Budget 2014

[slothpomba]

Is it true that the new uni fees have doubled?

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

As the others point out, the idea that they'll double (or move by X) is just an estimate. It remains to be seen where universities set their fees. It's extremely probable they will be higher than they currently are. It's quite a simple logic. The universities are free to charge between $0 and the legislated maximum fee for a degree (in each band) currently. There is no university that charges anything less than the maximum. It's quite obvious once this barrier is removed, fees will definitely rise. Since students aren't very price sensitive (or perhaps not at all price sensitive), there won't be a huge competition based on price basis alone. This likely means fees will balloon before reaching a plateau.

[JellyDonut]

an understated part of the education budget is that the projected rate in failure of full HELP repayment is predicted to increase from the current 17% to 23%. and also by 2017-2018, only 63% of graduates will find jobs within four months. it's currently at ~75%.

and at someone who has taken shit jobs, i can tell you that actually living on it is sordid fucking life and if your parents could do 60+ hours of that, big ups to them. it is a sadistic method of devising policy though

[brenden]

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.

Great news. Now I don't know whether to finish Law or go straight to an MA

[Orb]

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.

[jammin]

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

[nerdmmb]

I never thought this day would come.

http://m.smh.com.au/money/budgets-secret-sting-for-pensioners-and-matureage-workers-20140516-zreh5.html

Abbott has now introduced a 50cent tax on pensioners and as of July, will stop the concession benefits costing couples $2000 simply to boost the budget and save 1.3billion-- how the hell is this even going to benefit us or pensioners?

[Orb]

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

Yes, perhaps I don't.
I just had a look over the net, it's indeed true that some of the people are in appalling conditions.

[chasej]

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??

[xenial]

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.

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.

[Orb]

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'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 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.

However, I am a little irritated at your comments about the Chinese working ideology.
-60 years ago, the Chinese were abused, discriminated, prejudiced at the highest level.

-Look at them now, all of that was a result from hard work, sweat and tears. But at the end of it, I can safely say that their quality of life is far superior to the quality of life many Australians are living today.

-Not going to limit this to Chinese but asians in general. You've entered the high ranks of the 99.90s and 95ers, you know how many are from an asian race, what, 50-60% every year, maybe even more from a 15-20% population percentage?
 

[xenial]

I'm really sorry. Rereading that it did sound a little racist. It wasn't intended at all of course. I value work-life balance - I always have. What's sad is how much people have to sacrifice to pull themselves into the middle class in China - and how many don't make it simply because of predisposition. That's all. You're right in your implication, Australia is comparatively unproductive. That's another issue to discuss though, quite unrelated to the dole. Unfortunately I have a french assignment to do now haha  Somebody else can reply to that if they want to.

[kinslayer]

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 don't blame you for being a little out of touch -- you're surrounded by wealth and privilege every day, whether you asked to be or not, and it can be difficult to appreciate what life on the other side if you've never seen it for yourself.

I commend you for keeping an open mind. Just remember this discussion the next time you hear your own words out of someone else's mouth. Maybe you can change somebody else's mind too.

[chasej]

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.

Very mature of you. Maximum respects. Apologies if I sounded a little hard-hitting in my post also.

[brenden]

Agreed ^, big props for the concession.




----Clive Palmer to oppose deregulation (!)

[chasej]

----Clive Palmer to oppose deregulation (!)

Read that. Very pleased to hear. Though I'm never sure about anything Palmer says really, he seems to be pretty vague and idealistic at times in my opinion, and I find it difficult to understand what he's really trying to say or do most of the time.

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)