Parents will be entitled to claim generous fee subsidies for sending their children to private and independent schools as part of the Coalition's expanded education rebate policy.
Even music lessons will be eligible for a rebate under the program.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said he supported choice in education, and the $760 million boost to the tax rebate for school fees and other education expenses would help parents.

Flanked by his education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, Mr Abbott - who was later mobbed by 100 school children in outer Brisbane - said it was important to reduce the pressures of the cost of living, including fees for schooling.

"A very, very large percentage of parents at government schools these days face what are called voluntary fees," he said.

Under the coalition's policy, the current 50 per cent rebate will be lifted to $500 dollars a year for each primary school student and $1000 for each high school student - and extended to private schooling.

The rebate is currently $390 for primary school students and $779 for secondary students.

Mr Abbott said the rebate would cover more than laptops and could be used for school fees and other costs such as tuition and costs incurred for children with special needs.

Mr Pyne said the government's plan to extend the rebate by including the cost of school uniforms was flawed, and would not apply for another two years.

"The obvious flaw in Labor's policy is it only applies to stationery, computer expenses and uniforms," he told reporters.

The coalition's policy would provide money for a whole range of expenses including extra tuition, school fees and extra-curricular activities, including music.

"Our policy would really reduce cost-of-living pressures on families," the father-of-four said.

"Whereas Labor's is simply more smoke and mirrors and doesn't apply for two years."

After the announcement, Mr Abbott was mobbed by nearly 100 children during at the Lutheran school at Victoria Point in the electorate of Bowman as he took to the oval for an unspecified game of football.

As he walked out, he was set upon by a swarm of school children.

"I touched him," screamed one of the exultant students.

"I don't even know who he is," screamed another.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbott-pledges-schoolfee-rebates-20100721-10k6a.html


More "Wealthfare"
"Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said he supported choice in education"
Only if you can afford the school in the 1st place, if not suffer at the local public which of course can't get enough funding due to our tax dollars helping people who can afford private schools keep even more cash in their pockets.
Remember NO NEW TAXES & also scrapping the mining tax so what are you cutting to afford this Tony??????

"I don't even know who he is," screamed another.
PMSL

Private education takes the burden off the public system, and remember its not only private schools that have school fees and extra cirricular activites smithy.  

As an soon to be dad I welcome this.

Verge wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 12:26pm:

Private education takes the burden off the public system, and remember its not only private schools that have school fees and extra cirricular activites smithy.   As an soon to be dad I welcome this.

Congrats and commiserations, Verge - how far away is the ETA?

;)

Hmmnnn...details please: do Abbott & Co plan to means test this in a similar way that the Labs are currently doing!?


PS To clarify my own perspective, here is a repeat of some associated comments I made elsewhere: -


Quote:

Personally, I would prefer that something like this was fairly means-tested - so that monies went to low-median income families... Even better: the Labs probably should have implemented their original policy as automatic annual (or bi-annual) lump-sum payments to FTB recipients... Seriously, these cynical targeted rebate-payments are an indirect admission that FTB and other welfare payments are grossly inadequate when it comes to meeting the costs of raising children!!! Given the high costs of raising children, it is unnecessarily costly to create a formal claim process that makes families beg for money that they ought to be entitled to in the first instance...

Equitist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 12:31pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 12:26pm: Private education takes the burden off the public system, and remember its not only private schools that have school fees and extra cirricular activites smithy.   As an soon to be dad I welcome this. Congrats and commiserations, Verge - how far away is the ETA? ;)

End of November, and I can tell you the costs of education is scary as you are well aware, school fees, books, excursions, sport and any possible extra cirricular activities, its gonna keep me in the poor house for many a years I think.

Verge wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 12:26pm:

Private education takes the burden off the public system, and remember its not only private schools that have school fees and extra cirricular activites smithy.   As an soon to be dad I welcome this.

Congrats Verge :)
Having a teenage daughter myself who attends a private school you would expect that I would welcome this.
But even though I personally would benefit even I can see its a shallow vote buying exercise aimed at the Upper middle to middle class.
I rather my tax dollars improve the public education than give me an extra tax cut.
As for the old mantra of taking the burden off public education it's a furphy.
I never intended to send my child to the local high school, primary yes but not high school (her's has from K to Y12 on 1 campus so she only was public for K)& I bet that would be the response of 90% of parents of privately educated kids.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 12:40pm:

[...] I can see its a shallow vote buying exercise aimed at the Upper middle to middle class. I rather my tax dollars improve the public education than give me an extra tax cut. As for the old mantra of taking the burden off public education it's a furphy.

Agreed, ditto!

Quote:

As for the old mantra of taking the burden off public education it's a furphy.

Same goes for public subsidies of EFFECTIVELY-EXCLUSIVE pseUdo-Private Health Insurance - even more so - and especially for TOTALLY-EXCLUSIVE 'Extra Benefits' cover!

In fact, the public subsidisation of duplicated facilities and resources is grossly inequitable, inefficient and counter-productive (with the diseconomies of small-scale being exponentially-exacerbated in both sectors)- especially in disadvantaged and resouce-strapped smaller communities and where the numbers of pseudo-private clientelle is small (such as in the case of far too many private and independent schools)...

My principals are that I do not want or encourage a government to 'help' me pay for schooling for my kids .
This is MY job.

However. I do expect a government to supply good education system and classrooms and services.

Equitist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 12:46pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 12:40pm: [...] I can see its a shallow vote buying exercise aimed at the Upper middle to middle class. I rather my tax dollars improve the public education than give me an extra tax cut. As for the old mantra of taking the burden off public education it's a furphy. Agreed, ditto!

We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this.

So how do you all think the public system would cope with the extra students if private school subsidies were dropped? Would it mean a better education for all? Would it save or cost money?

You need to be very careful about how you handle this, because it seems like a good deal to me (for the government) if many parents pay for school instead of taking the free government option. It is not a typical subsidisation problem because it is not a free market, but a free handout that the private schools are competing against.

public vs private education

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 6:49pm:

So how do you all think the public system would cope with the extra students if private school subsidies were dropped? Would it mean a better education for all? Would it save or cost money? You need to be very careful about how you handle this, because it seems like a good deal to me (for the government) if many parents pay for school instead of taking the free government option. It is not a typical subsidisation problem because it is not a free market, but a free handout that the private schools are competing against. public vs private education http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103

since govt subsidies for public students are 50% higher than for private students then I fail to understand how there is an argument that private schools ARENT making it cheaper for govt. in fact, it is one of those impossibne-to-argue-against facts.

but there are always those whose complaint is based on greed. private schools are better equipped than public schools but they arent in the least way willing to pay for that themselves.

It depends. Using the 50% more figure, if less than 2/3 of students switched to public, then the government would save money by dropping subsidies. Of course, this only considers money spent, not what you get in return.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 6:58pm:

It depends. Using the 50% more figure, if less than 2/3 of students switched to public, then the government would save money by dropping subsidies. Of course, this only considers money spent, not what you get in return.

thats an invalid argument. you might as well say the govt will drop subsidies for all private schools and therefore save money. of course the problm is that 80% of private students will revert to public thus costing the govt MORE money.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 6:00pm:

We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this.

Can you tell me where you get this figure of 2/3 of students in private schools?

I would have thought it the other way.

ie. 2/3 in government schools.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:58pm: It depends. Using the 50% more figure, if less than 2/3 of students switched to public, then the government would save money by dropping subsidies. Of course, this only considers money spent, not what you get in return. thats an invalid argument. you might as well say the govt will drop subsidies for all private schools and therefore save money. of course the problm is that 80% of private students will revert to public thus costing the govt MORE money.

Did you read my post? I was saying the same thing. Except I also fleshed it out a bit more.

Lobo wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:00pm: We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this. Can you tell me where you get this figure of 2/3 of students in private schools? I would have thought it the other way. ie. 2/3 in government schools.

The figure given was 50% higher subsidies for public schools.

eg:

private, $100
public $150
(government contribution)

Suppose you have 3 private school students - cost = $300. If you ditch the private subsidy, you save $300. If two of them switch to public, it costs $300. If more than 2/3 (of current private school students) swtich, it actually costs the government more money if they drop the subsidies.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:44pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 7:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:00pm: We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this. Can you tell me where you get this figure of 2/3 of students in private schools? I would have thought it the other way. ie. 2/3 in government schools. The figure given was 50% higher subsidies for public schools. eg: private, $100 public $150 (government contribution) Suppose you have 3 private school students - cost = $300. If you ditch the private subsidy, you save $300. If two of them switch to public, it costs $300. If more than 2/3 (of current private school students) swtich, it actually costs the government more money if they drop the subsidies.

freediver...
I may have misread longy's intention where he posted " with 2/3 of students in private schools"...
I read that to mean that 2/3 of students in Australian schools were in private education.
If this was NOT what he meant, I apologise to him.

Also apologies to yourself if I have caused you any confusion as to my post.

:D

You are correct, Froggie - Longy has got his figures around the wrong way - only about 1/3 of school students in Oz are in the private system...

Many of those students are attending small schools that are unviable - many of which emerged under the bizarre private school funding arrangements of the Howardian Era...

There are some other matters that haven't been touched upon here - notably the fact that: the Federal Govt currently disproportionately funds private schools - such that around 2/3 of Federal School funding goes to the 1/3 of kids in Private schools...

No thanks to the Howard Govt, for using CONSOLIDATED TAXPAYER REVENUE to subsidise the elite few (nor to the Labs who promised in 2007 not to change their obscenely-despicable formula for X number of years)...

As for the claim. that the removal of Govt private school subsidies, would result in as much as 50% or 2/3 of all kids being pulled out of private schools and plopped into the public ones - are you guys serious!?

To that, I say: bollox - because most people who send their kids to private schools do because of strong ideological and/or elitist dispositions...

Many parents (like Tony Abbott) will go into debt to cover Catholic and Steiner school fees - and some parents (and/or grandparents) are prepared to fork out tens of thousands of dollars annually with elite schools, for the privilege of their kids associating and networking with the future corporate, professional and political leaders...

Personally, I doubt that more than 10-25% of people would make the shift - especially knowing that private school fees inflate annually on top of the dramatic increases as kids move into higher grades - and that the proportion of kids in private schools has remained fairly steady...

BTW, are you guys across the actual per capita dollar values going to private v's public school students - do you think that we are talking tens of thousands per child, or a far more modest amount!?

Lobo wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:00pm: We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this. Can you tell me where you get this figure of 2/3 of students in private schools? I would have thought it the other way. ie. 2/3 in government schools.

the flow to private schools is continueing as it has for the past 15 years. parents are prepared to go without so they can get their kids a better education .

Equitist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 9:34pm:

You are correct, Froggie - Longy has got his figures around the wrong way - only about 1/3 of school students in Oz are in the private system... Many of those students are attending small schools that are unviable - many of which emerged under the bizarre private school funding arrangements of the Howardian Era... There are some other matters that haven't been touched upon here - notably the fact that: the Federal Govt currently disproportionately funds private schools - such that around 2/3 of Federal School funding goes to the 1/3 of kids in Private schools... No thanks to the Howard Govt, for using CONSOLIDATED TAXPAYER REVENUE to subsidise the elite few (nor to the Labs who promised in 2007 not to change their obscenely-despicable formula for X number of years)... As for the claim. that the removal of Govt private school subsidies, would result in as much as 50% or 2/3 of all kids being pulled out of private schools and plopped into the public ones - are you guys serious!? To that, I say: bollox - because most people who send their kids to private schools do because of strong ideological and/or elitist dispositions... Many parents (like Tony Abbott) will go into debt to cover Catholic and Steiner school fees - and some parents (and/or grandparents) are prepared to fork out tens of thousands of dollars annually with elite schools, for the privilege of their kids associating and networking with the future corporate, professional and political leaders... Personally, I doubt that more than 10-25% of people would make the shift - especially knowing that private school fees inflate annually on top of the dramatic increases as kids move into higher grades - and that the proportion of kids in private schools has remained fairly steady... BTW, are you guys across the actual per capita dollar values going to private v's public school students - do you think that we are talking tens of thousands per child, or a far more modest amount!?

it is easier to say what you got RIGHT in your post than you got wrong. most people DONT send their kids to private schools for religious or ideological reasons.  They send them because the private sector provides an undeniably superior education - like it or not.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:00pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 7:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:00pm: We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this. Can you tell me where you get this figure of 2/3 of students in private schools? I would have thought it the other way. ie. 2/3 in government schools. the flow to private schools is continueing as it has for the past 15 years. parents are prepared to go without so they can get their kids a better education .

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:03pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 9:34pm: You are correct, Froggie - Longy has got his figures around the wrong way - only about 1/3 of school students in Oz are in the private system... Many of those students are attending small schools that are unviable - many of which emerged under the bizarre private school funding arrangements of the Howardian Era... There are some other matters that haven't been touched upon here - notably the fact that: the Federal Govt currently disproportionately funds private schools - such that around 2/3 of Federal School funding goes to the 1/3 of kids in Private schools... No thanks to the Howard Govt, for using CONSOLIDATED TAXPAYER REVENUE to subsidise the elite few (nor to the Labs who promised in 2007 not to change their obscenely-despicable formula for X number of years)... As for the claim. that the removal of Govt private school subsidies, would result in as much as 50% or 2/3 of all kids being pulled out of private schools and plopped into the public ones - are you guys serious!? To that, I say: bollox - because most people who send their kids to private schools do because of strong ideological and/or elitist dispositions... Many parents (like Tony Abbott) will go into debt to cover Catholic and Steiner school fees - and some parents (and/or grandparents) are prepared to fork out tens of thousands of dollars annually with elite schools, for the privilege of their kids associating and networking with the future corporate, professional and political leaders... Personally, I doubt that more than 10-25% of people would make the shift - especially knowing that private school fees inflate annually on top of the dramatic increases as kids move into higher grades - and that the proportion of kids in private schools has remained fairly steady... BTW, are you guys across the actual per capita dollar values going to private v's public school students - do you think that we are talking tens of thousands per child, or a far more modest amount!? it is easier to say what you got RIGHT in your post than you got wrong. most people DONT send their kids to private schools for religious or ideological reasons.  They send them because the private sector provides an undeniably superior education - like it or not.

Show us your stats, Longy!

The best teachers go where the money is.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:12pm:

The best teachers go where the money is.

You are aware, aren't you, that private schools generally pay less than public schools!?

As it happens, the same applies to all-but the top escelons in private hospitals, aged facilites and child handling centres...

Show us your stats!

Cyberman wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:22pm:

Show us your stats!

You are the one who made the assertion, so it is incumbent upon you to prove it!

Meantime, you should learn not to assume things just because they suit your agenda...

Hint: these days, where there are parallel public and private systems operating in the same 'market', the private sector rarely matches the wages and salaries of the highly-unionised public sector, except in the highest eschelons which (for obvious reasons) are not unionised)!

No, I said teachers go where the money is. You made the assertion.

Quote:

You are aware, aren't you, that private schools generally pay less than public schools!?

Now back your assertion. Or did you just assume because it suits your agenda?

Bump for Thy.Meekest

I think we need to look at the funding
Private schools are funded per student by the federal government and a good porportion of them are religious based so therefore get extra money for things like building,wages and maintinance from organisations which are tax exempt, whereas public school students are funded by state governments who get a lump some to cover everything.
Whilst governments can divide the lump sum per student at state schools to make it look good it doesnt take into account everything the money has to stretch to cover.
Private schools as I said can use all the federal money for student needs and get the extra money for the other things I mentioned before.
Also state governments are notorious for syphioning off money from 1 thing to another,to balance their state budgets.

Of course the elite wealthy private schools are funded exuberantly, whereas our public schools remain under-staffed to fend for themselves.

Don't worry, they have brand new school halls which created employment opportunities for an unskilled immigrant workforce, this and gave students free lap-tops to watch movies on when their casual teachers rarely make it to class.

My son has been without a computers teacher (He is in Year 10) for an entire term, and doesn't look like getting one any-time soon.

But that's ok, Knox grammar afford Dr's to teach their students science, apparently this is called moving forward.

Public health and education is a shambles, but so long as these politicians kids schools are heavily funded, this is all that counts.

8-)

You just need to take in asylum seekers. Leonora just managed to get 6 extra teachers and assorted aids for 50 illegal immigrant kids released to go to the local school. Amazing what you can get when you have a govt sucking up to a hot political issue

Cyberman wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:37pm:

No, I said teachers go where the money is. You made the assertion. Quote: You are aware, aren't you, that private schools generally pay less than public schools!? Now back your assertion. Or did you just assume because it suits your agenda?

Cyberman wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:52pm:

Bump for Thy.Meekest

LOL...that's definitely one of my more 'interesting' nicknames...

