ATAR Notes: Forum
Uni Stuff => General University Discussion and Queries => Topic started by: brendan on October 29, 2007, 12:27:18 am
-
Should joining the student union and hence paying the membership fee, be voluntary or compulsory? What do you think?
-
You should know better than to have only compulsory or voluntary, what about "up to the universities"?
Haha. My vote goes to voluntary.
-
It's a tough decision. On the one hand, student unions do great work and provide many useful services to students. They get poor funding and any boost is a good thing.
On the other hand, the fee itself is not affordable for a significant proportion of people and on that merit alone I do not believe it should be compulsory. I think unionism needs a bit more from the government, to be honest, and not from the pockets of cash-strapped students.
-
You should know better than to have only compulsory or voluntary, what about "up to the universities"?
Haha. My vote goes to voluntary.
I'd put that option up if the Commonwealth government was to give up its quota system of allocating CSP places, and give universities more price flexibility to allow the proper working of the price mechanism in allocating resources efficiently.
-
I think unionism needs a bit more from the government
Hold on. Where does government get its revenue from? From us, the Australian people by the use of state coercion to compell the payment of taxes. But which is the more obnoxious: a compulsory fee paid by people who choose to attend university? or coercing everyone in Australia to pay for the student union services of people who choose to go to unversity?
-
We already pay taxes and that will not change. Allocating a little bit of those taxes to unions will not make much difference. The taxes are paid by those already working and gaining income. To ask students who do not necessarily have job and whose university tuition fees are a number one priority, this is a bit more of an ask. All I'm asking for is a bid of a budget reshuffle. A tiny one, miniscule, even.
-
We already pay taxes and that will not change. Allocating a little bit of those taxes to unions will not make much difference.
Taxation in itself is not justified. The justification for the compulsion of payment of monies to the Commonwealth Government is inherently linked to what those monies will be spent on. It is an undeniable fact, that when government decides to give funds to any person or group, that those funds are ultimately taxpayers' money - the resources of the Australian people taken by coercion through the use of state force. To give federal government funds to student unions is effectively to give special privileges to some by visiting burdens on many. If we take your logic, where will it end? By your logic there is no end, the people can be coerced to give up their income and wealth to any group, organisation, or person for any purpose conceivable, as long as the amount is "little". But who is to determine what is little and what is large? Indeed, what is "little"? Is $2,000,000 a little? Is $80,000,000 a little? But even if it was $1, the truth of my statements remains, and it makes no difference whether the amount of money involved is $1 or $1 billion.
-
We belong to the nation state of Australia. The reason why we enjoy probably the best quality of life the world over is that we contribute to each other's success. We all pay taxes, we all submit ourselves to the democracy that we enjoy today. If you don't like it, I encourage you to go and live in a country with no taxation policy - see how that works out for you.
I will be more than happy to pay my taxes when I start earning income. This notion of it being a 'coercive' measure that they're taking YOUR money and it's YOURS is just downright selfish. Now I'm sorry, but we live in the Australian community and we need to support each other. Some of my tax money will be going to aged care and the indigenous etc. Funds that will not benefit me. I'm more than happy to see it happen. I want to give back to the country that has given me so much, and so should you. Who's going to be footing alot of my medicare bill if I have a nasty accident and need surgery? The government. Who will foot the bill for my pension in old age? The government. Who builds the roads I will drive on, the infrastructure that makes everything so damned convenient and sets up ombudsmans to ensure fair trading practises? The government. How do they do it? With our tax monies. Go to Panama, there's no tax there, but see how caring the government is for your rights, and the lengths they'll be willing to go to for you.
-
We belong to the nation state of Australia. The reason why we enjoy probably the best quality of life the world over is that we contribute to each other's success. We all pay taxes, we all submit ourselves to the democracy that we enjoy today. If you don't like it, I encourage you to go and live in a country with no taxation policy - see how that works out for you.
I will be more than happy to pay my taxes when I start earning income. This notion of it being a 'coercive' measure that they're taking YOUR money and it's YOURS is just downright selfish. Now I'm sorry, but we live in the Australian community and we need to support each other. Some of my tax money will be going to aged care and the indigenous etc. Funds that will not benefit me. I'm more than happy to see it happen. I want to give back to the country that has given me so much, and so should you. Who's going to be footing alot of my medicare bill if I have a nasty accident and need surgery? The government. Who will foot the bill for my pension in old age? The government. Who builds the roads I will drive on, the infrastructure that makes everything so damned convenient and sets up ombudsmans to ensure fair trading practises? The government. How do they do it? With our tax monies. Go to Panama, there's no tax there, but see how caring the government is for your rights, and the lengths they'll be willing to go to for you.
How do these things rank as low as student unionism?
-
Rephrase please? I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by "things"?
-
We belong to the nation state of Australia. The reason why we enjoy probably the best quality of life the world over is that we contribute to each other's success. We all pay taxes, we all submit ourselves to the democracy that we enjoy today. If you don't like it, I encourage you to go and live in a country with no taxation policy - see how that works out for you.
