- Banned
- #351
It is 13k on avg across degrees, however significantly cheaper for local students.Berkeley is 13k a year for more or less an arts degree and is an exception to the rule
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is 13k on avg across degrees, however significantly cheaper for local students.Berkeley is 13k a year for more or less an arts degree and is an exception to the rule
Because they will pay a larger proportion of tax and the net economic benefit of an educated population is worth the public subsidy.why should someone pay for you to earn more money than them?
How is it unaffordable, as repeatedly stated HECs will still pay for it?
University graduates should not be subsidised by other tax pages 75% of their degree.
The group of 8 wants this
They won't be turning people away. And the limiting factor will be wealth not competence.Turning people away is not such a bad thing, will mean only those dedicated students with some direction will go to uni. So many unemployed graduates at the moment because kiddies study worthless degrees, don't get any experience and end up being 24 and on the dole then blame everyone else for their situation. It is a complete myth that you need to go to uni to make it in life.
This needs to be enforced heavily for high school students, I cruised through high school and paid a price for awhile.I've got the answer!! Do as well as you can in bloody high school.
Why should the students pay for research funding? Also why would you want to turn people off.Should of said turning people off, my mistake. I don't get why wealth has anything to do with it....you get a HECS debt, which you pay off once you starting each 53k, your parents wealth does not come into play unless you expect mommy and daddy to pay for everything.
So who is going to pay for more research funding? The students themselves? Sounds like a good place to start.
They all have psycho outbursts.I'm sure Rudd had one.
His psycho outbursts indicate he had issues.
I knew I saw you putting your hand up in favour of the $5 or $7.50 copayment fee to go towards medical research?They won't be turning people away. And the limiting factor will be wealth not competence.
The reason for high youth unemployment is a lack of jobs, heck we have some of the smartest young minds in the country leaving due to lack of research funding
WutI knew I saw you putting your hand up in favour of the $5 or $7.50 copayment fee to go towards medical research?
What exorbitant welfare?You cannot have exorbitant welfare and research funding as well. There isn't enough money to go round and it is unfair on taxpayers too keep demanding more.
Go for your life, and then come back and tell us it was a myth https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-stolen-children-report-1997
Isn't the next step to privatise HECS debt?HECS has a cap, once you hit it the government will no longer allow you to use it until you work to pay some back. The sandstones in particular would simply price many of their degrees beyond the ability for them to be entirely funded up front by HECS, meaning only those wealthy enough to pay a significant portion up front could afford them.
Why should the students pay for research funding? Also why would you want to turn people off.
There were proposed changes for the indexation of debt as well as the threshold for repayment. Regardless you are creating a rediculous debt burden where we already face some of the highest rates of private debt in the world. With constantly rising prices, that sounds like a great way to kill future innovation, create skills shortages, lose IP overseas and in fact turn HECS debt into a huge burden for the state as fewer repay and those with the skills leave.
Likewise if you are right and it does turn people away then wealth and not competence will be the limiting factor. So not the best and the brightest, instead the most financially privaleged.
Nice rant.Students should pay a fair price for their education. Currently there are TOO MANY graduates, something needs to be done to ensure only the best and brightest go to uni and the others follow different employment opportunities (which there are many).
The current threshold is 53k which is a lot of money. If you are not wasteful with your money then making the yearly repayments should be a breeze. It is hardly a ridiculous debt burden if you aren't WASTEFUL. With people willing to spend thousands of new laptops, phones, holidays each year then they have ample ability to pay for their education. Why does everyone not want to pay? I don't get it. Simple make everyone repay their loans no matter where they live so running off overseas to ripoff your country is no longer an option. There is currently an OVERSUPPLY of graduates, if graduates could be linked to industry that would be perfect.
Wealth has NOTHING to do with it. Unless you are assuming mummy and daddy are paying for little Johnnny.
Because the debt burden would become extreme if we have increased fees, a lower threshold for repayment and a change to the indexation of interest.Currently we pay less than 50% of our education?
I repay a HECS debt and no it is not too much if you go in study your degree and leave, if you rack up multiple degrees or keep changing your mind then it might be different.
Why can't this cash injection come from people once they have left and are earning money?