Apologies for missing your earlier post - I was away from my comfuser sorting kids out...

When a 'centre-right' person such as yourself makes a rhetorical statement like the one you made earlier, the implication is clear - and it remains incumbent upon you to back such assertions when challenged...

Facts are: I've previously researched the relevant info and I've been through similar arguments before with people at Yahoo - but Longy seems to forget that I've provided numerous links over the past year or so on this very subject...

Quite simply, he is wrong, on all of the points on which we disagree - but I am prepared to be corrected by either or both of you, should you be able to provide evidence contrary to my assertions...

For your own peace of mind, if not to seek to cut me down, I suggest that you conduct your own research - as I'd be curious to see what you can come up with to back up your flawed ASSUMPTIONS and assertions!

Thank you for your admittance of defeat

Equitist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:32pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:22pm: Show us your stats! You are the one who made the assertion, so it is incumbent upon you to prove it! Meantime, you should learn not to assume things just because they suit your agenda... Hint: these days, where there are parallel public and private systems operating in the same 'market', the private sector rarely matches the wages and salaries of the highly-unionised public sector, except in the highest eschelons which (for obvious reasons) are not unionised)!

and the reason the best teachers want a private school gig is... lower wages??? yeah right. speaking as the parent of a private school teacher I can confidently say that you are totally wrong  - as expected. private school teachers get slightly higher salaries but also better conditions and certianly superior schools in which to operate.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 12:16am:

Thank you for your admittance of defeat

Nope, no reason for an admission from me on this - just giving you and Longy an opportunity, to try to back up your assumptions and then humbly back down...

If your assertions are based in fact, then you should be able to readily access same...

Like I said, I have gathered the relevant links and info on this already - but I shall give you guys some more time to provide evidence or back down...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 9:37am:

Equitist wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:32pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:22pm: Show us your stats! You are the one who made the assertion, so it is incumbent upon you to prove it! Meantime, you should learn not to assume things just because they suit your agenda... Hint: these days, where there are parallel public and private systems operating in the same 'market', the private sector rarely matches the wages and salaries of the highly-unionised public sector, except in the highest eschelons which (for obvious reasons) are not unionised)! and the reason the best teachers want a private school gig is... lower wages??? yeah right. speaking as the parent of a private school teacher I can confidently say that you are totally wrong  - as expected. private school teachers get slightly higher salaries but also better conditions and certianly superior schools in which to operate.

Aha! I see that you are already trying to weasel out of this, Longy - and I now call upon you to substantiate these latest assertions: "private school teachers get slightly higher salaries but also better conditions" - if you can!?

Oh, and whilst you are at it, kindly confirm the relative proportions of unionised v's non-unionised teachers in the private and public education sectors, ta!

I have already shown where you made the assertion and assumed something because it fits your agenda.

Time to put your money where your mouth is Meekest. Failure to do so makes your assertion and assumption null and void

Quote:

Oh, and whilst you are at it, kindly confirm the relative proportions of unionised v's non-unionised teachers in the private and public education sectors, ta!

Oh your a unionist.

Sorry I didn't pick that up. I will now expect you to not back any claim you have made and expect everything you say to be a lie.

That explains your tail-between-the-legs attitude

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 6:00pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 12:46pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 12:40pm: [...] I can see its a shallow vote buying exercise aimed at the Upper middle to middle class. I rather my tax dollars improve the public education than give me an extra tax cut. As for the old mantra of taking the burden off public education it's a furphy. Agreed, ditto! We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this.

MEDIA RELEASE

March 16, 2010 Embargoed 11:30 am (Canberra Time) 26/2010



Private school student numbers boom


Over the last ten years, the number of students in non-government schools rose eightfold compared to the number of students in government schools, according to findings released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

The Australian Capital Territory had the highest proportion of non-government full-time students (43%) while Northern Territory had the lowest (26%).

Since 1999, the number of students in non-government schools rose by 208 500 students while the number of students in government schools rose by only 26,200 students.

Despite this, the majority of students in Australia still attend government schools with around two thirds of full-time students attending government schools in 2009.


http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/130E6818E4A6AE51CA2576EA0011F88C?OpenDocument

I just tried to do a serch for my own curiosity, and I cant find anywhere that has comparisions between private and public school wages, however I did notice that the private sector is still heavily unionised.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:15am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:00pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 12:46pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 12:40pm: [...] I can see its a shallow vote buying exercise aimed at the Upper middle to middle class. I rather my tax dollars improve the public education than give me an extra tax cut. As for the old mantra of taking the burden off public education it's a furphy. Agreed, ditto! We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this. MEDIA RELEASE March 16, 2010 Embargoed 11:30 am (Canberra Time) 26/2010 Private school student numbers boom Over the last ten years, the number of students in non-government schools rose eightfold compared to the number of students in government schools, according to findings released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The Australian Capital Territory had the highest proportion of non-government full-time students (43%) while Northern Territory had the lowest (26%). Since 1999, the number of students in non-government schools rose by 208 500 students while the number of students in government schools rose by only 26,200 students. Despite this, the majority of students in Australia still attend government schools with around two thirds of full-time students attending government schools in 2009. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/130E6818E4A6AE51CA2576EA0011F88C?OpenDocument

So doesnt those stats actually suggest that with 1/3 of kids in private schoosl, then they actually are taking the burden off public schools?

Verge wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:16am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 10:15am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:00pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 12:46pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 12:40pm: [...] I can see its a shallow vote buying exercise aimed at the Upper middle to middle class. I rather my tax dollars improve the public education than give me an extra tax cut. As for the old mantra of taking the burden off public education it's a furphy. Agreed, ditto! We all know why you agree with that comment and it has nothing to do with the facts. with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this. MEDIA RELEASE March 16, 2010 Embargoed 11:30 am (Canberra Time) 26/2010 Private school student numbers boom Over the last ten years, the number of students in non-government schools rose eightfold compared to the number of students in government schools, according to findings released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The Australian Capital Territory had the highest proportion of non-government full-time students (43%) while Northern Territory had the lowest (26%). Since 1999, the number of students in non-government schools rose by 208 500 students while the number of students in government schools rose by only 26,200 students. Despite this, the majority of students in Australia still attend government schools with around two thirds of full-time students attending government schools in 2009. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/130E6818E4A6AE51CA2576EA0011F88C?OpenDocument So doesnt those stats actually suggest that with 1/3 of kids in private schoosl, then they actually are taking the burden off public schools?

I posted the ABS figures to de-bunk the BOGUS claim made by longweekend

.

Obviosuly I got my 2/3 around the wrong way but did you read in those stats that only 8 times as many are moving to private as to public schools? Does that not tell you something. in a market economy it is clearly obviousl that the VAST MAJORITY of parent are choosing the much more expensive but clearly superior private system.

Equitist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:09am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 9:37am: Equitist wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:32pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:22pm: Show us your stats! You are the one who made the assertion, so it is incumbent upon you to prove it! Meantime, you should learn not to assume things just because they suit your agenda... Hint: these days, where there are parallel public and private systems operating in the same 'market', the private sector rarely matches the wages and salaries of the highly-unionised public sector, except in the highest eschelons which (for obvious reasons) are not unionised)! and the reason the best teachers want a private school gig is... lower wages??? yeah right. speaking as the parent of a private school teacher I can confidently say that you are totally wrong  - as expected. private school teachers get slightly higher salaries but also better conditions and certianly superior schools in which to operate. Aha! I see that you are already trying to weasel out of this, Longy - and I now call upon you to substantiate these latest assertions: "private school teachers get slightly higher salaries but also better conditions" - if you can!? Oh, and whilst you are at it, kindly confirm the relative proportions of unionised v's non-unionised teachers in the private and public education sectors, ta!

What's there to prove? the teachers are flocking to the private sector and if you think they are throwing themsevles at private schools in pursuit of lower wages then you are deluding themselves. There are teacher awards so private schools CANNOT pay less than public anyhow, but they can pay more - and often do - something public schools cannot do.

Why should struggling small businesses and people taxes pay for wealthy individual's children's Violin and Piano lessons?

Why should people expect the government to pay for this. Why are many people  not more concerned about the money going to better  services and education quailty etc for  all kids...

||So doesnt those stats actually suggest that with 1/3 of kids in private schoosl, then they actually are taking the burden off public schools? ||

you'd think that was obvious, wouldnt you!

wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:50am:

Why should struggling small businesses and people taxes pay for wealthy individual's children's Violin and Piano lessons? Why should people expect the government to pay for this. Why are many people  not more concerned about the money going to better  services and education quailty etc for  all kids...

You think piano and violin lessons are the sole province of the wealthy? and as has already been stated and proven, every private school student SAVES the govt thousands of dollars every year in lower subsidies. if more parents went private the public system wouls have even more money! Why does this argument fail to gain any traction with you?

Cyberman wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:10am:

I have already shown where you made the assertion and assumed something because it fits your agenda. Time to put your money where your mouth is Meekest. Failure to do so makes your assertion and assumption null and void

Settle down - all will be revealed in due course - meantime, I see that Buzz has totally debunked the '2/3 Private' claim...



buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:15am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:00pm: ...with 2/3 of students in private schools the comment is an undeniable fact of massive proportions. but when your thinking is defined soley by ideology then you come up with crap like this. MEDIA RELEASE [...] Despite this, the majority of students in Australia still attend government schools with around two thirds of full-time students attending government schools in 2009. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/130E6818E4A6AE51CA2576EA0011F88C?OpenDocument

Cyberman wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:13am:

Quote: Oh, and whilst you are at it, kindly confirm the relative proportions of unionised v's non-unionised teachers in the private and public education sectors, ta! Oh your a unionist. Sorry I didn't pick that up. I will now expect you to not back any claim you have made and expect everything you say to be a lie. That explains your tail-between-the-legs attitude

LOL...methinks that you will find that the level of unionisation is closely correlated with discrepancies in wages and conditions...

Equitist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:03am:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 10:13am: Quote: Oh, and whilst you are at it, kindly confirm the relative proportions of unionised v's non-unionised teachers in the private and public education sectors, ta! Oh your a unionist. Sorry I didn't pick that up. I will now expect you to not back any claim you have made and expect everything you say to be a lie. That explains your tail-between-the-legs attitude LOL...methinks that you will find that the level of unionisation is closely correlated with discrepancies in wages and conditions...

so you are still going with the fantasy that the private sector pays less than the public sector in education?

your arguments are rarely that stupid.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:57am:

wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 10:50am: Why should struggling small businesses and people taxes pay for wealthy individual's children's Violin and Piano lessons? Why should people expect the government to pay for this. Why are many people  not more concerned about the money going to better  services and education quailty etc for  all kids... You think piano and violin lessons are the sole province of the wealthy? and as has already been stated and proven, every private school student SAVES the govt thousands of dollars every year in lower subsidies. if more parents went private the public system wouls have even more money! Why does this argument fail to gain any traction with you?

They don't save any money, it's the way the figures are broken down as per my post earlier.



Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:55pm:

I think we need to look at the funding Private schools are funded per student by the federal government and a good porportion of them are religious based so therefore get extra money for things like building,wages and maintinance from organisations which are tax exempt, whereas public school students are funded by state governments who get a lump some to cover everything. Whilst governments can divide the lump sum per student at state schools to make it look good it doesnt take into account everything the money has to stretch to cover. Private schools as I said can use all the federal money for student needs and get the extra money for the other things I mentioned before. Also state governments are notorious for syphioning off money from 1 thing to another,to balance their state budgets.

Creative Accounting ;)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:10am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 10:57am: wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 10:50am: Why should struggling small businesses and people taxes pay for wealthy individual's children's Violin and Piano lessons? Why should people expect the government to pay for this. Why are many people  not more concerned about the money going to better  services and education quailty etc for  all kids... You think piano and violin lessons are the sole province of the wealthy? and as has already been stated and proven, every private school student SAVES the govt thousands of dollars every year in lower subsidies. if more parents went private the public system wouls have even more money! Why does this argument fail to gain any traction with you? They don't save any money, it's the way the figures are broken down as per my post earlier. Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:55pm: I think we need to look at the funding Private schools are funded per student by the federal government and a good porportion of them are religious based so therefore get extra money for things like building,wages and maintinance from organisations which are tax exempt, whereas public school students are funded by state governments who get a lump some to cover everything. Whilst governments can divide the lump sum per student at state schools to make it look good it doesnt take into account everything the money has to stretch to cover. Private schools as I said can use all the federal money for student needs and get the extra money for the other things I mentioned before. Also state governments are notorious for syphioning off money from 1 thing to another,to balance their state budgets. Creative Accounting ;)

so in essence what you are saying is that int true footbru style you just refuse to believe the figures??  how convenient!

bottom line is quite simple: government pays a lot more to public students than private students thus saving the govt money. and it really IS that simple unless of course you have an ideology to defend and therefore need to dispute the figures like you have.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:14am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:10am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 10:57am: wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 10:50am: Why should struggling small businesses and people taxes pay for wealthy individual's children's Violin and Piano lessons? Why should people expect the government to pay for this. Why are many people  not more concerned about the money going to better  services and education quailty etc for  all kids... You think piano and violin lessons are the sole province of the wealthy? and as has already been stated and proven, every private school student SAVES the govt thousands of dollars every year in lower subsidies. if more parents went private the public system wouls have even more money! Why does this argument fail to gain any traction with you? They don't save any money, it's the way the figures are broken down as per my post earlier. Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:55pm: I think we need to look at the funding Private schools are funded per student by the federal government and a good porportion of them are religious based so therefore get extra money for things like building,wages and maintinance from organisations which are tax exempt, whereas public school students are funded by state governments who get a lump some to cover everything. Whilst governments can divide the lump sum per student at state schools to make it look good it doesnt take into account everything the money has to stretch to cover. Private schools as I said can use all the federal money for student needs and get the extra money for the other things I mentioned before. Also state governments are notorious for syphioning off money from 1 thing to another,to balance their state budgets. Creative Accounting ;) so in essence what you are saying is that int true footbru style you just refuse to believe the figures??  how convenient! bottom line is quite simple: government pays a lot more to public students than private students thus saving the govt money. and it really IS that simple unless of course you have an ideology to defend and therefore need to dispute the figures like you have.

and in true SLR style your are ignoring valid points pertaining to the argument.
If you have to fund EVERY SINGLE THING it is going to cost more
If you have fund just students your costs will be lower.
Apples v Oranges

OK, Ill take you on on this. the govt (fed and state) pays approx $10,000 per student per year in public schools and around $7,000 for a private school student. So where exactly are the extra expenses that you are talking about?

since the argument is about GOVERNMENT funding, any other sources of income for private schools (fees, investment or donations) are irrelevent,

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:51am:

||So doesnt those stats actually suggest that with 1/3 of kids in private schoosl, then they actually are taking the burden off public schools? || you'd think that was obvious, wouldnt you!

Not necessarily - in practice, the cost-effectiveness argument doesn't wash, given that Federal Govt education funding policies have so heavily favoured privately-schooled students over the past 15-odd years...

Thanks to Buzz, we already know that only about 1/3 (not 2/3, Longy!) of Aussie school students are in the private sector, now let us look at some of the Howardian Era stats...


Quote:

http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2009/JMcMorrowpaper2009.pdf Updating the evidence: the Rudd Government’s intentions for schools Jim McMorrow December 2008 About the author: Dr Jim McMorrow is an Honorary Adjunct Associate Professor, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, and a former senior policy adviser and public servant at Commonwealth and State levels. This paper augments the analysis of funding trends and projections in Dr McMorrow’s previous report, Reviewing the evidence: Issues in Commonwealth funding of government and nongovernment schools in the Howard and Rudd years, Australian Education Union, August 2008. This paper examines the Rudd Government’s funding decisions for schools since the May 2008 Budget and the analysis in my earlier report Reviewing the evidence: Issues in Commonwealth funding of government and non-government schools in the Howard and Rudd years (August, 2008). It does so by examining the funding allocations for schools made through the two significant events that have occurred since the Budget: the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) and, more significantly, the package of additional funding agreed with the States and Territories through the Council of Australia Governments (COAG)1. These decisions provide a clearer picture of the Rudd Government’s funding intentions for schools, at least for the next five years. First, some context. Reviewing the evidence examined the funding record of the Howard Government, which by 2007-08 provided $1.4 billion more in real terms, or 68%, for government schools than it allocated at the outset of its administration in 1995-96. Over the same period, the Howard Government funded non-government schools in real terms by more than $3.8 billion, or 137%, than in 1995-96. These decisions underpinned the slide in the proportion of total Commonwealth schools funding allocated to government schools from 43.1% in 1995-96 to 34.9% in 2007-082. Just over one-third of the funding increase for non-government schools was due to enrolment growth of some 200,000 additional students in that sector by 2006. The remaining increases arose from ‘policy’ decisions such as the introduction of the Socio-Economic Status (SES) funding scheme in 2001, at least three separate arrangements for providing funding increases for Catholic systems over the period and, finally, the indexation of Commonwealth grants for schools by a measure of Average Government Schools Recurrent Cost (AGSRC)3. The Howard Government’s policy decisions for schools lacked integrity and were deeply flawed: they provided the biggest increases in funding for independent schools with the highest resources; they lacked an explicit rationale for determining funding needs; and around 60% of non-government schools have had to be funded outside the SES criteria, under ‘funding maintained’ and ‘funding guaranteed’ arrangements4. ...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:31am:

OK, Ill take you on on this. the govt (fed and state) pays approx $10,000 per student per year in public schools and around $7,000 for a private school student. So where exactly are the extra expenses that you are talking about?