No where do I ever advocate that there ought to be "no taxation". That is a complete straw-man argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."
I want to give back to the country that has given me so much, and so should you.
That's great for you, and I don't disagree with you on that. However, taxes by their very definition are coercive. Yet you seem to not want to acknowledge this. There are cases in which taxes are definitely justified.
This notion of it being a 'coercive' measure that they're taking YOUR money and it's YOURS
That is the inconvenient truth. You don't have to like the truth, you can probably ignore the truth, but it nevertheless is the truth. Do you think the ATO comes round every year and says to people "Oh hey Johnny, how you going? good? would you like to voluntarily donate some of your money to us? if would be really cool, however you don't have to, its your choice".
Your body, your mind, and the fruits of your labour, are yours. No one else owns you. I can think of nothing more absurdly selfish than coercing someone else to pay for your own services that which only you benefit.
-
Rephrase please? I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by "things"?
I think brendan's "strawman" fallacy points it out better: I was simply asking: how does student unionism fit in as a priority compared to public goods such as roads and education?
Student unionism is an unnecessary luxury that should be paid for if you want the service.
-
http://www.cis.org.au/issue_analysis/IA62/IA62.PDF
-
To give federal government funds to student unions is effectively to give special privileges to some by visiting burdens on many.
Does that include health care? and public schools?
are we not giving them privelages and burdening the people who arent sick or elderly, and lets say i already have my education, i dont wanna pay for others?
-
To give federal government funds to student unions is effectively to give special privileges to some by visiting burdens on many.
Does that include health care? and public schools?
are we not giving them privelages and burdening the people who arent sick or elderly, and lets say i already have my education, i dont wanna pay for others?
yes to all. but there are occasions when such government intervention is justified. this is not one of them.
-
so youd prefer we had no govt?
-
so youd prefer we had no govt?
No where do I ever advocate that there ought to be "no government".
-
I think he prefers a smaller government.
-
so youd prefer we had no govt?
No where do I ever advocate that there ought to be "no government".
You didnt, you said most cases govt intervention isnt justified...
thats why i made it a question! :p
-
you said most cases govt intervention isnt justified...
where did i say that? go on quote me.
-
yes to all. but there are occasions when such government intervention is justified. this is not one of them.
Okay, some occaissions then. Why be so aggressive? seriously, go and calm down pls?
-
yes to all. but there are occasions when such government intervention is justified. this is not one of them.
Okay, some occaissions then. Why be so aggressive? seriously, go and calm down pls?
(1) There are occasions where government intervention is justified.
(2) In most cases government intervention is not justified.
I said (1) only. Yet you claimed that i said (2). I never did. (1) does not imply (2).
-
i think youre confused, because after that, i said "Okay, some occaissions then. " conceding the point.
Also, i dont have a problem with your beliefs, i agree with you, governments can overstep their bounds, and do so. I was simply asking you a question to get more information about your beliefs.
What i had a problem with, is your attitude.
-
What i had a problem with, is your attitude.
There is no attitude in my posts, only strict discussion of the topic.
I think he prefers a smaller government.
yup
-
your tone and choice of words are very aggressive, and i can just tell that youre the dogmatic type of person who doesnt stop arguing with everyone around them until you get your point across... it gives a very obnoxious impression.
-
So it seems this discussion has decended into attacking the man, rather than the ideas.
-
Agreed with the smaller government thing. I don't like how - higher ups- have excessive power. Too much control isn't great. But no control/total anarchy is worse. heh.
-
So it seems this discussion has decended into attacking the man, rather than the ideas.
i wasnt attacking you until you reacted the way you did, i was just trying to tell you to back off.
i agreed with your ideas, and was triyng to get more information about them, and you were making me uncomfortable about it. So i told you to relax
-
you reacted the way you did, i was just trying
What by informing you that I have never made such a claim to the effect that there ought to be no government?
By responding to a subsequent mispresentation of my views?
I stand by everything that I have said. The difference with me is that i address the ideas, rather than attack the person.
-
I think you know deep down that theres aggression inherent in your tone and writing technique.
If not, why not read something you have written as if you were reading part 2 of hte english exam.
-
I think you know deep down that theres aggression inherent in your tone and writing technique.
If not, why not read something you have written as if you were reading part 2 of hte english exam.
You quoted "yes to all. but there are occasions when such government intervention is justified. this is not one of them.", as utilising an "aggressive" tone
While that is disputable in itself, even if you think that is so, i put it to you: so what?
How does that statement by me compare to this comment by you: "i can just tell that youre the dogmatic type of person who doesnt stop arguing with everyone around them until you get your point across... it gives a very obnoxious impression." which does not address the topic, but rather proceeds to attack me instead.
-
lol youre misinterpreting me.
I didnt quote that to demonstrate your tone... but to show you why i thought you were talking about govt intervention. In that same post i also conceded that point... which suggests you should have STFU because you "won".
After that, I just wanted to express to you the way you come across in your arguments.
