The Greens

Remove this Banner Ad

Because I believe that, for tertiary education, students should be expected to contribute to the cost of their learning. There's nothing wrong with the HELP system that we have now. You don't have to pay up-front and you get a bit of your wage garnered to pay it back. If you leave uni and go into full time work you will (generally) be above the repayment threshold so you don't see the money anyway.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

(e.g. I don't believe in free university).

Why not? Free uni would create competition for uni spots, it would up the standard and our educated would be better educated.

It would also mean those that have merit to study (the smarter ones and more willing) that otherwise wouldn't be able to coz cost, would get an opportunity.

I get it's utopian to achieve it but it would certainly be ideal.
 
What exactly is elitist about the HELP system? The government loans you the money and once you earn a certain amount you pay it back, regardless of your background.
Because Doofus, it should be free

Now, I know people like you would never be able to get your head around that and how it would improve us a nation, but that's why I call you doofus
 
Why not? Free uni would create competition for uni spots, it would up the standard and our educated would be better educated.

It would also mean those that have merit to study (the smarter ones and more willing) that otherwise wouldn't be able to coz cost, would get an opportunity.

I get it's utopian to achieve it but it would certainly be ideal.
Who is being denied the opportunity to study at university because of cost? The only up-front cost (unless you're living on campus) is text books.
 
Because Doofus, it should be free

Now, I know people like you would never be able to get your head around that and how it would improve us a nation, but that's why I call you doofus
Just because you think something should be free doesn't make the opposing view elitist.

Do you feel the same way about other further education? MBA? Masters? CPA/CA? Where do you draw the line?
 
Who is being denied the opportunity to study at university because of cost? The only up-front cost (unless you're living on campus) is text books.

Obviously those that cannot afford the up front cost combined with living expenses etc. Yeah I know that is a minority, still it's there.

Surely free education is an ideal and would increase meritocracy to be there and ultimately a better standard of education.

Not saying it's realistically viable but ideal.
 
Just because you think something should be free doesn't make the opposing view elitist.

Do you feel the same way about other further education? MBA? Masters? CPA/CA? Where do you draw the line?
I don't draw the line you elitist doofus

People like you who are ignorant of most things based on some inbred elitism are reason the rest of us are being held back
 
Obviously those that cannot afford the up front cost combined with living expenses etc. Yeah I know that is a minority, still it's there.

Surely free education is an ideal and would increase meritocracy to be there and ultimately a better standard of education.

Not saying it's realistically viable but ideal.
But this is part of the issue. Everything for free would be great, but it's not realistic. Apparently having that view makes me an elitist (not your words I know).
 
I don't draw the line you elitist doofus

People like you who are ignorant of most things based on some inbred elitism are reason the rest of us are being held back
You don't have to be the one that draws the line to have an opinion on where it should be, you're comments above clearly show you have an opinion on university costs.

Here's your opportunity, please feel free to better inform this elitist doofus as to all the things that I'm blissfully ignorant of.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Global net wealth? Good f***ing luck getting that to fly. I daresay those 122 billionaires would find themselves new countries to be citizens of.

Can anyone say capital flight?
Well I'd say goodbye and good luck, and remind them that their Australian assets will now be subject to review by the FIRB to decide whether they should be allowed to continue holding them.
 
Why fund education when we can instead give money to big business? How will Harvey Norman etc survive without us giving them money?
I still can't believe private schools get more public funds than public schools

Well I can, but it just makes me really ******* depressed
 
Global net wealth? Good f***ing luck getting that to fly. I daresay those 122 billionaires would find themselves new countries to be citizens of.

Can anyone say capital flight?

Serious question... but so what? If you can't tax their wealth, what is the value of having billionaires living in Australia?

Gina Rinehart could move to the United States, but it doesn't change the fact that all the minerals are right here in Australia. So if she moved, what happens then? According to the Greens proposal, if she moved herself offshore, she'd still be taxable because of her wealth is still based on ownership of Australian-based assets.
 