I'm not posting them again I think they are scattered about 3 times through the thread.
As for other sources of income being irrelevent I must tell my accountant that when I do my tax this year.

and despite your so-called 'facts', funding for private schools remains 30% lower than public schools.

so where's the problem - other than an ideological one?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:36am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:31am: OK, Ill take you on on this. the govt (fed and state) pays approx $10,000 per student per year in public schools and around $7,000 for a private school student. So where exactly are the extra expenses that you are talking about? I'm not posting them again I think they are scattered about 3 times through the thread. As for other sources of income being irrelevent I must tell my accountant that when I do my tax this year.

The argument is about GOVERNMENT funding of education. so you need to confine the essence of your argument to that. so what you seem to be saying is that you concur that governments fund public schools 50% higher than private schools.

so where is the problem - other than ideology?

If private schools are funded by 30% less than public, then thats a good thing.

With 1/3 of students in private schools, this is an obvious saving for the public as a whole.  Even those that send their kids to private schools pay tax dollars too.

If the government didnt fund private schools then the price would increase at least three fold.  How many do you think will flock back to the already bulging public system, and then private education would really be for the elite.

Verge wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:43am:

If private schools are funded by 30% less than public, then thats a good thing. With 1/3 of students in private schools, this is an obvious saving for the public as a whole.  Even those that send their kids to private schools pay tax dollars too. If the government didnt fund private schools then the price would increase at least three fold.  How many do you think will flock back to the already bulging public system, and then private education would really be for the elite.

that argument is well understood by all but the ideologically driven - including government.

Sorry, the shifting excuses of you dogmatic right whingers do not stack up - not that you are big enough to admit it...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:39am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:36am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:31am: OK, Ill take you on on this. the govt (fed and state) pays approx $10,000 per student per year in public schools and around $7,000 for a private school student. So where exactly are the extra expenses that you are talking about? I'm not posting them again I think they are scattered about 3 times through the thread. As for other sources of income being irrelevent I must tell my accountant that when I do my tax this year. The argument is about GOVERNMENT funding of education. so you need to confine the essence of your argument to that. so what you seem to be saying is that you concur that governments fund public schools 50% higher than private schools. so where is the problem - other than ideology?

I suppose it is Longy, if you go back to the 1st page you will see that I would personally benefit from this if Tony wins and actually goes through with it.
However I believe I & my family will be better off in the long run if more lower income families are able to better themselves thru education therefore lowering crime & violence within my community & our society as a whole.
I'm happy paying paying the fee's I agreed to pay & music lessons I agreed to fund in the 1st place & seeing as we are talking about 1/3  of all students in the country we are talking BILLIONS(although no costings were announced along with the policy).
Maybe if that money was invested into public education it would dis-spell the idea that private education is better than public & our society/country really can only benefit from a more/better educated populace.

Equitist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:53am:

Sorry, the shifting excuses of you dogmatic right whingers do not stack up - not that you are big enough to admit it...

You might have a little credibility if you actually tried to support your position rather than just denigrate those who disagree with you (almost everyone). Your opposition to govt funding of private schools isnt an economic one at all. you oppose the very existance of private schools, or private hospitals or private anything. and you certainly oppose govts funding anything other then public utilities and services.

Your opposition is 100% ideological and therefore pretty irrelevant. That is why you avoid the economic argument because it is a very telling one!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:39am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:36am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:31am: OK, Ill take you on on this. the govt (fed and state) pays approx $10,000 per student per year in public schools and around $7,000 for a private school student. So where exactly are the extra expenses that you are talking about? I'm not posting them again I think they are scattered about 3 times through the thread. As for other sources of income being irrelevent I must tell my accountant that when I do my tax this year. The argument is about GOVERNMENT funding of education. so you need to confine the essence of your argument to that. so what you seem to be saying is that you concur that governments fund public schools 50% higher than private schools. so where is the problem - other than ideology? I suppose it is Longy, if you go back to the 1st page you will see that I would personally benefit from this if Tony wins and actually goes through with it. However I believe I & my family will be better off in the long run if more lower income families are able to better themselves thru education therefore lowering crime & violence within my community & our society as a whole. I'm happy paying paying the fee's I agreed to pay & music lessons I agreed to fund in the 1st place & seeing as we are talking about 1/3  of all students in the country we are talking BILLIONS(although no costings were announced along with the policy). Maybe if that money was invested into public education it would dis-spell the idea that private education is better than public & our society/country really can only benefit from a more/better educated populace.

Now to step back from the podium...

I totally support public schools and believe they are woefully underfunded. But money is only one of the problems and not the most pressing. Teachers themselves say that the biggest problem is the curriculum which has them teaching pet care, bike maintenance, political correctness and so much other crap that little items like maths reading, writing and science etc gets lost. the single biggest reason private schools are more scuccessful than public is NOT the money - although that helps. it is the ability fo these schools to focus on the topics that actually help students succeed in life. like it or not, there are few jobs for people that know how to care for their pet but a whole lot more for those who can read write and count. when you go to university you find that the majority come from private schools - not because of the money but because of the education they received and the peer-pressure to succeed. The economic argument is perhaps the weakest of the public/private debate but it is the easiest to quantify. the public school system is in a very poor state. Money IS needed but without a fundamental shift in the left-leaning educational authorities NOTHING will improve it. the reason that low-income parents are going without and working 2 or 3 jobs to put their kids thru private school is that they recognise all of that and want their kids to have a better chance.

It was discipline more than anything for me.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 12:13pm:

It was discipline more than anything for me.

disicipline that drove you to succeed? or what?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:59am:

Equitist wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:53am: Sorry, the shifting excuses of you dogmatic right whingers do not stack up - not that you are big enough to admit it... You might have a little credibility if you actually tried to support your position rather than just denigrate those who disagree with you (almost everyone). Your opposition to govt funding of private schools isnt an economic one at all. you oppose the very existance of private schools, or private hospitals or private anything. and you certainly oppose govts funding anything other then public utilities and services. Your opposition is 100% ideological and therefore pretty irrelevant. That is why you avoid the economic argument because it is a very telling one!

Once again, Longy, you attempt to put extreme words in my mouth - kindly allow me to make my own statements, in my own words - ta!

Now, are you lot ready for some more independently-published reading material!?

Equitist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 12:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:59am: Equitist wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:53am: Sorry, the shifting excuses of you dogmatic right whingers do not stack up - not that you are big enough to admit it... You might have a little credibility if you actually tried to support your position rather than just denigrate those who disagree with you (almost everyone). Your opposition to govt funding of private schools isnt an economic one at all. you oppose the very existance of private schools, or private hospitals or private anything. and you certainly oppose govts funding anything other then public utilities and services. Your opposition is 100% ideological and therefore pretty irrelevant. That is why you avoid the economic argument because it is a very telling one! Once again, Longy, you attempt to put extreme words in my mouth - kindly allow me to make my own statements, in my own words - ta! Now, are you lot ready for some more independently-published reading material!?

so do you deny that you are opposed to govt funding anything privately owned?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 12:16pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 12:13pm: It was discipline more than anything for me. disicipline that drove you to succeed? or what?

Sorry should have been more specific.
It was the discipline of the Private School that lead me to enroll my daughter.
They don't put up with any crap because they don't have too, you don't conform to their rules on your bike.
Funnily enough the kids seem to realise this or maybe it's the fact they are mostly together all through schooling(K to 12) & the school has had very little trouble.
I have questioned this as well as far as social interaction goes, but with her out of school sport & music it doesn't seem to be a problem.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 12:20pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 12:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:59am: Equitist wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 11:53am: Sorry, the shifting excuses of you dogmatic right whingers do not stack up - not that you are big enough to admit it... You might have a little credibility if you actually tried to support your position rather than just denigrate those who disagree with you (almost everyone). Your opposition to govt funding of private schools isnt an economic one at all. you oppose the very existance of private schools, or private hospitals or private anything. and you certainly oppose govts funding anything other then public utilities and services. Your opposition is 100% ideological and therefore pretty irrelevant. That is why you avoid the economic argument because it is a very telling one! Once again, Longy, you attempt to put extreme words in my mouth - kindly allow me to make my own statements, in my own words - ta! Now, are you lot ready for some more independently-published reading material!? so do you deny that you are opposed to govt funding anything privately owned?

Yes, and you know that to be the case - my arguments have always been about ensuring equitable, productive and cost-effective funding...

I have been at pains to highlight the fact that: the Libs have a bad habit of favouring and DISPROPORTIONATELY-funding and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVELY-funding inefficient pseudo-private duplication of existing essential public services and infrastructure...

Kindly refrain from falsely-twisting my arguments to suit your own dogmatic agenda!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 12:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 12:16pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 12:13pm: It was discipline more than anything for me. disicipline that drove you to succeed? or what? Sorry should have been more specific. It was the discipline of the Private School that lead me to enroll my daughter. They don't put up with any crap because they don't have too, you don't conform to their rules on your bike. Funnily enough the kids seem to realise this or maybe it's the fact they are mostly together all through schooling(K to 12) & the school has had very little trouble. I have questioned this as well as far as social interaction goes, but with her out of school sport & music it doesn't seem to be a problem.

You have probably identified the major reason people opt to go private - the discipline. there are rules and you are expected to obey them. it is a good education for real life which as we all know has a lot of rules and we are expected to obey them. one of the big failings of public schools is the lack of discipline whereby you can hit the teacher and not get expelled. you can turn in your homework... or not. etc.

||Yes, and you know that to be the case - my arguments have always been about ensuring equitable, productive and cost-effective funding...

I have been at pains to highlight the fact that: the Libs have a bad habit of favouring and DISPROPORTIONATELY-funding and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVELY-funding pseudo-private funding of existing essential public services and infrastructure...

Kindly refrain from falsely-twisting my arguments to suit your dogmatic agenda!
||

I think I have identified your DOGMA quite accurately and I not the absense of anyone supporting you as further proof. you call govt fundning of private schools as

1) disproportionate.  which is only true to the extent that private schools unfairly receive LESS than public schools. private school funding shoudl immediately increase by 50%!!

2) Counterproductive. Given that the 'product' of our schools should be well educated, successful socialble members of society then you just scored a massive 'own goal'. by that argument, public schools should be abolished as by all measurements of success, private schools come well ahead of public.

try again!

||Yes, and you know that to be the case - my arguments have always been about ensuring equitable, productive and cost-effective funding... ||

I forgot about

3) Cost-effective. Well lets see how that works out... Private schools turn out a far better educated 'product' with historically vastly superior life outcomes for 30% less than the public alternative. It would seem that a truly cost effective solution woudl be to encourage ALL students into the private system. perhaps increase the govt funding to 100% of the public level perhaps?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 12:40pm:

||Yes, and you know that to be the case - my arguments have always been about ensuring equitable, productive and cost-effective funding... || I forgot about 3) Cost-effective. Well lets see how that works out... Private schools turn out a far better educated 'product' with historically vastly superior life outcomes for 30% less than the public alternative. It would seem that a truly cost effective solution woudl be to encourage ALL students into the private system. perhaps increase the govt funding to 100% of the public level perhaps?

Bollox!

I have previously shown you Year 12 educational outcome stats, which belie your assertion!

As usual, I see that you are keen to point to State Govt funding - and that you are yet to justify why the Federal Govt has been disproportionately-funding the private school sector from consolidated taxpayer revenue...

Meantime, I remind you that the non-govt schools have a dubious record for claiming that their students are of inherently and disproportionately-inferior educational stock - with increasingly-outrageous levels of claims for disability provisions in State-wide (and probably National) examinations...

I know that you'll like this one, Longy - given its source...

http://www.johnkaye.org.au/media/feature-non-government-schools-get-more-government-money-for-each-special-needs-student-than-public-schools


Quote:

Feature: Non-government schools get more government money for each special needs student than public schools Friday 07 May 2010 The NSW and federal governments give more money to Catholic and private schools for each special needs child than they do to support the needs of an equivalent child in a public school. The Greens analysed the per capita funding mechanisms for non-government schools which are based on the average cost of educating a child in public schools. The results contradict claims made by the private school lobby that non-government school students with disabilities or learning difficulties are not getting a fair share of the budget. Of the $3 billion provided by the NSW and Commonwealth governments to non-government schools in this state each year as recurrent funding, 13 percent ($400 million) is provided because of the money spent on special needs services in public schools. If this money were allocated to special needs children in non-government schools, on average they would each receive $15,800 which is 19 per cent more than the average amount spent on services for the average special needs student in public schools. Greens MP John Kaye accused the private school lobby of misleading an upper house inquiry. He called on both state and federal governments to provide more money for special needs students in public schools . Per capita funding mechanisms and special needs education – the details Both state and federal governments provide recurrent funding for non-government schools on the basis of a proportion of the average costs of educating a child in a public school. The cost of educating a child in a public schools is referred to as:    * the AGSRC (average government school recurrent costs) in the case of the federal government’s SES and funding maintained system, and    * “the average per capita cost to the State of educating children at government schools” (section 21 of the NSW Education Act[1]) in the case of the NSW’s government’s ’25 percent rule’ funding of non-government schools. Both of these average public school recurrent costs include a component that derives from the costs of providing services to special needs students in public schools. According to the NSW government submission[2] to the NSW Upper House Inquiry into Special Needs Education[3] (see page 6), the allocation of $1.1 billion to disability or special needs education in public schools in 2009/10 accounts for 13% of the total net cost of service budget in government schools. Since 13% of the cost of educating the average child in public schools is special needs services, it follows that 13% of the recurrent funding allocated by the state and federal governments to non-government schools is because of special needs expenditure in public schools. That money is supposed to cover part of the cost of provisions services for special needs children in non-government schools. State and federal budgets show that total recurrent subsidies to non-government schools in NSW is $3.047 billion in 2009/10. Thus non-government schools in NSW are receiving 13% of $3.047 billion = $396 million in respect of students with a disability or learning difficulty. There are 25,000 special needs students in non-government schools in NSW[4]. Thus public funding delivered to non-government schools via the per capita funding mechanism is $396 million / 25,000 students = $15,800 per special needs student. In public schools, $1.1 billion of special education funding is divided between 83,000 special eduction students[5], resulting in $1.1 billion / 83,000 = $13,253 per student. Special needs funding graphs [see above link] Government money provided to non-government schools through the per capita funding mechanism based on the cost of providing services for a child with special needs is 19 per cent greater than the actual money spent on the average special needs student in public schools. Students with special needs make up:    * 11.1 percent of students in public schools    * 6.7 percent of students in private schools. The per capita funding mechanism over-provides for special needs services in non-government schools. This analysis does not account for the reality of public schools educating a far greater proportion of the very high supports needs students compared to non-government schools. Public education would be even more disadvantaged when the distribution of costs are taken into consideration. This analysis also ignored special needs funds given to non-government schools though other mechanisms such as the supervisor subsidy. Where does all the money go? While non-government schools in NSW receive $400 million of their annual recurrent grants because of disability and learning difficulties service provision in public schools, much of this money is not spent on special needs students. Despite receiving funding that would by itself provide a higher level of service provision than in public schools, non-government education allocates this money to other students and activities. Where non-government schools students receive a lower proportion of funded services, it is because the schools have chosen to spend the money elsewhere. Contd.

