Politics Centrelink

[SaintsSeptember]

The whole idea of the schools is to give a higher quality education to high achieving kids who can't afford private school fees. Like I said, those people are just trying to save themselves money and you can't blame them, but I would say the majority of kids in the schools are not the kids that the schools were created to serve. They are kids that would be going to private school if they hadn't gotten into a select entry school.



Yeah I'm well aware of the existence of those people. I have several families in my street who would probably fit the description. The ones that have "good kids" who are putting in a lot of effort at school and getting good grades, those are the kids the select entry schools should be serving. But such kids are a minority in those schools.

I don't agree that those schools are to service poor kids. They are to service high achievers. I disagree that ANYONE should NEED to go to a private school to get a decent education.

Where the current system seems to be broken is the way that year 12 results are adjusted and manipulated , giving an average kid in a high achieving school a better result than the same kid in a low achieving school. "Sorry kid, we've rigged the system so the nuffies drag you down ". Even the Universities seem to be getting impatient with this system.
------------------
English compared to English as an additional language.
Lots of Universities demand a minimum score in these, but the level of English those who fail to achieve the standard in the former remains higher than many of those who go through with the latter.

Further Mathematics compared to Mathematics Methods.
Methods is much harder. Students who have done both have ended up ( even after adjustment ) with a much higher score from the Further, than they get from Methods. ( they might get 95% in a Further exam compared to 70% in Methods ).
However those students who got 70% in methods probably have a much greater grasp of mathematics.

Probably lots of other examples.

 

[fleabitten]

I don't agree that those schools are to service poor kids. They are to service high achievers. I disagree that ANYONE should NEED to go to a private school to get a decent education.

Where the current system seems to be broken is the way that year 12 results are adjusted and manipulated , giving an average kid in a high achieving school a better result than the same kid in a low achieving school. "Sorry kid, we've rigged the system so the nuffies drag you down ". Even the Universities seem to be getting impatient with this system.
------------------
English compared to English as an additional language.
Lots of Universities demand a minimum score in these, but the level of English those who fail to achieve the standard in the former remains higher than many of those who go through with the latter.

Further Mathematics compared to Mathematics Methods.
Methods is much harder. Students who have done both have ended up ( even after adjustment ) with a much higher score from the Further, than they get from Methods. ( they might get 95% in a Further exam compared to 70% in Methods ).
However those students who got 70% in methods probably have a much greater grasp of mathematics.

Probably lots of other examples.

I'm with you on all of that except I do think the select entry schools should focus more on getting in kids from lower income families. Not only are they unable to afford the private options, but the public options are often poor as well. The select entry schools are the one pathway they have, compared to the multiple options the kids from better suburbs have.

 

[NSWCROW]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-...rganic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf191231709=1

Insecure work the 'new norm' as full-time job rate hits record low: report

Ohhhh s**t it's the ABC , there's another letter from fifield !!


What's this " 1 million jobs " s**t hillsong scotty keeps spouting then ???



*Usual *******s* - " Just get a job though !!!! "

 

[geelong_crazy26]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-07/full-time-job-rate-hits-new-low-as-casual-work-takes-over-report/9840064?smid=Page: ABC News-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf191231709=1

Insecure work the 'new norm' as full-time job rate hits record low: report

Ohhhh s**t it's the ABC , there's another letter from fifield !!


What's this " 1 million jobs " s**t hillsong scotty keeps spouting then ???



*Usual *******s* - " Just get a job though !!!! "

Strange thing is that most people who complain about there not being enough jobs are often the same ones who strongly oppose company tax cuts.

If we want more jobs created and ideally fulltime jobs we need more business friendly policies.

 

[NSWCROW]

Strange thing is that most people who complain about there not being enough jobs are often the same ones who strongly oppose company tax cuts.

If we want more jobs created and ideally fulltime jobs we need more business friendly policies.

Yeah because relying on companies to " do the right thing " has worked out so well.....

 

[Bombermania]

Yeah because relying on companies to " do the right thing " has worked out so well.....

Reducing company tax rates could be positive for employment as it will improve the cash flow, this may mean that projects which were previously either borderline or just short of being viable could become viable, and as such may result in increased employment.

 

[NSWCROW]

Reducing company tax rates could be positive for employment as it will improve the cash flow, this may mean that projects which were previously either borderline or just short of being viable could become viable, and as such may result in increased employment.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Yeah because relying on companies to " do the right thing " has worked out so well.....

What do you mean by the right thing ?

The more money a business has the more money it has to invest in wages, for example lets say Bunnings profits sky rocket this would likely lead to them opening up more stores which means more jobs.

Its not complex, the more money a company makes the more they will invest which usually means more jobs.

A business that goes broke provides employment for 0 people.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Lets be honest you want an excuse for people to stay on unemployment benefits. It is very hard for a business to expand its operations without employing more people.

 

[Bombermania]

I'm gathering you understand cash flow or capital management, the tax rate forms part of working out whether the project is viable or not, so by reducing tax rates could well be the difference between a project happening or not.

Say a company wanted to undertake a project and wanted a ROI of 10.5%, but after looking at the numbers the ROI is only 10.25%, so the project doesn't happen, however if the corporate tax rate was lower then you may find that the ROI of that project comes in at 10.5% so it becomes viable.

 

[NSWCROW]

What do you mean by the right thing ?