Because Doofus, it should be free

Now, I know people like you would never be able to get your head around that and how it would improve us a nation, but that's why I call you doofus

It was free for a time. Are there any stats that support your 'improve us a nation' claim? They'd stand out like a dunny in a desert IF there is substance in your claim.
 
Serious question... but so what? If you can't tax their wealth, what is the value of having billionaires living in Australia?

Gina Rinehart could move to the United States, but it doesn't change the fact that all the minerals are right here in Australia. So if she moved, what happens then? According to the Greens proposal, if she moved herself offshore, she'd still be taxable because of her wealth is still based on ownership of Australian-based assets.
That's one example. My reference was to 122 billionaires who would have their GLOBAL wealth taxed (I'm assuming because they would be considered an Australian resident for tax purposes). If they are no longer Australian residents this provision couldn't be applied.
 
What exactly is elitist about the HELP system? The government loans you the money and once you earn a certain amount you pay it back, regardless of your background.

It's not the HELP system itself that is the problem. It's the fees. It's elitist because it disproportionately disadvantages kids from a low-income background. Because you are saddling teenagers with debt, just so they can get an education that will qualify them for a job... which is a basic necessity in life. And no, not all jobs require a university degree, but a heck of a lot of them do.

Imagine two graduates starting their professional lives at the same time... one has a $30,000 debt behind them, the other paid their HECS upfront because they came from a wealthy family. Which one enters the property market sooner? Which one starts to build wealth quicker? It becomes even further exacerbated when you consider that the kid from the low-income family may have had to incur even more debts in order to pay for books, transport, rent, food, etc.

What about a middle ground? Instead of making education free for everyone... what about making the fee means-tested?
 
Yep and soon as you 'promise' to tax the mega rich, guess what the mega rich will do? They'll park their money elsewhere.

These are awesome ideals, but they haven't been thought through.

Just like wiping all the hecs debts and free uni, where's the money coming from? Oh that's right tax the billionaires.:drunk:

To be fair they're no worse than the others in explaining where the money's coming from.

'Vote for us and we'll make it better'

'How?"

'We'll tell you after you vote us into office, just trust us' Every single time, neither opposition or office give sufficient detail of the how.

You can make rules to not allow them to move money. Look at how the west is stealing rich Russian money. You have to think bigger.

Free uni worked fine not that long ago. There is plenty of money
 
Serious question... but so what? If you can't tax their wealth, what is the value of having billionaires living in Australia?

Gina Rinehart could move to the United States, but it doesn't change the fact that all the minerals are right here in Australia. So if she moved, what happens then? According to the Greens proposal, if she moved herself offshore, she'd still be taxable because of her wealth is still based on ownership of Australian-based assets.

Is that correct, i.e Australian income is not taxable in Australia ?
That's one example. My reference was to 122 billionaires who would have their GLOBAL wealth taxed (I'm assuming because they would be considered an Australian resident for tax purposes). If they are no longer Australian residents this provision couldn't be applied.

FYI:
 
It's not the HELP system itself that is the problem. It's the fees. It's elitist because it disproportionately disadvantages kids from a low-income background. Because you are saddling teenagers with debt, just so they can get an education that will qualify them for a job... which is a basic necessity in life. And no, not all jobs require a university degree, but a heck of a lot of them do.

Imagine two graduates starting their professional lives at the same time... one has a $30,000 debt behind them, the other paid their HECS upfront because they came from a wealthy family. Which one enters the property market sooner? Which one starts to build wealth quicker? It becomes even further exacerbated when you consider that the kid from the low-income family may have had to incur even more debts in order to pay for books, transport, rent, food, etc.

What about a middle ground? Instead of making education free for everyone... what about making the fee means-tested?
What would be the basis for the means test? Parental wealth? That feels a bit like being punished for the sins of the father/mother (in some cases).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top