Quote:

/Contd. Claims by private school lobby contradicted The generous provision of special needs funding to non-government schools has not stopped the lobby groups arguing for more money on the basis that their students are hardly done by compared to public schools. The NSW Upper House Inquiry into Special Needs Education received written submissions and oral evidence from:    * the Association of Independent Schools of NSW (AIS)[1],    * the Catholic Education Commission of NSW (CEC)[2] and    * the Independent Education Union of Australia NSW/ACT Branch (IEU)[3]. Each of these organisations:    * claimed that per student funding for special needs services in non-government schools is substantially less than in public schools, and    * recommended a funding system that provided the same per student amounts regardless of educational sector. For example, the AIS submission at page 12 argued that: “Students with disabilities in independent schools generally receive significantly less in government funding for their educational support needs than if they were educated in a government school. … there remains an often significant gap to meet the needs of these students.” The AIS concluded with the following recommendation at page 15: “Recommendation 2: The establishment of funding arrangements which provide the same level of support to schools for students with a disability regardless of the sector, setting or school they attend.” The CEC paraphrased the discredited Monash University Report at page 8: “Students with Disabilities attending non-government Regular schools receive substantially less government disability funding than Students with Disabilities with similar needs attending government schools” At Item 2.3, the IEU argued that “…in comparison to the funding of government schools, there is a considerable shortfall in the funding of non-government schools with students with disabilities from Federal and State/Territory government sources in recurrent and capital funding …” Both the CEC and the IEU offered similar recommendations that funding for special needs services be provided on a per student basis regardless of sector. In each case the assertions ignore the generous contribution special needs in public schools makes to the recurrent funding of non-government schools. Their recommendations would result in a reduction in the total funding of non-government schools by about $75 million a year. Media comments Greens NSW MP John Kaye said: “Independent and Catholic schools receive more public money per special needs student than public schools. They just fail to spend it where it was intended. “The private school lobby has conveniently hidden the $400 million that flows through to their schools in recurrent funding from the state and federal governments because of money spent on public school students with special needs. “With a far smaller proposition of students with special needs in non-government schools than in the public system, this money could provide more resources than are available to an equivalent student in a public school. It is the Catholic and Independent school sectors that choose to spend that money elsewhere. “Non-government schools are taking public funds that should have been spent on disabled children and using them to increase resources available for all other students. It might boost their enrolments but it is yet another abuse of the public funding of private schools. “If there is a resource gap for children with special needs in private education, then our analysis shows it is because non-government schools and systems are spending public funds elsewhere. “Each year Independent and Catholic schools in NSW receive at least $75 million more than they would if their disabled and leaning difficulty students were funded on the same basis as public school students. That money could be used to employ 830 new special needs teachers in public schools where they are desperately needed. “The private school lobby argues that their disabilities students receive far less funding than those in public schools. This is wrong. Our analysis shows that on the most conservative assumptions, it is public school children with special needs who are getting less money. “The Upper House Inquiry has been badly mislead by evidence from the Independent and Catholic schools lobby groups. State and federal funding in NSW is greater per student in non-government schools than it is public education. “It is time to break the myth. These groups should amend their submissions to reflect the massive amount of money they receive through per capita grants because of students with a disability in public schools. “The urgent case for more money for disabled and learning difficulties students in public schools is being distracted by misleading claims from the non-government education sector,” Dr Kaye said. For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/12/28/toon_privateschool_wideweb__470x464,0.jpg

Equitist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 1:25pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/12/28/toon_privateschool_wideweb__470x464,0.jpg

This doesn't only happen in private schools. It happens in all schools where there is a heavy emphasis on excellent results in the HSC. I went to a public school, and I can bet that at least maybe a quarter of my year claimed special considerations.

Hlysnan wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 1:33pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 1:25pm: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/12/28/toon_privateschool_wideweb__470x464,0.jpg This doesn't only happen in private schools. It happens in all schools where there is a heavy emphasis on excellent results in the HSC. I went to a public school, and I can bet that at least maybe a quarter of my year claimed special considerations.

I do not necessarily dispute your personal experiences, Jeimi - but here's some of the broader facts: -


http://www.smh.com.au/national/hsc-help-most-often-for-private-students-20091217-l01h.html


Quote:

HSC help most often for private students ANNA PATTY EDUCATION EDITOR December 18, 2009 ALMOST 42 per cent of students at one private school received special allowances in this year's Higher School Certificate exams - almost eight times higher than the average proportion at public schools. Twenty-five private schools - including Reddam House, Scots College, Masada College, Frensham, Cranbrook and SCEGGS - received special consideration for their HSC students at more than twice the rate of public schools. Independent schools continued to received the disproportionately higher rates of special provisions compared with public school students despite the State Government's review of the system last year. The provisions granted include Braille papers, large print papers, use of a reader and/or writer, and extra time or rest breaks for conditions including emotional and physical disabilities. At Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School, Middle Cove, 41.7 per cent of students claimed special provisions this year compared to 18.2 per cent last year. The school climbed 109 places to 269th position in the Herald's list of top HSC performers this year. Reddam House in Bondi, which was ranked seventh, compared with 54th last year, claimed special provisions for 14.3 per cent of its HSC students this year, compared with 11.5 per cent last year. A NSW Greens analysis of government figures shows that the NSW Board of Studies granted special provisions for this year's HSC examinations to 9.5 per cent of students at independent schools[/highlight], 7.6 per cent of students at Catholic Schools and 5.3 per cent of students at public schools. The proportion of students with a disability at government schools is 4.8 per cent, almost double the 2.6 per cent at private schools, according to the latest available figures from the Bureau of Statistics. The NSW Greens MP John Kaye said while special examination provisions were a vital part of providing ''a fair go for many students sitting the HSC, wealthy private schools are getting much more than their fair share'' despite the State Government's claims to have investigated the matter last year. ''The integrity of the state's most important public exam is at stake,'' Dr Kaye said. ''Students giving it their best shot have a right to know that they competed on a level playing field.'' The chairman of Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School's management group, Andrew Hill, said students at the school were not gaining an unfair advantage. He said a large proportion of students who claimed special provisions this year had anxiety problems and a small proportion had special needs. Students who suffered from anxiety were given additional exam time to rest. The executive director from the Association of Independent Schools NSW, Geoff Newcombe, said the system did not aim to provide advantage. ''It is aimed at correcting disadvantage.'' Schools granted a high proportion of special provisions last year, as highlighted by the Herald, have significantly reduced their requests this year. At MLC School in Burwood, the proportion of students granted special provisions this year was 6.9 per cent compared to 17.3 per cent last year, while at The King’s School in Parramatta, the rate decreased from 18.2 per cent last year to 8.3 per cent. The proportion of Meriden School students who received special provisions was 17.6 per cent last year and 8 per cent this year. At the Presbyterian Ladies College in Croydon, the proportion has dropped from 17.4 per cent last year to 8.3 per cent this year and at Oxley college in Bowral from 29.5 per cent to 21.1 per cent.

Apparently, parents of private school kids produce disproportionately-inferior and/or anxious 'disabled' kids (or so their parents/schools reckon)...

Here's a subsequent article, from the same source: -


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/private-schools-hsc-rort/2008/12/28/1230399045680.html


Quote:

Private schools accused of rorting HSC Anna Patty Education Editor December 29, 2008 UP TO 30 per cent of students at some elite private schools were given "special consideration" in this year's Higher School Certificate exams, raising questions about whether they gained an unfair advantage. The NSW Board of Studies granted dispensations such as extra time to complete exams, coloured paper, large print and Braille or assistance with handwriting. The claims ranged from students with disabilities and illnesses such as diabetes, to those with unreadable handwriting and sweaty palms. The proportion of students claiming special exam provisions this year jumped by more than 10 percentage points compared with the previous three years at schools including Masada College in St Ives, St Catherine's School, Waverley; Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School in Middle Cove and Meriden School in Strathfield. The Scots College in Bellevue Hill claimed special provisions for 24.54 per cent of its students, an 8.64 percentage point increase on its average of 15.9 per cent for 2005 to 2007. The statewide average for NSW public schools has grown from 6.35 per cent to 6.57 per cent over the same period. In May, the Herald reported that the eastern suburbs private school Reddam House won special consideration for 36 per cent of its HSC students in 2006 - almost six times the state average. This year, the school claimed dispensations for 21.7 per cent of its students. Masada College claimed the highest proportion of special provisions with 29.5 per cent. The figures were provided in response to a question by the Greens MP John Kaye, who said they raised questions about "rorting" of the Board of Studies' special assistance provisions. This year 25 of the state's private schools had claimed special provisions at a rate that was more than twice the average claimed by public schools. "Special exam provisions are an important mechanism to remove some of the barriers faced by HSC students with special needs," Dr Kaye said. "However, the figures show that the number of wealthy private schools that are potentially rorting the system is growing. "It is hard to believe that the proportion of HSC students genuinely deserving special provisions at 25 of the state's wealthiest private schools is more than twice the statewide average. "Almost a quarter of Scots College's 160 HSC candidates received a special deal in this year's HSC, which cannot be explained as a statistical anomaly." A spokeswoman for the Board of Studies said each application for special examination provisions was judged rigorously, and numbers fluctuated year to year. She said that from a sample of 45 schools the board analysed from this year's HSC, about half had fewer special exam provisions granted than they had last year. "Special examination provisions are designed to provide access to the exam for students with a disability so they can demonstrate what they know and can do." The Herald tried to contact some of the heads of schools mentioned in this article, but the calls were not returned. In May the principal of Masada College, Wendy Barel, told the Herald she was surprised by the figures for 2005-07. "We just fulfil the requirements set out by the Board of Studies - occupational therapy, doctors' certificates and so on - and send in the applications. It's up to the board to assess them," Ms Barel said. The principal of Reddam House, Graeme Crawford, said in May that teachers at the school worked closely with individual students and were well placed to identify any potential need for them to apply for special consideration. "The teachers become very fine-tuned to any disability that may hinder a child's performance," he said. "We have a small cohort which drives up the percentage of special provisions." Mr Crawford said applications covered illness, injuries and writing difficulties.

Equitist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:17pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:12pm: The best teachers go where the money is. You are aware, aren't you, that private schools generally pay less than public schools!? As it happens, the same applies to all-but the top escelons in private hospitals, aged facilites and child handling centres...

Still waiting for for you to back your assertion Comrade Meekest

||Bollox!

I have previously shown you Year 12 educational outcome stats, which belie your assertion!||

every list of year 12 honours is filled with private school students and every report Ive seen on academic outcomes has shown the significant superiority of privatae eductaion. would you care to show a report that is different?

from page 2:


Quote:

As for the claim. that the removal of Govt private school subsidies, would result in as much as 50% or 2/3 of all kids being pulled out of private schools and plopped into the public ones - are you guys serious!?

I did not make that claim. Rather, I was merely pointing out that based on the funding comparison given earlier, that that many would have to leave the private system for the impact on government revenue to be neutral, rather than the assertion that only one outcome is possible. It's simple maths, nothing more.


Quote:

To that, I say: bollox - because most people who send their kids to private schools do because of strong ideological and/or elitist dispositions...

Another way of putting it is that they just want to best possible education for their children.

*bump for Comrade Meekest*

Cyberman wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 2:22pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:17pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:12pm: The best teachers go where the money is. You are aware, aren't you, that private schools generally pay less than public schools!? As it happens, the same applies to all-but the top escelons in private hospitals, aged facilites and child handling centres... Still waiting for for you to back your assertion Comrade Meekest

Well as I am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, today I heard that the rebate WILL be means tested and linked to family tax benift A

Income test

For Family Tax Benefit Part A, if your family's actual annual family income[1] for this financial year is $45,114 or less, your payment will not be affected by the income test.

If your actual annual family income is more than $45,114 for this financial year, your payment will reduce by 20 cents for each dollar above $45,114 until your payment reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A.

Your Family Tax Benefit Part A will stay at that rate until your actual annual family income reaches $94,316 a year (plus $3,796 for each Family Tax Benefit child after the first). Family Tax Benefit Part A will reduce by 30 cents for every dollar over that amount until your payment reaches nil.

If you get more than the base rate of Family Tax Benefit A, a maintenance income test[2] may also apply.


As long as rebates/benefits are means tested I don't really have a problem with them.
30% health rebate should be the next to fall under this prerequisate.

I wonder if Comrade Meekist can be so gracious? I have been waiting a while for his promised delivery yet he has been strangely silent.

I said that the best teachers will go where the money is. I am happy to admit if I am wrong.

Someone made the assertion that the public sector unionised teaching realm is where the money is. Will they be man enough to produce, admit they made an assumption that supported their agenda or slink away in the hope this subject will go away and not remind them of their lack of stones  ;)

Cyberman wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 10:34pm:

I wonder if Comrade Meekist can be so gracious? I have been waiting a while for his promised delivery yet he has been strangely silent. I said that the best teachers will go where the money is. I am happy to admit if I am wrong. Someone made the assertion that the public sector unionised teaching realm is where the money is. Will they be man enough to produce, admit they made an assumption that supported their agenda or slink away in the hope this subject will go away and not remind them of their lack of stones  ;)

LOL...I'm back - time is no longer one's own once one has become a parent-cum-27/4taxi...

I haven't forgotten my obligation to provide evidence to support my assertions about teachers specifically, I just haven't managed to find the original article/report that was posted previously on Yahoo...yet...

Take all the time you need.

I'll be waiting. Ready to bring your lack of substance up should you fail to produce.

Don't take it personally, just be sure you don't make unqualified assumptions to support your agenda in the future.  ;)

Cyberman wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 11:03pm:

Take all the time you need. I'll be waiting. Ready to bring your lack of substance up should you fail to produce. Don't take it personally, just be sure you don't make unqualified assumptions to support your agenda in the future.  ;)

LOL, I don't take myself all that seriously and I have thick skin (not as thick as reptillian right whingers tho'!)...

However, I now know why my search for those old Yahoo posts was futile: -

http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/politics/831891/


Quote:

'All the threads are gone' in 'Politics' By: footbru Yesterday (8:59 pm) Oldest thread available is 23rd April.

That's nicely convenient that your non-existent 'proof' has disappeared. it really is quite simple. staff go to where the best conditions (including salary) are. and they are FLOODING to the private sector for reasons that are blindingly obvious to everyone but you.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 9:40am:

That's nicely convenient that your non-existent 'proof' has disappeared. it really is quite simple. staff go to where the best conditions (including salary) are. and they are FLOODING to the private sector for reasons that are blindingly obvious to everyone but you.

LOL...notwithstanding, that I have already proved the false assertions of you and your fellow right whingers, that STUDENTS had been FLOODING to private schools to result in 2/3 of school students in private educaton (the truth being the inverse), you persist in complaining that I am yet to provide proof that staff in the public sector are generally better paid than their private sector counterparts...

At the risk of stating the obvious, I note that: to date, none of you right whingers have been able to establish otherwise...

I shall continue to look for proof - but feel free to present evidence that contradicts my assertions, or kindly STFU...

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 9:40am: That's nicely convenient that your non-existent 'proof' has disappeared. it really is quite simple. staff go to where the best conditions (including salary) are. and they are FLOODING to the private sector for reasons that are blindingly obvious to everyone but you. LOL...notwithstanding, that I have already proved the false assertions of you and your fellow right whingers, that STUDENTS had been FLOODING to private schools to result in 2/3 of school students in private educaton (the truth being the inverse), you persist in complaining that I am yet to provide proof that staff in the public sector are generally better paid than their private sector counterparts... At the risk of stating the obvious, I note that: to date, none of you right whingers have been able to establish otherwise... I shall continue to look for proof - but feel free to present evidence that contradicts my assertions, or kindly STFU...

Ive already admitted that my 2/3 should have read 1/3, but by your own proof and admission students ARE flooding to the private sector. and why should we have to somehow prove to your satisfaction that which is blatantly obvious nad intuitive? your ridiculous claim has no proof and no logical backing either. after all it sounds patently STUPID that teachers would flood in vast numbers away from the 'better paid' public system into the private system.

Meanwhile, back at Lib HQ...I've received this email...


Quote:

Dear [Subscriber] A Coalition Government will improve and expand the existing Education Tax Rebate. As the table below highlights, the Coalition’s rebate will offer greater assistance to parents and ease the pressure on family budgets. For full details of our policy click http://www.email.swordcdc.com/t/r/l/myhgt/yuuydtlhl/d. Don't forget that there's lots of ways you can get involved and help in this election: we hope you’ll tell your friends about how we'll assist families; you can become a friend on Facebook or follow us on Twitter; and you can donate to help us spread this message further. LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA Authorised by Brian Loughnane for the Liberal Party of Australia Cnr Blackall & Macquarie Streets, Barton ACT 2600

I note that the LibLabs are BOTH careful NOT to detail the means-testing arrangments that may or may not to apply to the respective promised changes...

---

and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures.

Hmmnnn...the above pretty table references "per primary/secondary school child" - but there is no mention of any means-testing per se...

The linked Lib site does not disclose any means-testing eitherer - it just mentions eligible families/parents (nor does it contain the same pretty table)...

