Budget 2014

[charmanderp]

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.

[slothpomba]

Palmer in the past has advocated for free education. It seems based on all the comparison pictures around he's undecided about the changes as well.

http://www.palmerunited.com/2013/08/palmer-united-party-to-abolish-tertiary-education-fees/

[kinslayer]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/clive-palmer-more-open-to-hike-in-student-loans-20140517-38gw6.html

The majority of the budget will pass -- it always does. If any of it gets blocked, it won't be the HELP hike.

[nerdmmb]

 



Source: 9 news

[Orb]

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.

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. 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.

Not everything turns out in life the way you want it to be. Of course there are certain demographics where they are bound, physically or mentally incapable of doing so, and there's already support for those demographics. I've continuously volunteered for NFPs and am in full support of those who are, in some way or another, severely compromised in their life. 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?

In society, once you have a look at all the job sectors, just how many people are truly 'satisfied' with their jobs? A minuscule number. But these people continue to work hard at their jobs and establish a solid foundation. Additionally, most of the people who miss out on this NewStart allowance are the people under 25, people who are generally more physically capable.

I understand that I'm fortunate and in this sense I have little right arguing against this, but it's my opinion more or less.

[thushan]

(Image removed from quote.)
 



Source: 9 news

*cough* GST *cough*

[spectroscopy]

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)

[kinslayer]

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)

Higher fees start in 2016 unless you accepted a CSP before 13 May this year. So if you start in 2015 then you will have 1 year of old fees and 2 years of new.

[nerdmmb]

Is it true that the new uni fees have doubled?

I'm certain that the interest rates on hecs have increased -.-

[kinslayer]

Is it true that the new uni fees have doubled?

I'm certain that the interest rates on hecs have increased -.-

Nobody actually knows how much they will increase by but for most courses it will probably be at least double

HECS interest rates are no longer pegged at CPI (2.9% in 12 months ending March 2014). They are now pegged at the Commonwealth 10Y bond rate (currently 3.71%):

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/australia/

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats%[email protected]/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/902A92E190C24630CA2573220079CCD9?Opendocument

[pi]

Is it true that the new uni fees have doubled?

A prediction as aforementioned in this thread:

http://theconversation.com/how-much-student-debt-will-you-be-facing-post-budget-26712

(Image removed from quote.)

[brenden]

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?

[pi]

lol'd

[kinslayer]

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?

True.

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.

[slothpomba]

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.

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:

At any one time, there are about 200,000 vacant jobs listed most of which are for skilled people with recent experience. Source

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.