We were just talking about it ffs
A better economy right ?
More money for companies means more employment right ?

The right thing.

Lets be honest you want an excuse for people to stay on unemployment benefits.

Yep got it in one , i want everyone to be on the dole.
You've been hanging around your " dads mate tudge " too much

Stupid statement even by your standards

 

[NSWCROW]

I'm gathering you understand cash flow or capital management, the tax rate forms part of working out whether the project is viable or not, so by reducing tax rates could well be the difference between a project happening or not.

Say a company wanted to undertake a project and wanted a ROI of 10.5%, but after looking at the numbers the ROI is only 10.25%, so the project doesn't happen, however if the corporate tax rate was lower then you may find that the ROI of that project comes in at 10.5% so it becomes viable.

Lower tax rate equals higher profit margin right ?

 

[Bombermania]

Lower tax rate equals higher profit margin right ?

Yep that's what I was getting at.

 

[NSWCROW]

Yep that's what I was getting at.

So ( theoretically ) an existing company who employs , say 20 people can conduct business as usual paying the exact same wages as they've previously done AND pay less tax ?


Maybe i'm missing the devil in the detail but i'd be all for it too if i was a company.

 

[Bombermania]

So ( theoretically ) an existing company who employs , say 20 people can conduct business as usual paying the exact same wages as they've previously done AND pay less tax ?


Maybe i'm missing the devil in the detail but i'd be all for it too if i was a company.

The argument that lower taxes equals higher wages is separate to whether lower taxes may increase investment and/ or employment.

 

[NSWCROW]

The argument that lower taxes equals higher wages is separate to whether lower taxes may increase investment and/ or employment.

I just thought it was a given.
Hence me referencing how " good things have been up to this point "

We all know what we're REALLY talking about here - the company and the people.

 

[NSWCROW]

Oh no we can't have people getting money for clean energy !!!!!
Wonder which side of the libs pushed for that hey.......

 

[geelong_crazy26]

We were just talking about it ffs
A better economy right ?
More money for companies means more employment right ?

The right thing.



Yep got it in one , i want everyone to be on the dole.
You've been hanging around your " dads mate tudge " too much

Stupid statement even by your standards

Businesses operate to make as much profit as possible. To increase their profits they often have to employ more people but to do so they need the required capital. For example Bunnings wants to increase its profits the most likely way would be to open more stores.

If a big retailer invests its extra profits it gets as a result of tax cuts and opens new stores does that not result in more jobs ?

Honestly don't know what you find hard to understand.

 

[Chief]

Businesses operate to make as much profit as possible. To increase their profits they often have to employ more people but to do so they need the required capital. For example Bunnings wants to increase its profits the most likely way would be to open more stores.

If a big retailer invests its extra profits it gets as a result of tax cuts and opens new stores does that not result in more jobs ?

Honestly don't know what you find hard to understand.

What has happened in the US?

Half it was pocketed. Ton of it went to share buy backs - so, to investors.

How much to new jobs? Higher wages? A lot less than half. Pretty bad multiplier.

You know what a multiplier is? Maybe ask your dad.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Big_Luch]

Anyone with a better policy suggestion to create jobs?

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Reducing company tax rates could be positive for employment as it will improve the cash flow, this may mean that projects which were previously either borderline or just short of being viable could become viable, and as such may result in increased employment.

What do you mean by the right thing ?

The more money a business has the more money it has to invest in wages, for example lets say Bunnings profits sky rocket this would likely lead to them opening up more stores which means more jobs.

Its not complex, the more money a company makes the more they will invest which usually means more jobs.

A business that goes broke provides employment for 0 people.

I'm gathering you understand cash flow or capital management, the tax rate forms part of working out whether the project is viable or not, so by reducing tax rates could well be the difference between a project happening or not.

Say a company wanted to undertake a project and wanted a ROI of 10.5%, but after looking at the numbers the ROI is only 10.25%, so the project doesn't happen, however if the corporate tax rate was lower then you may find that the ROI of that project comes in at 10.5% so it becomes viable.

Businesses operate to make as much profit as possible. To increase their profits they often have to employ more people but to do so they need the required capital. For example Bunnings wants to increase its profits the most likely way would be to open more stores.

If a big retailer invests its extra profits it gets as a result of tax cuts and opens new stores does that not result in more jobs ?

Honestly don't know what you find hard to understand.

Such a rock solid guarantee. I'm shocked the public isn't more enthusiastic about buying into this idea.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Anyone with a better policy suggestion to create jobs?

for humans or robots ?
Corporate tax cuts should provide extra cash to invest in technology and make the corporation more competitive by reducing the wage bill

 

[Bombermania]

Such a rock solid guarantee. I'm shocked the public isn't more enthusiastic about buying into this idea.

The reason why such a guarantee cannot be given is because it depends on the business and the project, one of the biggest mistake politicians make is seeing the world in absolutes which most people know isn't how the world works.

 

[Chief]

Anyone with a better policy suggestion to create jobs?

Lower tax on low to middle income earners. At least a good portion will stay local. Go into small business.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Anyone with a better policy suggestion to create jobs?

With the demise of the likes of the car industry and other manufacturing, as a country, for job creation we really need to find ourselves a niche industry that no-one else is that keen on taking on, that's why I've been a strong advocate for us being the world's nuclear waste storage facility.