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/07/21/Real-action-to-help-families-meet-school-costs.aspx?utm_medium=email&utm_source=SwordEmailer&utm_content=299264070&utm_campaign=FridayFacts-23July2010&utm_term=ourpolicyclickhere


Quote:

Real action to help families meet school costs      21/07/10      A Coalition government will improve and expand the existing Education Tax Rebate to help families with the costs of their children’s education and help ease pressure on family budgets.      An additional $760 million over the forward estimates will be committed to increasing the amount of the rebate for primary and secondary students and significantly expanding the type of expenses that can be claimed.      For primary students, we will increase the rebate to up to $500 per year per child in primary school. Eligible families will be able to claim a 50 per cent rebate for up to $1,000 of eligible education-related expenses for each child in primary school.      For secondary school students, we will increase the rebate to up to $1,000 per year per child. Eligible families will be able to claim a 50 per cent rebate for up to $2,000 of education-related expenses for each child in secondary school.      We will also expand the types of expenses to which the rebate will apply. Under the Coalition, eligible expenses will include:          o School fees          o School camps and excursions          o Special education costs for children with disabilities, like dyslexia          o Extra-curricular activities such as music, dance or drama lessons          o Tutoring costs          o Musical instruments required for lessons          o School photos          o Sporting fees and equipment      The expanded rebate will commence on 1 January 2011 which means that eligible parents will be able to claim the rebate for expenses incurred for the next school year.      Uptake of the Rudd-Gillard Government’s scheme has been poor because it is too narrowly focussed. Labor excluded school fees from the rebate, despite the fact that school fees represent a significant financial burden for parents.      Labor has also failed to properly implement their rebate, which has meant eligible parents have missed out on $1.6 billion of assistance they were originally promised over four years to 2012-13.      Labor’s recent extension of the Rebate to cover school uniform costs is welcome, but this rebate extension won’t even start until the 2011-12 financial year meaning parents will not see any money back in their pockets for at least two years. This is too little too late for families who have struggled to meet these costs for the last three years.      Labor just doesn’t get it when it comes to delivering real action and practical assistance to families battling cost of living pressures.      Australian families work hard to give their children the best possible start in life through a quality education. The Coalition will support parent’s choice about the education of their children by directly helping to ease the pressure on their family budget.      The Coalition’s Education Tax Rebate is real action and if elected, starts in time for the new school year.      This funding will be provided from the nearly $24 billion in recurrent savings that have been identified by the Coalition over the forward estimates. These are savings from cutting Labor’s waste and mismanagement and redirecting funding from inefficient and poorly performing Labor Government programmes.             LABOR’S REBATE                o Can claim 50% rebate for up to $780 per primary school child  (= $390)          o Can claim 50% rebate for up to $1558 per secondary school child  (= $779)          Total for family with one primary school student and one secondary school student: $1169 THE COALITION REBATE                o Can claim 50% rebate for up to $1000 per primary school child (= $500)                      o Can claim 50% rebate for up to $2000 per secondary school child  (= $1000)      Total for family with one primary school student and one secondary school student: $1500      Labor’s Eligible Expenses          o Laptops          o Home computers and associated costs          o Home internet connection          o Printers          o Education software          o School text books          o School stationary          o Uniforms                   Coalition’s Eligible Expenses          o Laptops          o Home computers and associated costs          o Home internet connection          o Printers          o Education software          o School text books          o School stationery          o Uniforms          o Government and non-government school fees          o Special education costs for children with disabilities, like dyslexia          o Camps and excursions          o Extra-curricular school activities, such as music, sports, dance and drama lessons          o Tutoring costs          o Musical instruments

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures.

Are you suggesting, Longy, that the Libs are neglecting to disclose that they will no longer be means-testing the Rebate!?

Will they be means-testing it or not - and where is the proof either way!?

This is a current election issue - so one might reasonably expect to be able to readily find the proof - good luck with that!

so your only complaint is means-testing, despite the libs announcing that it WILL be means tested? do you have a single pragmatic position on anything or is every single opinion, belief and decision a purely ideological one?

||Income test

For Family Tax Benefit Part A, if your family's actual annual family income[1] for this financial year is $45,114 or less, your payment will not be affected by the income test.

If your actual annual family income is more than $45,114 for this financial year, your payment will reduce by 20 cents for each dollar above $45,114 until your payment reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A.

Your Family Tax Benefit Part A will stay at that rate until your actual annual family income reaches $94,316 a year (plus $3,796 for each Family Tax Benefit child after the first). Family Tax Benefit Part A will reduce by 30 cents for every dollar over that amount until your payment reaches nil.

If you get more than the base rate of Family Tax Benefit A, a maintenance income test[2] may also apply.

||


but feel free to assume it is a lie or not real or anything else to ensure that it fits in with your non-thinking dogma. in the meantime, the rest of us will use at least slightly open minds to assess the information given to us.

I would find it difficult to oppose this policy.

While I understand both sides of the argument I see no problem with giving the same set of rules to both private and public students in terms of tax benefit. (if it is affordable) I do think that Public schools should be looked after first in terms of direct public funding.

The government run the Public school system and should have a priority to funding their schools properly, anything they can give in support of private education after this is a good thing and well worth the expense.

My vested interest is that I have a daughter in private education and am also paying for music lessons on multiple instruments.

Note: I was happy to buy my daughter a Laptop while all Public students in NSW got one for free and do not mind paying the rather steep fees for her education.

.

I also see you are refusing to acknoweldge that students ARE flooding to private schools! at a rate of 8:1 in fact.

that must be inconvenient for your USSR-style socialist agenda.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:44am:

I would find it difficult to oppose this policy. While I understand both sides of the argument I see no problem with giving the same set of rules to both private and public students in terms of tax benefit. (if it is affordable) I do think that Public schools should be looked after first in terms of direct public funding. The government run the Public school system and should have a priority to funding their schools properly, anything they can give in support of private education after this is a good thing and well worth the expense. My vested interest is that I have a daughter in private education and am also paying for music lessons on multiple instruments. Note: I was happy to buy my daughter a Laptop while all Public students in NSW got one for free and do not mind paying the rather steep fees for her education. .

that's a well-reasoned position and one I would agree with 100% and ahve been in the same position when my kids were at private school. What I object to is the ranting and wailing that parents such as ourselves shoudl be punished for the 'audacity' to send our kids to private schools where they can get a superior education instead of using the 'wonderful' public system that can teach them pet care and bike maintenance and allow them to graduate with literally no ability to read and write beyond a 6yo level. My biggest beef with the geneuinely left-wing agenda is that 'personal choice' is opposed.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:40am:

so your only complaint is means-testing, despite the libs announcing that it WILL be means tested? do you have a single pragmatic position on anything or is every single opinion, belief and decision a purely ideological one?

Actually, Longy, my complaint is that they haven't articulated the means-testing - rather they have sent a conveninently mixed message...

With their headline policy announcements, they have definitely implied that it will apply to all families of school students, with only a subtle mention of 'eligible families/parents' whilst carefully not spelling it out that means-testing will apply...

Quote:

[quote].

[/quote]

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 10:40am: so your only complaint is means-testing, despite the libs announcing that it WILL be means tested? do you have a single pragmatic position on anything or is every single opinion, belief and decision a purely ideological one? Actually, Longy, my complaint is that they haven't articulated the means-testing - rather they have sent a conveninently mixed message... With their headline policy announcements, they have definitely implied that it will apply to all families of school students, with only a subtle mention of 'eligible families/parents' whilst carefully not spelling it out that means-testing will apply...

I really hope that means testing one day cuts you out of a benefit you deserve all because your income exceeded an arbitrary limit with no reference to your personal cirucmstances or committments. perhaps then you will understand some of the anger at means-testing and its ideological application.

firstly, the rebate WILL be means-tested and has been detailed now TWICE in this thread as to how that will happen. but you ideologically blinded eyes obviously cannot read it. so once again we have policy dismissed by you on one issue alone - means-testing. Im sure that if there was a 100% cure for cancer you would deny govt subsidy to anyone but the poor. your ideology could blind you to absolutely anything - and it clearly does exactly that.

so to sum up your position...

give everything to the poor regardless of merit
hurt those on good incomes
kill ALL billionaires
vote [1] josef stalin

have i missed anything?

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:54am:

Actually, Longy, my complaint is that they haven't articulated the means-testing - rather they have sent a conveninently mixed message... With their headline policy announcements, they have definitely implied that it will apply to all families of school students, with only a subtle mention of 'eligible families/parents' whilst carefully not spelling it out that means-testing will apply...

Well sort of got me too, As with the Laptop I will get no rebate.

(I do not really have the vested interest previously stated)

I have no problem with this as I do not believe that the government should be giving hand outs to people who have no need of the support.

.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:43am:

||Income test For Family Tax Benefit Part A, if your family's actual annual family income[1] for this financial year is $45,114 or less, your payment will not be affected by the income test. If your actual annual family income is more than $45,114 for this financial year, your payment will reduce by 20 cents for each dollar above $45,114 until your payment reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A. Your Family Tax Benefit Part A will stay at that rate until your actual annual family income reaches $94,316 a year (plus $3,796 for each Family Tax Benefit child after the first). Family Tax Benefit Part A will reduce by 30 cents for every dollar over that amount until your payment reaches nil. If you get more than the base rate of Family Tax Benefit A, a maintenance income test[2] may also apply. || but feel free to assume it is a lie or not real or anything else to ensure that it fits in with your non-thinking dogma. in the meantime, the rest of us will use at least slightly open minds to assess the information given to us.

Longy, I suggest that you review the contents of that extract - and locate the original/official source - before you attempt to justify parrotting it out of context...



Hint: I think you will find that the quote you have used above was NOT plucked from from the blurb about the Education Tax Rebate and I note that it does not provide any link back to same.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures.

There is nothing wrong with means testing Longy, it's essential to stop the waste of taxpayers money. You continuely bang on about this as far as BER etc is concerned.
Non means testing is exactly the same sort of waste.
I have paid private school fees now for 8 years and I don't need another pseudo tax cut & neither does anyone else on my sort of income.
But as you say some parents go without/work 2-3 jobs to send their kids to private schools, I'm quite happy for their hard work and sacrifice be eased just that small amount.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:44am:

I would find it difficult to oppose this policy. While I understand both sides of the argument I see no problem with giving the same set of rules to both private and public students in terms of tax benefit. (if it is affordable) I do think that Public schools should be looked after first in terms of direct public funding. The government run the Public school system and should have a priority to funding their schools properly, anything they can give in support of private education after this is a good thing and well worth the expense. My vested interest is that I have a daughter in private education and am also paying for music lessons on multiple instruments. Note: I was happy to buy my daughter a Laptop while all Public students in NSW got one for free and do not mind paying the rather steep fees for her education. .

Actually, DNA, I am sure I am not the only parent of a senior school student in a public school who needed to upgrade to a more up-to-date laptop for home student use anyway, since the Govt-supplied one is substantially locked out of the internet at home.

The security filter is such that: even using my TAFE account on my son's Govt Lenovo, I am prevented from accessing any email services and numerous sites are blocked.

That said, the Govt-supplied Lenovo is equipped with a fantastic suite of software that we would otherwise not have in our household. For that reason alone, it has been a huge educational bonus!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:03am:

so to sum up your position... give everything to the poor regardless of merit hurt those on good incomes kill ALL billionaires vote [1] josef stalin have i missed anything?

FFS, Longy, will you kindly cease and desist, with your bizarre habit of singling me out to put false words into my mouth. I have more than enough of my own, thanks!

As you know full well, I am concerned about achieving policy changes which ensure that kids (and their carers) from low income and other vulnerable households do NOT face a lifetime compounding structural disadvantage and instead have access to equitable essential domestic accommodation, services and infrastructure and above-subsistence household incomes. Not only would such changes improve the life-chances of the individuals and families directly affected - but it also has far-reaching benefits for the broader community into the longer-term.

Meantime, I remain disgusted by misleading LibLab propaganda!

Quote:

so to sum up your position... give everything to the poor regardless of merit

Of course not. It's a much better idea to have a divisive class system where children of the wealthy receive every possible advantage. Children who choose to be born to poor parents should remain illiterate throughout their lives, and above all never get uppity and act on the belief that they have the potential to lead a life of productivity.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:21am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 10:23am: and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures. There is nothing wrong with means testing Longy, it's essential to stop the waste of taxpayers money. You continuely bang on about this as far as BER etc is concerned. Non means testing is exactly the same sort of waste. I have paid private school fees now for 8 years and I don't need another pseudo tax cut & neither does anyone else on my sort of income. But as you say some parents go without/work 2-3 jobs to send their kids to private schools, I'm quite happy for their hard work and sacrifice be eased just that small amount.

Im not opposed to means-testing pre se. I am opposed to the idea that every govt benefit should necesarily be means tested as some sort of ideology. means-testing should be used because in the absence of the ability for govt to equally distribute largesse to all it should therefore be given to those most in need first. but to say that a segment of the community is intrinsiclally unworthy of govt benefit is wrong.  it is once again the ideological approach that would say that some groups should NEVER have govt benefit and others should ALWAYS have benefit is wrong and counter-productive.  as a liberal i am all for self-sufficiency and making your own way. but the govt does provide benefits and there is no justification - besides financial ability - to deny ANYONE in the community a benefit that is available to some. The pension SHOULD be for all retired australians - and used to be. The undeniable fact tho is that we cant afford to do that so we means test to ensure than at least the needy get it. but at no time should we say that self-funded retirees are undeserving of it. it is that attitude that rankles; that by working hard, saving hard, studying hard and taking risks that advantage not only you but also your community, you reach the level where you must be punished not only by higher taxation and the absence of any govt help, but you must be abused for it as well.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:41am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:03am: so to sum up your position... give everything to the poor regardless of merit hurt those on good incomes kill ALL billionaires vote [1] josef stalin have i missed anything? FFS, Longy, will you kindly cease and desist, with your bizarre habit of singling me out to put false words into my mouth. I have more than enough of my own, thanks! As you know full well, I am concerned about achieving policy changes which ensure that kids (and their carers) from low income and other vulnerable households do NOT face a lifetime compounding structural disadvantage and instead have access to equitable essential domestic accommodation, services and infrastructure and above-subsistence household incomes. Not only would such changes improve the life-chances of the individuals and families directly affected - but it also has far-reaching benefits for the broader community into the longer-term. Meantime, I remain disgusted by misleading LibLab propaganda!

you are ON RECORD as saying that ALL (literally) billionaires acheived their wealth by evil means. you are all on record as saying that there shoudl be PUNITIVE levels of taxation for high income earners. so where is my error since many of the policies you espouse are essentially stalinist in nature. Apart from the gulags (I hope) you and stalin appear to have alot of social and economic common ground.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:47am:

Quote: so to sum up your position... give everything to the poor regardless of merit Of course not. It's a much better idea to have a divisive class system where children of the wealthy receive every possible advantage. Children who choose to be born to poor parents should remain illiterate throughout their lives, and above all never get uppity and act on the belief that they have the potential to lead a life of productivity.

you live in probably the most egalitarian and class-les society on the planet. everyone gets a shot. the govt supports the poor and low income earners at an unprecedented level. exactly what is your problem other than that there are people with more money an opportunities than others? do you think that is new, unusual or even wrong? life aint fair nor is it equal. the winners in our society are generally those who work hard - not just go to private school or inherit wealth.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:49pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:21am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 10:23am: and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures. There is nothing wrong with means testing Longy, it's essential to stop the waste of taxpayers money. You continuely bang on about this as far as BER etc is concerned. Non means testing is exactly the same sort of waste. I have paid private school fees now for 8 years and I don't need another pseudo tax cut & neither does anyone else on my sort of income. But as you say some parents go without/work 2-3 jobs to send their kids to private schools, I'm quite happy for their hard work and sacrifice be eased just that small amount. Im not opposed to means-testing pre se. I am opposed to the idea that every govt benefit should necesarily be means tested as some sort of ideology. means-testing should be used because in the absence of the ability for govt to equally distribute largesse to all it should therefore be given to those most in need first. but to say that a segment of the community is intrinsiclally unworthy of govt benefit is wrong.  it is once again the ideological approach that would say that some groups should NEVER have govt benefit and others should ALWAYS have benefit is wrong and counter-productive.  as a liberal i am all for self-sufficiency and making your own way. but the govt does provide benefits and there is no justification - besides financial ability - to deny ANYONE in the community a benefit that is available to some. The pension SHOULD be for all retired australians - and used to be. The undeniable fact tho is that we cant afford to do that so we means test to ensure than at least the needy get it. but at no time should we say that self-funded retirees are undeserving of it. it is that attitude that rankles; that by working hard, saving hard, studying hard and taking risks that advantage not only you but also your community, you reach the level where you must be punished not only by higher taxation and the absence of any govt help, but you must be abused for it as well.

So, Longy, I take it that you really agree with me, when I say that the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR Superannuation Tax Concessions are both grossly unfair and fiscally irresponsible - yeah right!?

