum works in a nail salon, gets paid in cash and doesn't report it. Not to mention we have to pay 60 bucks for meds while they only pay five bucks.
Too many people cheat the system.
Local mother Carol Osborne served up a lovely, warm budget surplus to her three hungry children on a cold winter night in 2019. After rushing home from work, the single mum was relieved when she remembered the overflow of beautiful budget surplus she still had left in the fridge, and quickly threw together a scrumptious meal. Always concerned about giving her kids the right food, the divorced 39-year-old thanked her lucky stars that the budget surplus not only contained all the right nutrients her young kids needed to help them grow, but it also never sparked push-back from her children because they always relished the budget surplus’ delectable taste.
“I’ve just got to thank the Abbott government from 5 years ago for all this invaluable budget surplus I’ve got around the house,” gushed the empowered Mum, “the kids love it, I love it. It’s affected me in a very real, positive way this budget surplus.” And the uses for budget surplus do not apparently end there. Unemployed 27-year-old Dennis Tamworth also told reporters how priceless budget surplus had been in keeping his spirits up as he searched for work. “For the last four months it’s been pretty tough going as I haven’t had work, or any financial support from the Government,” Tamworth explained, “but at least I’ve got budget surplus to live off during this difficult time. I don’t know what I would have done if it weren’t for this budget surplus.”
At press time, scientists were allegedly optimistic that budget surplus could soon be utilised to combat the effects of global warming worldwide.
I'm hardly one to argue for keeping a balanced budget at all costs, but having a constant (structural) deficit is not a good thing. It's not about the end - an important one - rather about the means.It's hardly a concern for us yet though, as this article points out (written by a Nobel economist): http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-you-dont-know-how-good-youve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.html
It's hardly a concern for us yet though, as this article points out (written by a Nobel economist): http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-you-dont-know-how-good-youve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.html
And yes this is the second time I've cited this article in this thread.
It's hardly a concern for us yet though, as this article points out (written by a Nobel economist): http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-you-dont-know-how-good-youve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.htmlI'm going to have a go at predicting what the article says without reading it. Yes, our gross-debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the world. (Or maybe they used net debt - the end result is about the same, except that countries that maintain their natural resource revenues as long-term assets would then be lower than us.) Yes, we have triple-A ratings from S&P, Moody's and Fitch.
And yes this is the second time I've cited this article in this thread.
Furthermore, these student protesters should be angry at the Universities, not Pyne. In theory, shouldn't deregulation allow some universities to offer affordable and competitive costs? But oh no...now they will ALL charge the maximum. While still making you pay for parking, printing, etc. Is this Pyne's fault? Or greedy VCs who pocket FAT salaries every year?The reason Go8 universities have been pushing for deregulation is two-fold.
"Parents should start saving now to prevent their children from suffering a crippling HECs debt".The issue isn't whether you go into a job that pays enough to repay the loan. The repayment rate is proportional to your income anyway, and will remain the same (with only a slight modification) after these reforms.
LMFAO. Ok. Sure, really expensive degrees (Med, Law, eng, etc.) might cost an arm and a leg but it's expected that your future salary will easily pay it off (and if it doesn't, why is this the case? Too many graduates being pumped out?) Even other degrees aren't that bad when you consider how little is deducted from your wage week by week. Now if you want to do a generic degree that doesn't lead to employment then that isn't the taxpayers problem; it's yours.
ok, that's not actually an argument about big businesses that i thought it was but it's pretty tight
Just because public debt isn't high Enough to be a concern yet, doesn't mean we shouldn't actively be trying to reduce it.Well obviously, but we're also not at a state where the government can be justifying vicious, unjust cuts to public spending on the back of a 'debt crisis' because that crisis is completely artificial.
Most of the further spending cuts by the Liberal government have an ideological rationale, rather than an economic one.This essentially is my problem with the budget. Even if we should be doing what we can to reduce our debt that's not what the government is doing, they're just using it as an excuse to make cuts that justify their social ideologies.
Even if we should be doing what we can to reduce our debt that's not what the government is doing, they're just using it as an excuse to make cuts that justify their social ideologies.
The LNP and the Labour parties just have different philosophies about how to make a country strong. The tireless suggestion that Tony and Smokin' Joe are only interested in looking after their "mates" in the big end of town is utter nonsense. It's just that they believe that the country is best run via stronger businesses which then create employment and lifts everyone up.You see - the businesses that won't be hurt as much by the budget are those that are at the "big end of town"- eg .lowering company tax, doing nothing about tax avoidance such as negative gearing, injecting large subsidies to the mining sector while we pay more for petrol, disproportional levy on the rich, giving $50,000 to even the richest 1% through the Paid Parental Leave Scheme etc. Oh I have to mention, my personal favourite, spending $240 million on religious chaplains in schools (wtf?). So yes, the Coalition may not be explicitly creating greater inequalities but through inaction, they are implicitly creating less opportunities for those on low incomes EVEN when they are employed.
The LNP and the Labour parties just have different philosophies about how to make a country strong. The tireless suggestion that Tony and Smokin' Joe are only interested in looking after their "mates" in the big end of town is utter nonsense. It's just that they believe that the country is best run via stronger businesses which then create employment and lifts everyone up.We'll see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgih2ORI8Z8&sns=emLOL I was just going to post the same thing albeit one of many articles instead xD
Food for thought, perhaps. Also places some of our attitudes towards protest in perspective.
I think it's cynicism in some people, but I'd argue it's more just mellowing of opinions over time.
The video shows this pretty nicely; we have younger Joe Hockey as a progressive, nowadays he's a key member in a highly conservative government. Conversely, we have Malcolm Fraser who headed up a fairly conservative Liberal government and is not endorsing Greens candidates in later life.
Essentially, people's opinions change over time because what is important to them changes over time as well. Early 20's Uni Student Joe Hockey understandably cared about university fees; late 40s Politician Joe Hockey is obviously more focused on other things. I wouldn't call it hypocrisy because he's (assumedly) not advocating for something he doesn't really believe in - he likely wouldn't be Coalition treasurer if this were the case. Simply put, his priorities have shifted, just like Fraser's has.
Side note: I feel like that this is an inherent weakness in democracy, in that those generally representing the population aren't often actually reflective of the strata of populations they represent due to age gap and resultant differing of interests.
I think the message that can be taken from this that generally people, regardless of whether they are left or right wing, are inherently self-interested.
I think the message that can be taken from this that generally people, regardless of whether they are left or right wing, are inherently self-interested.