Here you go, ill make you feel good about yourself, i think thats what youre looking for "Youre right, you will always be right, you are godly"
Go and polish your trophy case mate.
Ps. thanks for helping up my post count.
-
lol youre misinterpreting me.
I didnt quote that to demonstrate your tone...
The other two statements I made prior to you accusing me of being 'aggressive' were: "where did i say that? go on quote me." and "No where do I ever advocate that there ought to be "no government". So therefore, I must have been either overly aggressive in (1) asking you to substantiate your erroneous claim that i said "most cases govt intervention isnt justified..."?; or (2) clarifying that I have not advocated a position such that there ought to be 'no government'.
Now how does those statements by me compare to these by you in terms of aggressiveness:
i can just tell that youre the dogmatic type of person who doesnt stop arguing with everyone around them until you get your point across... it gives a very obnoxious impression.
you should have STFU because you "won".
Here you go, ill make you feel good about yourself, i think thats what youre looking for "Youre right, you will always be right, you are godly" Go and polish your trophy case mate.
-
In the whirlpool forums in the VSU thread:
Sorry but there is nothing good AT ALL about compulsory student unionism. Why force people to pay for services that they aren't going to use?
Go and fund it yourself, don't expect others to. Simple.
As an ex Student Union President, I agree with you
The Union needs to offer a package that students want to pay for, and see value in
For starters there are heaps of things that Students can do for other students that don't need money to fund them (just enthusiasm)
An interesting passage in the Senate report on VSU http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/highed_unionfees/report/report.pdf
While there will always be a need for student leadership in the organisation of provision of services and amenities, the nature of this leadership will change with the different expectations of university life post-VSU. Student leaders of the future will work for their support and they will earn it. This important challenge for student leaders has been ignored in submissions from student organisations, just as current student leaders have shown scant interest in preparing themselves and their organisations for university life post-VSU. We can expect both the emergence of different student leadership, and the re-invention of those who adapt to change. This was summed up by Mr Michael Josem, a student leader at Monash University:
?the abolition of high, compulsory up-front and unfair amenities fees will force changes. It will force us to work harder to serve students. We?ll have to work smarter to deliver services that students choose to fund. No longer will we be able to continue, reliant on a compulsory fee. We?ll have to deliver services that students actually want?.That?s challenging for many people. The status quo is comfortable. The mediocre is easy. The future, of change, progress and excellence, is unknown. We?ll have to be excellent - not merely adequate. Unsurprisingly, many people don?t like that.
-
Whoever voted "Compulsory" is going to face the tyranny of the majority!!!
-
Whoever voted "Compulsory" is going to face the tyranny of the majority!!!
Such is life.
-
Whoever voted "Compulsory" is going to face the tyranny of the majority!!!
Such is life... but of course... its obviously wrong to break the norm.
Unless youre stereotypical of NZers... theres nothing wrong with being a sheep... no worries!
lol... no i didnt vote compulsory.
-
Such is life.
Yeh and look where it has got Ben Cousins. No club. No job. Drug addict. No sense of what is right and what is wrong...
Shall I continue :P
hehe
-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22948947-12332,00.html
"The NUS has dropped its policy of returning to the pre-VSU world of compulsory charges for services and representation."
-
optional/volountary
-
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/plan-to-reinstate-student-services/2008/01/13/1200159277548.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
The article is quite biased against VSU:
"THE Federal Government will move to reinstate campus student services such as child care — which were forced to close after the Howard government's ban on compulsory union fees — with Youth Minister Kate Ellis to hold talks with universities next month."
If they did close then they would have closed because after giving people a choice no one bloody wanted them!! If people wanted them then they wouldn't have closed! Duh!
"destroyed welfare services, counselling and sports activities, particularly on regional campuses."
Same goes for the above, if people wanted them, then they would have joined the union and paid for it. The fact that after giving people a choice, students no longer wanted them is testament to the fact that well students didn't want it.
"The child-care centre is gone, the legal service is gone, sport funding has been significantly cut and the student radio station has gone,"
Why would they be gone? Because they didn't have enough revenue. Why didn't they get enough revenue? Because not enough people thought it was worth the money.
"At Bendigo campus the employment service has gone and discount food has gone."
That's nice, just look at the benefits but none of the costs and you will always get a positive sum. Again they are gone, because no one wanted them.
-
Post-VSU
http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/02/18/post-vsu/#more-424
-
Minister Kate Ellis has told the Adelaide Advertiser that "most people have now acknowledged that VSU has been a disaster".
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23230786-5006301,00.html
Yeah, a disaster for the union leaders, LOL, but a sweet victory for the students.
-
It would only be a disaster because students have voted with their feet to not join. Hence they don't really want it. If they wanted it, they would join
Opposition education spokesman Tony Smith said Ms Ellis needed to acknowledge she was the minister representing all students, and not just student leaders.
"If Kate Ellis wants to see more students join student unions, then she should demand the student unions deliver the services students actually want," he said.
Now there's some wise words.