As for your comments re the population 'flocking' to private schools, the reverse-means-tested mid-high-end tax cuts of the past decade would more than pay for a privileged private school education, without the need for any other tokenistic rebate...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:51pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:41am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:03am: so to sum up your position... give everything to the poor regardless of merit hurt those on good incomes kill ALL billionaires vote [1] josef stalin have i missed anything? FFS, Longy, will you kindly cease and desist, with your bizarre habit of singling me out to put false words into my mouth. I have more than enough of my own, thanks! As you know full well, I am concerned about achieving policy changes which ensure that kids (and their carers) from low income and other vulnerable households do NOT face a lifetime compounding structural disadvantage and instead have access to equitable essential domestic accommodation, services and infrastructure and above-subsistence household incomes. Not only would such changes improve the life-chances of the individuals and families directly affected - but it also has far-reaching benefits for the broader community into the longer-term. Meantime, I remain disgusted by misleading LibLab propaganda! you are ON RECORD as saying that ALL (literally) billionaires acheived their wealth by evil means. you are all on record as saying that there shoudl be PUNITIVE levels of taxation for high income earners. so where is my error since many of the policies you espouse are essentially stalinist in nature. Apart from the gulags (I hope) you and stalin appear to have alot of social and economic common ground.

No, I am NOT 'ON RECORD' for saying anything of the sort.

Rather, I have pointed out the undeniable FACT that NO billionaire can accumulate so much wealth, without feeding-off the efforts and/or resources of a great many others - citizens, employees, customers, communities, relatives, etc. On that basis, I have contended that it is both unfair and unconscionable, for any single human being to feel entitled to hold onto such disproportionate wealth, rather than redistribute it for the benefit of others.

As for taxation, when I commenced work in the mid-80s the top marginal rate was 60% - and there is no valid socio-economic reason why the individual tax rates of the 80s should not have remained.

Rather than reducing rates (especially on high income levels), the various income thresholds should have been lifted (and/or indexed, perhaps with others inserted in between)...

Since the 80s, and since 2000 in particular, increasingly-regressive taxation has been a major (and unconscionable) driver of the exponential polarisation of household disposable income, wealth, opportunity and power in Australia - FACT!

Yo Longy et al

As a matter of interest, I suggest that people utilise the following tables to calculate the comparative WEATH-fare BENEFITS to middle-high income Aussies over the past decade (and quarter century)...

I suggest that people calculate figures on, say:

* Diferent $25K increments up to $150K, then jump by $50K to $250K, then calculate $500K and $1M

* Or use the latest FY10 or FY11 thresholds for a more direct comparison

IM(not-so)HO, the results will surprise most and alarm some - not least because the Libs are carrying on so much about Federal debt and deficit, despite being the proud architects of the biggest budget black holes in Australian history...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: compared to 2000 any person earning over about $125,000 is now benefitting from ANNUAL CASH TAX CUTS that exceed the ANNUAL SINGLE AGED PENSION - on top of having the means of utilising an effective-marginal tax rate of 15% due to the SUPERANNUATION TAX CONCESSIONS RORT!

The past decade has been really good for some, eh!?

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/


Quote:

Residents 1985–86 Taxable income/Tax on this income $0–$4,594 = Nil $4,595–$12,499 = 25 cents for each $1 over $4,595 $12,500–$19,499 = $1,976.26 + 30 cents for each $1 over $12,500 $19,500–$27,999 = $4,076.25 + 46 cents for each $1 over $19,500 $28,000–$34,999 = $7,986.25 + 48 cents for each $1 over $28,000 $35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000 2000-01 Taxable income /Tax on this income $1 - $6,000 = Nil $6,001 - $20,000 = 17 cents for each $1 over $6,000 $20,001 - $50,000 = $2,380 + 30 cents for each $1 over $20,000 $50,001 - $60,000 = $11,380 + 42 cents for each $1 over $50,000 $60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000 2009–10 Taxable income/Tax on this income 0 – $6,000 = Nil $6,001 – $35,000 = 15c for each $1 over $6,000 $35,001 – $80,000 = $4,350 plus 30c for each $1 over $35,000 $80,001 – $180,000 = $17,850 plus 38c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 The following rates for 2010–11 apply from 1 July 2010. 2010–11 Taxable income/Tax on this income 0 – $6,000 = Nil $6,001 – $37,000 = 15c for each $1 over $6,000 $37,001 – $80,000 = $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000 $80,001 – $180,000 = $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 The above rates do not include the Medicare levy...(read Medicare levy reduction or exemption for more information). Tax offsets reduce the tax payable. Tax offsets based on taxable income levels apply to a range of circumstances. For more information read About tax offsets.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:49pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:21am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 10:23am: and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures. There is nothing wrong with means testing Longy, it's essential to stop the waste of taxpayers money. You continuely bang on about this as far as BER etc is concerned. Non means testing is exactly the same sort of waste. I have paid private school fees now for 8 years and I don't need another pseudo tax cut & neither does anyone else on my sort of income. But as you say some parents go without/work 2-3 jobs to send their kids to private schools, I'm quite happy for their hard work and sacrifice be eased just that small amount. Im not opposed to means-testing pre se. I am opposed to the idea that every govt benefit should necesarily be means tested as some sort of ideology. means-testing should be used because in the absence of the ability for govt to equally distribute largesse to all it should therefore be given to those most in need first. but to say that a segment of the community is intrinsiclally unworthy of govt benefit is wrong.  it is once again the ideological approach that would say that some groups should NEVER have govt benefit and others should ALWAYS have benefit is wrong and counter-productive.  as a liberal i am all for self-sufficiency and making your own way. but the govt does provide benefits and there is no justification - besides financial ability - to deny ANYONE in the community a benefit that is available to some. The pension SHOULD be for all retired australians - and used to be. The undeniable fact tho is that we cant afford to do that so we means test to ensure than at least the needy get it. but at no time should we say that self-funded retirees are undeserving of it. it is that attitude that rankles; that by working hard, saving hard, studying hard and taking risks that advantage not only you but also your community, you reach the level where you must be punished not only by higher taxation and the absence of any govt help, but you must be abused for it as well. So, Longy, I take it that you really agree with me, when I say that the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR Superannuation Tax Concessions are both grossly unfair and fiscally irresponsible - yeah right!? As for your comments re the population 'flocking' to private schools, the reverse-means-tested mid-high-end tax cuts of the past decade would more than pay for a privileged private school education, without the need for any other tokenistic rebate...

you seem to lack the ability to interpret anyone else's post thru anything but your own deeply discoloured glasses. ANYTHING that gives an advantage to anyone but the poor immediately earns your wrath. all this does is make your opinion totally worthless. there is no debate, no discussion, no compromise. you are just the Greens - and just as irrelevant. none of their policy posturing will ever see the light of day for exactly the same reason. your attitudes, rather than being the altruistic ones that you think they are, are actually nothing more than self-serving antiquated social opinions more at home in 1917 russia than 2010 australia.

||As for taxation, when I commenced work in the mid-80s the top marginal rate was 60% - and there is no valid socio-economic reason why the individual tax rates of the 80s should not have remained.

Rather than reducing rates (especially on high income levels), the various income thresholds should have been lifted (and/or indexed, perhaps with others inserted in between)...

Since the 80s, and since 2000 in particular, increasingly-regressive taxation has been a major (and unconscionable) driver of the exponential polarisation of household disposable income, wealth, opportunity and power in Australia - FACT!
||

it is also a fact that in those days you long after with very high taxation, australia had a very poorly performing and inefficient economy. of the reforms that lead to australia becoming the economic miracle that it is today not the least of them was tax reform. this saw levels of taxation whose sole purpose for being was to punish taxpayers being replaced with scales that not only encouraged high acheivment but also reduced wage demands which would haeve killed many businesses. I am constantly amazed at how you look longingly and witha tear in your eye for the opportunity for SOMEONE ELSE to pay 60% taxation or more. given that this country managed to generate a surplus and zero debt would indicate that this strategy was right. it would also indicate that the NEED for such high levels of income tax do not exist and probably never did. it is worth noting that with the exception of the scandinavian cradle-to-grave welfare states, excessively high rates of taxation are now soley the province of third world cesspools with crap economies and massive corruption. somtimes you just have to look at the result (best economy in the world) and at least question what we did right. and when we are still the secondmost desirable place to live on earth you know that it si more than the economy that we got right.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 1:34pm:

Yo Longy et al As a matter of interest, I suggest that people utilise the following tables to calculate the comparative WEATH-fare BENEFITS to middle-high income Aussies over the past decade (and quarter century)... I suggest that people calculate figures on, say: * Diferent $25K increments up to $150K, then jump by $50K to $250K, then calculate $500K and $1M * Or use the latest FY10 or FY11 thresholds for a more direct comparison IM(not-so)HO, the results will surprise most and alarm some - not least because the Libs are carrying on so much about Federal debt and deficit, despite being the proud architects of the biggest budget black holes in Australian history... Correct me if I'm wrong, but: compared to 2000 any person earning over about $125,000 is now benefitting from ANNUAL CASH TAX CUTS that exceed the ANNUAL SINGLE AGED PENSION - on top of having the means of utilising an effective-marginal tax rate of 15% due to the SUPERANNUATION TAX CONCESSIONS RORT! The past decade has been really good for some, eh!? http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/ Quote: Residents 1985–86 Taxable income/Tax on this income $0–$4,594 = Nil $4,595–$12,499 = 25 cents for each $1 over $4,595 $12,500–$19,499 = $1,976.26 + 30 cents for each $1 over $12,500 $19,500–$27,999 = $4,076.25 + 46 cents for each $1 over $19,500 $28,000–$34,999 = $7,986.25 + 48 cents for each $1 over $28,000 $35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000 2000-01 Taxable income /Tax on this income $1 - $6,000 = Nil $6,001 - $20,000 = 17 cents for each $1 over $6,000 $20,001 - $50,000 = $2,380 + 30 cents for each $1 over $20,000 $50,001 - $60,000 = $11,380 + 42 cents for each $1 over $50,000 $60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000 2009–10 Taxable income/Tax on this income 0 – $6,000 = Nil $6,001 – $35,000 = 15c for each $1 over $6,000 $35,001 – $80,000 = $4,350 plus 30c for each $1 over $35,000 $80,001 – $180,000 = $17,850 plus 38c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 The following rates for 2010–11 apply from 1 July 2010. 2010–11 Taxable income/Tax on this income 0 – $6,000 = Nil $6,001 – $37,000 = 15c for each $1 over $6,000 $37,001 – $80,000 = $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000 $80,001 – $180,000 = $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 The above rates do not include the Medicare levy...(read Medicare levy reduction or exemption for more information). Tax offsets reduce the tax payable. Tax offsets based on taxable income levels apply to a range of circumstances. For more information read About tax offsets.

wow that was revealing.  it showed that you can cut taxes AND generate the best economy in the world! who'd a thunk it... besides anyone who wasnt still seeking after a 'planned economy' and 'equality for all' and the resultant mass poverty that it causes?

Bollox, Longy - exponential growth in income and wealth inequality does NOT provide for socio-economic equity - nor productivity nor prosperty - into long term!

This is especially problematic when a nation has the quadruple-whammy of exponential growth in effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare (v's means-tested welfare) and taxation regressivity (both on both income and consumption)!




PS: BTW, re my earlier post/s, I think I may have made a false tax cut assertion earlier, due to plugging one or more incorrect figures/calcs into my taxation spreadsheet. I shall correct same when I have double-checked my results.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:35pm:

Bollox, Longy - exponential growth in income and wealth inequality does NOT provide for socio-economic equity - nor productivity nor prosperty - into long term! This is especially problematic when a nation has the quadruple-whammy of exponential growth in effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare (v's means-tested welfare) and taxation regressivity (both on both income and consumption)! PS: BTW, re my earlier post/s, I think I may have made a false tax cut assertion earlier, due to plugging one or more incorrect figures/calcs into my taxation spreadsheet. I shall correct same when I have double-checked my results.

So you are denying that we have the best economy in the world? are you denying that only a few years ago we were debt free and in surplus? why is it that you cannot seemingly even SEE that things are enormously better now than they were in the 80s? I doubt you could find many people of sound mind and outside the communist party to say otherwise.

why must there be high taxes? why? can you answer thatm since we seemed to be able to not only balance the budget but to pay off debt, increase welfare astronomically and have an economy the rest of the world lusts after AND lower taxes? can you actually make a LOGICAL and rational answer to this without shouting marxist slogans? how about addressing the facts as they are rather than a 100% opinon-based rant?

again. WHY RAISE TAXES back up to 60% in the absence of any need whatsoever? step out of character and actaully answer that - and not as if it were Question Time.

||Bollox, Longy - exponential growth in income and wealth inequality does NOT provide for socio-economic equity - nor productivity nor prosperty - into long term!||

except that exponential grown in income HAS provided an improvement in socio-economic equality AND prosperity AND into the long term as well.

or did you miss what is happening in australia's economy at the moment? you know... boom times even in a world-wide recession??

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:35pm:

Bollox, Longy - exponential growth in income and wealth inequality does NOT provide for socio-economic equity - nor productivity nor prosperty - into long term! This is especially problematic when a nation has the quadruple-whammy of exponential growth in effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare (v's means-tested welfare) and taxation regressivity (both on both income and consumption)!

Moreover, IM(not-so)HO, tax cuts and tweaks should not regressively exacerbate already-growing income and wealth inequalities for the benefit of the already-privileged few elite and/or incorporated - rather they should be systematically utilised (along with other income and tax regulations) to progressively counter-balance the effects of worst excesses of national and global corporativism on our nation's ordinary citizens.

It is morally abhorrent to me, that the insidious and grossly-regressive tax and WEALTHfare changes of the past decade have gone largely unchallenged!

||It is morally abhorrent to me, that the insidious and grossly-regressive tax and WEALTHfare changes of the past decade have gone largely unchallenged!||

ever thought that the reason might be that most people see them as good changes? did it ever occur to you that people might have aspirations to earn more than they currently do and see that they WONT be punished for it now?

and all the garbage you sprout about 'privileged elite' is total nonsense and nobody agrees with you on it. you see what you want to see and nothing else.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:43pm:

||Bollox, Longy - exponential growth in income and wealth inequality does NOT provide for socio-economic equity - nor productivity nor prosperty - into long term!|| except that exponential grown in income HAS provided an improvement in socio-economic equality AND prosperity AND into the long term as well. or did you miss what is happening in australia's economy at the moment? you know... boom times even in a world-wide recession??

Hmmnnn...be careful, Longy, not to confuse coincidence with with correlation with causation...

Are you suggesting, that these exponentially-increasing tax, income, wealth and opportunity inequities are the sole or primary cause!? If so, kindly provide a reference to one or more respected economic authority that specifically posits the causal link you claim, ta!

||grossly-regressive tax ||

an interesting description for TAX CUTS to everyone. you must be a lot of fun at parties...

Longweekend wrote:
[url]and when we are still the secondmost desirable place to live on earth you know that it si more than the economy that we got right.[/url]

Correction, the second-most desirable destination for refugees and asylum seekers,(Illegals) ... or those wishing to study/work in Australia in order to gain residency.

Think of it as a working holiday they never return from.

Our infrastructure cant keep up with our current rate of immigration, and water is a serious concern.
Our being a continent the size of Europe, though with only a habitable land area the mere size of Borneo..of which itself has a population of 15,721,384  (January 2005)... and is rather crowded.

Why?  Because other developed nations have clamped down on their immigration laws, whereas we are yet to redefine ours since a Labor government imposed their come-one-come-all immigration policy.

Labors current $100 billion dollar deficit, after having been left with Liberals $40 billion surplus speaks for itself.

Where has $140 billion gone, can Labor even begin to explain where it went?

And do you suppose Labor will be capable of restoring this $40 billion surplus in the short 3 years it took them to blow $140 billion?

Think about it.

 :)...  Has anyone thought to ask where it went?

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:43pm: ||Bollox, Longy - exponential growth in income and wealth inequality does NOT provide for socio-economic equity - nor productivity nor prosperty - into long term!|| except that exponential grown in income HAS provided an improvement in socio-economic equality AND prosperity AND into the long term as well. or did you miss what is happening in australia's economy at the moment? you know... boom times even in a world-wide recession?? Hmmnnn...be careful, Longy, not to confuse coincidence with with correlation with causation... Are you suggesting, that these exponentially-increasing tax, income, wealth and opportunity inequities are the sole or primary cause!? If so, kindly provide a reference to one or more respected economic authority that specifically posits the causal link you claim, ta!

you belong in a conspiracy thread. EVERY EVIDENCE that exists shows a significantly superior standard of living and economic health but you choose to deny them all.

you are actually starting to sound more than your usual silly and moving into paranoia.

you still havent articulated your rationale for massively increasing income tax rates. care to try and actually give a point by point explanation or would you prefer to just shout your slogans with increasing intensity and reducing relevance?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:50pm:

||It is morally abhorrent to me, that the insidious and grossly-regressive tax and WEALTHfare changes of the past decade have gone largely unchallenged!|| ever thought that the reason might be that most people see them as good changes? did it ever occur to you that people might have aspirations to earn more than they currently do and see that they WONT be punished for it now? and all the garbage you sprout about 'privileged elite' is total nonsense and nobody agrees with you on it. you see what you want to see and nothing else.

LOL...feel free to keep on digging yourself into that vacuous whole, Longy...

Hint: what others see as 'good' is more often than not due to false impressions and ignorance of the truth - because the detailed facts are being withheld whilst insidiously-misleading convenient headline propaganda prevails - as is especially the case of Superannuation Tax Rorts and Tax Cuts (neither of which stack up on social nor economic grounds, and associated opportunity costs notwithstanding).

Where has $140 billion gone, can Labor even begin to explain where it went?

And do you suppose Labor will be capable of restoring this $40 billion surplus in the 3 short years it took them to blow a whopping $140 billion?

Think about it.

...  Has anyone thought to ask where it went to begin with?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:52pm:

||grossly-regressive tax || an interesting description for TAX CUTS to everyone. you must be a lot of fun at parties...

Are you being deliberately obtuse, Longy - or are you genuinely ignorant of the meanings (and multiplier socio-economic implications) of the tax terms 'regressive' and 'progressive'!?

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:50pm: ||It is morally abhorrent to me, that the insidious and grossly-regressive tax and WEALTHfare changes of the past decade have gone largely unchallenged!|| ever thought that the reason might be that most people see them as good changes? did it ever occur to you that people might have aspirations to earn more than they currently do and see that they WONT be punished for it now? and all the garbage you sprout about 'privileged elite' is total nonsense and nobody agrees with you on it. you see what you want to see and nothing else. LOL...feel free to keep on digging yourself into that vacuous whole, Longy... Hint: what others see as 'good' is more often than not due to false impressions and ignorance of the truth - because the detailed facts are being withheld whilst insidiously-misleading convenient headline propaganda prevails - as is especially the case of Superannuation Tax Rorts and Tax Cuts (neither of which stack up on social nor economic grounds, and associated opportunity costs notwithstanding).

cut out the slogans and make a rational case for your point. you are becoming one of those crazy people who maintain their opinion even when EVERY EVIDENCE says the opposite. make your case logically and rationally or be considered no more than an old communist with no soapboax left to bellow from.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:52pm: ||grossly-regressive tax || an interesting description for TAX CUTS to everyone. you must be a lot of fun at parties... Are you being deliberately obtuse, Longy - or are you genuinely ignorant of the meanings (and multiplier socio-economic implications) of the tax terms 'regressive' and 'progressive'!?

you are playing with words with subjective and contextually sensitive meanings whiel flatly refusing to make even a semblance of an actual CASE for your POV.

so wil you make a logical argument or not?

mellie wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:58pm:

Where has $140 billion gone, can Labor even begin to explain where it went? And do you suppose Labor will be capable of restoring this $40 billion surplus in the 3 short years it took them to blow a whopping $140 billion? Think about it. ...  Has anyone thought to ask where it went to begin with?

I heard you the first 5 or 6 times you posted those rhetorical statements - and I need only two words to summarise the answer: 'structural deficit'.

I suggest that you google 'structural deficit costello' or 'structural deficit howard' - but I doubt that you will be inclined to appreciate the relevant commentary that has been debated out there over the past couple of years or so...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:52pm: ||grossly-regressive tax || an interesting description for TAX CUTS to everyone. you must be a lot of fun at parties... Are you being deliberately obtuse, Longy - or are you genuinely ignorant of the meanings (and multiplier socio-economic implications) of the tax terms 'regressive' and 'progressive'!? you are playing with words with subjective and contextually sensitive meanings whiel flatly refusing to make even a semblance of an actual CASE for your POV.

Like I said, keep digging - your dogmatic roots are showing more by the minute...

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:06pm:

mellie wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:58pm: Where has $140 billion gone, can Labor even begin to explain where it went? And do you suppose Labor will be capable of restoring this $40 billion surplus in the 3 short years it took them to blow a whopping $140 billion? Think about it. ...  Has anyone thought to ask where it went to begin with? I heard you the first 5 or 6 times you posted those rhetorical statements - and I need only two words to summarise the answer: 'structural deficit'. I suggest that you google 'structural deficit costello' or 'structural deficit howard' - but I doubt that you will be inclined to appreciate the relevant commentary that has been debated out there the past couple of years or so...

'structural deficit' is one of those new and convenient terms used by economists and pollies to magically construct bad news out of good news. it is how you turn a surplus into a deficit and no debt into debt without changing a single dollar in the bank. it is one of those trendy new ways of making truth into lie.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:03pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:52pm: ||grossly-regressive tax || an interesting description for TAX CUTS to everyone. you must be a lot of fun at parties... Are you being deliberately obtuse, Longy - or are you genuinely ignorant of the meanings (and multiplier socio-economic implications) of the tax terms 'regressive' and 'progressive'!? you are playing with words with subjective and contextually sensitive meanings whiel flatly refusing to make even a semblance of an actual CASE for your POV. Like I said, keep digging - your dogmatic roots are showing more by the minute...

so I take it you HAVE NO ACTUAL non-hsyterical, non-flag-waving, non-pot-smoking fact based argument to make?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:06pm: mellie wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:58pm: Where has $140 billion gone, can Labor even begin to explain where it went? And do you suppose Labor will be capable of restoring this $40 billion surplus in the 3 short years it took them to blow a whopping $140 billion? Think about it. ...  Has anyone thought to ask where it went to begin with? I heard you the first 5 or 6 times you posted those rhetorical statements - and I need only two words to summarise the answer: 'structural deficit'. I suggest that you google 'structural deficit costello' or 'structural deficit howard' - but I doubt that you will be inclined to appreciate the relevant commentary that has been debated out there the past couple of years or so... 'structural deficit' is one of those new and convenient terms used by economists and pollies to magically construct bad news out of good news. it is how you turn a surplus into a deficit and no debt into debt without changing a single dollar in the bank. it is one of those trendy new ways of making truth into lie.

So, it's all a big 'new' CONSPIRACY, then!?!?!?!

LOL...you great big conservative conspiracy theorist, you...

::)

so stil no factual argument to make? come to think of it, Ive NEVER heard you make a rational argument yet!

Yo somebody!

Anybody...

so i guess the debate victory is mine. when asked to propose a logical or factually based argument you found yourself unable to.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:22pm:

so i guess the debate victory is mine. when asked to propose a logical or factually based argument you found yourself unable to.

I dont know whay i expected more of you nemesis. its not like youve ever made a non-hysterical post nevermind response before.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:22pm:

so i guess the debate victory is mine. when asked to propose a logical or factually based argument you found yourself unable to.

LOL, Longy...suffice to say that you remain a legend in your own mind...

Meantime, I double-checked my claims about the tax cuts....

I am hopelessly dyslexic, so please do check my figures, but it seems that: about a year ago, I must have done calcs comparing tax cuts to individuals on taxable incomes of $125K with those on the then current single rate of Newstart (comparing individual tax rates of FY10 with FY01).

Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!?





Note: apparently, Longy has responded to me whilst I was making some minor edits to this post.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:22pm: so i guess the debate victory is mine. when asked to propose a logical or factually based argument you found yourself unable to. LOL, Longy...suffice to say that you remain a legend in your own mind... Meantime, I double-checked my claims about the tax cuts.... I am hopelessly dyslexic, so please do check my figures, but it seems that: I about a year ago, I must have done calcs comparing tax cuts to individuals on taxable incomes of $125K with those on the then current single rate of Newstart. Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension. That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!?

so stil no justification for massively increasing income taxes yet?

||Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!?
||

interesting but highly irrelevant esp since you arnt using CPI-adjusted figures.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

||Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!? || interesting but highly irrelevant esp since you arnt using CPI-adjusted figures.

LOL, Longy...feel free to try to explain your position, by CPI and/or comparing minimum, median and average wages from each of the
relevant tax years - but, you will find that: by no objective measure, have the changes in tax thresholds and rates progressively reflected changes in living costs or incomes in Australia, over the past decade or quarter century - FACT!  Those changes have been cynically based on elitist dogma and/or political convenience - FACT!

Either way, be sure to also justify same in the equally relevant context, of the Libs' (and Mellie's) confected outrage over post-2007 FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS and DEBT, ta!

what exactly (and i do mean EXACTLY) is your problem with tax cuts that are clearly and obviously affordable and have in part contributed in taking this country from a moribund economy to a spectacular one? why have ludicrously high income taxes when govt is running at a surplus? And you have still failed - and repeatedly so - to explain the rationale behind the 60% level that you lust after, other than to inflict some kind of twisted financial pain on a segment of society that you loathe. we dont need it, we dont want it and it is counter-productive to every economic indicator to raise taxes to the punitive level.

so are we going to see a fact based argument from you or just more of your 60s drug-induced paranoia?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

so stil no justification for massively increasing income taxes yet?

Forget your class war distraction, Longy...

My argument relates to RESTORING a semblance of progressivity into a tax system that was cynically and recklessly bastardised, in a manner that was contrary to all reasonable socio-economic measures.

The fact remains, that the high-end tax cuts and other WEALTHfare rorts of the Howardian Era (and to a slightly lesser extent by the Labs since) were fiscally-reckless in the extreme!

Yet, Libs have the temerity to cry foul over the inevitable budget black-whole results of their own Party's fiscal time-bombs!

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:07pm: ||Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!? || interesting but highly irrelevant esp since you arnt using CPI-adjusted figures. LOL, Longy...feel free to try to explain your position, by CPI and/or comparing minimum, median and average wages from each of the relevant tax years - but, you will find that: by no objective measure, have the changes in tax thresholds and rates progressively reflected changes in living costs or incomes in Australia, over the past decade or quarter century - FACT!  Those changes have been cynically based on elitist dogma and/or political convenience - FACT! Either way, be sure to also justify same in the equally relevant context, of the Libs' (and Mellie's) confected outrage over post-2007 FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS and DEBT, ta!

hard to be 'confected'. howard had zero debt and surplus. Swan has record debt and record deficit. it is really quite clear and indisputable. there may be reasons to explain it but it doesnt change the fact - except for socialists.

but back to tax scales... stil waiting for your logical support of the 60% level and where you think it should apply. Quick Hint: place it about $20K above your earning level so you wont be affected and so those you hate will.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:06pm: so stil no justification for massively increasing income taxes yet? Forget your class war distraction, Longy... My argument relates to RESTORING a semblance of progressivity into a tax system that was cynically and recklessly bastardised, in a manner that was contrary to all reasonable socio-economic measures. The fact remains, that the high-end tax cuts and other WEALTHfare rorts of the Howardian Era (and to a slightly lesser extent by the Labs since) were fiscally-reckless in the extreme! Yet, Libs have the temerity to cry foul over the inevitable budget black-whole results of their own Party's fiscal time-bombs!

try it without the outrage and justify yourself. make an actual non-hysterical, non- flagwaving case. I'm available to be convinced, but banners and mock outrage leave me yawning.

MAKE YOUR CASE!

||My argument relates to RESTORING a semblance of progressivity into a tax system that was cynically and recklessly bastardised, in a manner that was contrary to all reasonable socio-economic measures. ||

that makes the assumption that the previous high tax rates were good as opposed to the current lower rates. MAKE YOUR CASE

and as a matter of point, 'progressivity' isnt removed just because you dont like the rate of increase.  our rates start at 15 and go to 45%. that is progressive by any definition of the word.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:24pm:

what exactly (and i do mean EXACTLY) is your problem with tax cuts that are clearly and obviously affordable and have in part contributed in taking this country from a moribund economy to a spectacular one? why have ludicrously high income taxes when govt is running at a surplus? And you have still failed - and repeatedly so - to explain the rationale behind the 60% level that you lust after, other than to inflict some kind of twisted financial pain on a segment of society that you loathe. we dont need it, we dont want it and it is counter-productive to every economic indicator to raise taxes to the punitive level. so are we going to see a fact based argument from you or just more of your 60s drug-induced paranoia?

LOL, ol' Man...unlike you, I was an infant in the 60's...

What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?

Do you still subscribe to that debunked self-contradictory nonsense, that goes to the efect that: high income people will strive less if their marginal taxes increase - but that higher wages will stifle the economy because they don't encourage those at the other end of the scale to strive more (despite the fact that higher disposable incomes at the lower end increase consumption and thereby feed the tentacle-up effect)!?

FFS, do you think that the world's ageing billionaires continue to play the corporate field because they need more money!?!?!?!  Is is not the case, that most of them are hooked on competing and winning the game of life at all costs!?

Meantime, if you and Mellie et al are so concerned about Govt Debt and Deficit, then restoring progressive taxation (that ought never have been allowed to become so regressive in the first instance) is an obvious and socio-economically responsible way to go...

||What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?||

what is so RIGHT about it? in an economy that can pay its own way, what is thr purpose? and given that the amount raised by the few people in that income range is not enough to pay for even a small ALP screwed up program what is the point?

your argument lacks a genuine reason other than 'coz I want to'. there really need to be a genuine reason for it. Im all for taxes and benefits reflecting our economic circumstances so that soemtiems taxes actually DO need to go up. but you're not talking about that. how about we add your 60% level in but add 5% to everyone else's tax scale? is that ok by you or is it somehoe different because YOU might be affecterd?

Your motivation for this is all very obvious and everyone seems to see it but you.

make your case. explain why it should happen in the absence of ANY fiscal need.

Yo Longy et al

I have unilaterally decided, that this tangent is far too important to our nation's future, to hide under a petty private education thread - so I intend to create a new one...

I shall cross-post the links in due course...

PS Ol' Man Longy, have you not discovered how the quote and other nifty forum buttons work!?

id settle for you justifying yourself even once using non-hysterical and logical points of view.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:47pm:

PS Ol' Man Longy, have you not discovered how the quote and other nifty forum buttons work!?

another communist issue you have... personal choice of expression.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:45pm:

Yo Longy et al I have unilaterally decided, that this tangent is far too important to our nation's future, to hide under a petty private education thread - so I intend to create a new one... I shall cross-post the links in due course...

Done: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/0#1

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:27pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:07pm: ||Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!? || interesting but highly irrelevant esp since you arnt using CPI-adjusted figures. LOL, Longy...feel free to try to explain your position, by CPI and/or comparing minimum, median and average wages from each of the relevant tax years - but, you will find that: by no objective measure, have the changes in tax thresholds and rates progressively reflected changes in living costs or incomes in Australia, over the past decade or quarter century - FACT!  Those changes have been cynically based on elitist dogma and/or political convenience - FACT! Either way, be sure to also justify same in the equally relevant context, of the Libs' (and Mellie's) confected outrage over post-2007 FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS and DEBT, ta! hard to be 'confected'. howard had zero debt and surplus. Swan has record debt and record deficit. it is really quite clear and indisputable. there may be reasons to explain it but it doesnt change the fact - except for socialists. but back to tax scales... stil waiting for your logical support of the 60% level and where you think it should apply. Quick Hint: place it about $20K above your earning level so you wont be affected and so those you hate will.

Hey, Longy, weren't you on about indexation earlier today - surely that must apply to Federal Debts and Deficits too!?

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:27pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:07pm: ||Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!? || interesting but highly irrelevant esp since you arnt using CPI-adjusted figures. LOL, Longy...feel free to try to explain your position, by CPI and/or comparing minimum, median and average wages from each of the relevant tax years - but, you will find that: by no objective measure, have the changes in tax thresholds and rates progressively reflected changes in living costs or incomes in Australia, over the past decade or quarter century - FACT!  Those changes have been cynically based on elitist dogma and/or political convenience - FACT! Either way, be sure to also justify same in the equally relevant context, of the Libs' (and Mellie's) confected outrage over post-2007 FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS and DEBT, ta! hard to be 'confected'. howard had zero debt and surplus. Swan has record debt and record deficit. it is really quite clear and indisputable. there may be reasons to explain it but it doesnt change the fact - except for socialists. but back to tax scales... stil waiting for your logical support of the 60% level and where you think it should apply. Quick Hint: place it about $20K above your earning level so you wont be affected and so those you hate will. Hey, Longy, weren't you on about indexation earlier today - surely that must apply to Federal Debts and Deficits too!?

absolutely. but i defy you and even your own brand of curious statistics to turn zero debt into anything else using CPI figures.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

||What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?|| what is so RIGHT about it? in an economy that can pay its own way, what is thr purpose? and given that the amount raised by the few people in that income range is not enough to pay for even a small ALP screwed up program what is the point? your argument lacks a genuine reason other than 'coz I want to'. there really need to be a genuine reason for it. Im all for taxes and benefits reflecting our economic circumstances so that soemtiems taxes actually DO need to go up. but you're not talking about that. how about we add your 60% level in but add 5% to everyone else's tax scale? is that ok by you or is it somehoe different because YOU might be affecterd? Your motivation for this is all very obvious and everyone seems to see it but you. make your case. explain why it should happen in the absence of ANY fiscal need.

Valid question.

But don't hang by your neck longweekend, I doubt the leftid will kindly elaborate on this issue for you....

mellie wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:42pm: ||What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?|| what is so RIGHT about it? in an economy that can pay its own way, what is thr purpose? and given that the amount raised by the few people in that income range is not enough to pay for even a small ALP screwed up program what is the point? your argument lacks a genuine reason other than 'coz I want to'. there really need to be a genuine reason for it. Im all for taxes and benefits reflecting our economic circumstances so that soemtiems taxes actually DO need to go up. but you're not talking about that. how about we add your 60% level in but add 5% to everyone else's tax scale? is that ok by you or is it somehoe different because YOU might be affecterd? Your motivation for this is all very obvious and everyone seems to see it but you. make your case. explain why it should happen in the absence of ANY fiscal need. Valid question. But don't hang by your neck longweekend, I doubt the leftid will kindly elaborate on this issue for you....

this has moved to anoher thread so as to avoid answring this difficult question. nemesis usually does it. she waves her extreme socialist ideology in the breeze, justifies none of it with facts or logic then runs away until another time comes around to lamblast anyone with the temerity to do well without living on welfare.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:

mellie wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 4:42pm: ||What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?|| what is so RIGHT about it? in an economy that can pay its own way, what is thr purpose? and given that the amount raised by the few people in that income range is not enough to pay for even a small ALP screwed up program what is the point? your argument lacks a genuine reason other than 'coz I want to'. there really need to be a genuine reason for it. Im all for taxes and benefits reflecting our economic circumstances so that soemtiems taxes actually DO need to go up. but you're not talking about that. how about we add your 60% level in but add 5% to everyone else's tax scale? is that ok by you or is it somehoe different because YOU might be affecterd? Your motivation for this is all very obvious and everyone seems to see it but you. make your case. explain why it should happen in the absence of ANY fiscal need. Valid question. But don't hang by your neck longweekend, I doubt the leftid will kindly elaborate on this issue for you.... this has moved to anoher thread so as to avoid answring this difficult question. nemesis usually does it. she waves her extreme socialist ideology in the breeze, justifies none of it with facts or logic then runs away until another time comes around to lamblast anyone with the temerity to do well without living on welfare.

FFS, Bates, ye and me both know that I have posted a range of economic reports (and pre-digested commentaries) over the past couple of years - and therefore that you are misrepresenting me...

As for you, Mellie, you could make some effort to establish facts, rather than misleadingly parrot dishonest Lib propaganda, ta!

Now, I hereby reiterate that I am I am an 'Egalitarian Greenie' (AKA 'Watermelon'), who is concerned that: we in Australia have been conditioned to become a short-term-thinking global 'growth' economy first and a nation second - and that far too little attention has been paid to maintaining our nation's long-term capacity for self-reliance, socio-economic stability and environmental sustainability.  

In the process, we have been subjected to systematic fearmongering and selective disclosure of facts and fed voodoo economics by shameless partisans and self-interested corporativists. It is time that we started to challenge the 'common sense' that holds the majority of Australians back from equitably sharing in our national prosperity and securing a reasonable future of our descendants.

This is my altruistic agenda - not a class war! However, for obvious reasons, I do see that unbridled elitism is a serious threat to our national prospects for achieving long-term stable and sustainable prosperity - for the benefit of ourselves and our descendants. As Longy admits, the LibLabs have access to the budgetary tools necessary to promote my agenda - but they lack the will and courage to do so.

You 'guys' can call me any names you want, but I would appreciate it, if you would at least try to debate the issues and that you refrain from misrepresenting me. I have enough words of my own, without you making others up and putting them in my mouth, ta!

So, let us get back on topic here and elsewhere, eh!?

Then if you want people to stop abusing you then perhaps you can answer the very questions that people put to you. you tend to reply to every question with some ideological monologue rathe than an actual answer. For example, you have been asked a million times to explain the rationale behind the 60% tax rate you propose and as yet havent even attempted to do so. so answer it rather than just repeating your flagwaving protest rally talk.

Getting back to a previous tangent, these wage statistics overwhelmingly show that private sector employers don't pay as well as some might believe...

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6302.0Main+Features1Feb%202010?OpenDocument#

---

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

Then if you want people to stop abusing you then perhaps you can answer the very questions that people put to you. you tend to reply to every question with some ideological monologue rathe than an actual answer. For example, you have been asked a million times to explain the rationale behind the 60% tax rate you propose and as yet havent even attempted to do so. so answer it rather than just repeating your flagwaving protest rally talk.

Conversely, Longy, I maintain that there was no valid economic nor social reason, for lowering the top rates so dramatically, whilst tinkering so little at the bottom end - and that it would have been both infinitely fairer and more fiscally responsible to push the existing higher rates out to higher thresholds in the first instance (perhaps inserting others in between)...

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 4:46pm:

Getting back to a previous tangent, these wage statistics overwhelmingly show that private sector employers don't pay as well as some might believe... http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6302.0Main+Features1Feb%202010?OpenDocument#

The statistician in me would like to refer you to the fact that it is not a comparison between public and private salaries in the same sector but in the entire economy. think about how many minimum wage manufacturing jobs there are in the public sector or how many low paid occupations are in the public service. now if you want to refine your claim back to the orinal one which is the comparison between TEACHERS inthe public vs private sector, then the argument changes. COMPARABLE job comparisons are what we are looking at - not just an overall picture which distorts the answer to the question you are actually asking.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/20/income_gr.jpg

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 4:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 4:42pm: Then if you want people to stop abusing you then perhaps you can answer the very questions that people put to you. you tend to reply to every question with some ideological monologue rathe than an actual answer. For example, you have been asked a million times to explain the rationale behind the 60% tax rate you propose and as yet havent even attempted to do so. so answer it rather than just repeating your flagwaving protest rally talk. Conversely, Longy, I maintain that there was no valid economic nor social reason, for lowering the top rates so dramatically, whilst tinkering so little at the bottom end - and that it would have been both infinitely fairer and more fiscally responsible to push the existing higher rates out to higher thresholds in the first instance (perhaps inserting others in between)...

That is not a justification for returning back to it. in fact it is rather lame. given that the govt now normally runs a surplus and low to zero debt (GFC excluding) what possible justification is there in increasing income tax when there is no current shortage of income. Ive said that it sounds more lik just tryign tp punishe taxpayers for earning well. how else would you describe it?

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:01pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/20/income_gr.jpg

and even with this top 1% graph it is missin gan important statistic. yes, since 1980 the share of the 'pie' by the average person has dropped slightly. However, the 'pie' is now much,much bigger therefore the wealth of the average person has increased dramatically in the same period. so the question you are posing isnt about poverty vs wealth but the 'problem' that a few have done slightly better than others. that makes the real question an 'envy-based' one rather than a sociological/poverty based one.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:21pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 5:01pm: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/20/income_gr.jpg and even with this top 1% graph it is missin gan important statistic. yes, since 1980 the share of the 'pie' by the average person has dropped slightly. However, the 'pie' is now much,much bigger therefore the wealth of the average person has increased dramatically in the same period. so the question you are posing isnt about poverty vs wealth but the 'problem' that a few have done slightly better than others. that makes the real question an 'envy-based' one rather than a sociological/poverty based one.

Bollox, Longy - you should reconsider your own elitist projecting!

Meantime, I have posted a pertinent article over on the Progressive Taxation thread, an extract of which is below: -


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60


Quote:

Importantly, the tax relief allows the Government to keep to its goal, operating since the GST package, that more than 80 per cent of taxpayers will continue to face a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less. It can also boast that by 2006-07 the top marginal rate will apply to only 3 per cent of taxpayers.

What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or responsible, about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% or less and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate - at the expense of the rest of us - given that the top 3% had already disproportionately benefitted from the boom times and that the majority had already been disproportionately-affected by the regressive GST!?

Ploise exploin why you support such a regressive flattening of our taxation system!?

||What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or or responsible about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate - at the expense of the rest of us - given that the top 3% had already disproportionately benefitted from the boom times!?

Ploise exploin!?

||

you mean apart from the fact that this post is a total lie?? the top 3% of earners pay 47% tax rate which in my schooling was higher than 30%. and if you want to add superannuation into it remeber that the 15% rate is available to EVERYONE.

try again.  

plus you STILL ahvent not rationalised or given even a semblance of logic to your 60% demand other than have a whinge. care to try again on that score as well?

||and even with this top 1% graph it is missin gan important statistic. yes, since 1980 the share of the 'pie' by the average person has dropped slightly. However, the 'pie' is now much,much bigger therefore the wealth of the average person has increased dramatically in the same period. so the question you are posing isnt about poverty vs wealth but the 'problem' that a few have done slightly better than others. that makes the real question an 'envy-based' one rather than a sociological/poverty based one.

Bollox, Longy - you should reconsider your own elitist projecting!
||

you'd have more credibility if you answer the post instead of attacking the messenger. I am an analyst and as such tend to pick holes in junk arguments like you are making. MAKE YOUR CASE!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:42pm:

||What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or or responsible about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate - at the expense of the rest of us - given that the top 3% had already disproportionately benefitted from the boom times!? Ploise exploin!? || you mean apart from the fact that this post is a total lie?? the top 3% of earners pay 47% tax rate which in my schooling was higher than 30%. and if you want to add superannuation into it remeber that the 15% rate is available to EVERYONE. try again.   plus you STILL ahvent not rationalised or given even a semblance of logic to your 60% demand other than have a whinge. care to try again on that score as well?

FFS, Bates, stop being so petty and obtuse!

You know full well that I wasn't suggesting that the top 3% were on a lower marginal tax rate than the other 80% or 97% (although, as I had previously mentioned, this group is also the one that could most readily take advantage of an effective marginal tax rate of 15% under Howard and Costello's effectively-exclusive Superannuation Tax Concessions scam - and that most of that 80% gained no benefit whatsoever from that flat 15% concession!)...

Now...need I remind you, that it is you have been incessantly banging on about the 60% marginal tax rate for the past day or so - and I point out that 47% (or 45%) are in fact dramatically lower than 60%...

||What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or or responsible about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate ||

I wil go with pedantic. exactly how else is someone suppose to interpret what you said above?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:53pm:

||What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or or responsible about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate || I wil go with pedantic. exactly how else is someone suppose to interpret what you said above?

One word, Bates: context!

||Now...need I remind you, that it is you have been incessantly banging on about the 60% marginal tax rate for the past day or so - and I point out that 47% (or 45%) are in fact dramatically lower than 60%...||

I understand your p[roblems with logic - they are all too obvious, but it is YOU who has repeatedly said that the top rate shoudl be 60% and you have not at any stage every constructed a rational or logical argument for it. so far, your total argument is that they 'should' without ever justofying that subjective analysis. now for THE LAST TIME will you attempt to support you absurd envy-based demand or will we all just assume that you are having a baseless whinge?

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 5:53pm: ||What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or or responsible about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate || I wil go with pedantic. exactly how else is someone suppose to interpret what you said above? One word, Bates: context!

wow that was a remarkable comeback - with one major problem. context NEVER waters down a basic factual error. stating that people on a 47% marginal rate pay a lower marginal rate than those on a 30% rate is wrong no matter what context you place it in. and the reason I bring it up again is because it explains most of your inability to form a rational logical argument. if you can claim that 47<30 and even try to defend it then there is not much chance you will make a good argument in defence of more complex statistical concepts.

||You know full well that I wasn't suggesting that the top 3% were on a lower marginal tax rate than the other 80% or 97% (although, as I had previously mentioned, this group is also the one that could most readily take advantage of an effective marginal tax rate of 15% under Howard and Costello's effectively-exclusive Superannuation Tax Concessions scam - and that most of that 80% gained no benefit whatsoever from that flat 15% concession!)...||

except that by your own admission most people are on the 30% rate and also get the 15% rate.  so how do people who get the 15% rate NOT get the 15% rate??

even by your standards your logic failures are epic today.

FFS, Bates - just admit that you had a knee-jerk reaction to my comments, which you would prefer to quote out of context...



PS Hint: check the times on these two related posts by me: -



Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 4:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 4:42pm: Then if you want people to stop abusing you then perhaps you can answer the very questions that people put to you. you tend to reply to every question with some ideological monologue rathe than an actual answer. For example, you have been asked a million times to explain the rationale behind the 60% tax rate you propose and as yet havent even attempted to do so. so answer it rather than just repeating your flagwaving protest rally talk. Conversely, Longy, I maintain that there was no valid economic nor social reason, for lowering the top rates so dramatically, whilst tinkering so little at the bottom end - and that it would have been both infinitely fairer and more fiscally responsible to push the existing higher rates out to higher thresholds in the first instance (perhaps inserting others in between)...

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 5:21pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 5:01pm: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/20/income_gr.jpg and even with this top 1% graph it is missin gan important statistic. yes, since 1980 the share of the 'pie' by the average person has dropped slightly. However, the 'pie' is now much,much bigger therefore the wealth of the average person has increased dramatically in the same period. so the question you are posing isnt about poverty vs wealth but the 'problem' that a few have done slightly better than others. that makes the real question an 'envy-based' one rather than a sociological/poverty based one. Bollox, Longy - you should reconsider your own elitist projecting! Meantime, I have posted a pertinent article over on the Progressive Taxation thread, an extract of which is below: - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60 Quote: Importantly, the tax relief allows the Government to keep to its goal, operating since the GST package, that more than 80 per cent of taxpayers will continue to face a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less. It can also boast that by 2006-07 the top marginal rate will apply to only 3 per cent of taxpayers. What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or responsible, about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% or less and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate - at the expense of the rest of us - given that the top 3% had already disproportionately benefitted from the boom times and that the majority had already been disproportionately-affected by the regressive GST!? Ploise exploin why you support such a regressive flattening of our taxation system!?

Meantime, back on the Progressive Taxation thread: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60#61


Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

Quote: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/ [quote] Taxable income/Tax on this income 1985–86 $0–$4,594 = Nil $35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000 2000-01 $1 - $6,000 = Nil $60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000 2009–10 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 2010–11 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

What's right and wrong with the above trends!?

How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!?

Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts....

How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!?

[/quote]

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:23pm:

FFS, Bates - just admit that you had a knee-jerk reaction to my comments, which you would prefer to quote out of context...

nope. there is just no way you can turn that statement into anything other than just plain wrong. but anyhow... how about justifying the reasons for the 60% tax rate? or how about supporting the 'private teachers eran less than public teachers' argument? or a slew of other statements you have made?

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:24pm:

Meantime, back on the Progressive Taxation thread: - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60#61 Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 6:15pm: Quote: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/ [quote] Taxable income/Tax on this income 1985–86 $0–$4,594 = Nil $35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000 2000-01 $1 - $6,000 = Nil $60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000 2009–10 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 2010–11 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 What's right and wrong with the above trends!? How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!? Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts.... How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!?

[/quote]


Ever heard of the low-income tax rebate which effectively increase the tax free levlt to $10000 or even as high as $17000? This is what happens when you use statistics selectively - you get the wrong answer. also you have neglected to include govt payments which have massively favoured lower income earners (as they should) to the extent that the effective rate of tax for a family is zero until they earn at least $42000. by any standard that indicates a very significant shift to lower income earners.  

so a question for you. do you concede the right for a person to earn more than the average wage? It certainly doesnt seem to sound like it.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:29pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 6:24pm: Meantime, back on the Progressive Taxation thread: - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60#61 Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 6:15pm: Quote: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/ [quote] Taxable income/Tax on this income 1985–86 $0–$4,594 = Nil $35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000 2000-01 $1 - $6,000 = Nil $60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000 2009–10 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 2010–11 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 What's right and wrong with the above trends!? How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!? Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts.... How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!?

Ever heard of the low-income tax rebate which effectively increase the tax free levlt to $10000 or even as high as $17000? This is what happens when you use statistics selectively - you get the wrong answer. also you have neglected to include govt payments which have massively favoured lower income earners (as they should) to the extent that the effective rate of tax for a family is zero until they earn at least $42000. by any standard that indicates a very significant shift to lower income earners.  

so a question for you. do you concede the right for a person to earn more than the average wage? It certainly doesnt seem to sound like it.[/quote]


In terms of disposable incomes, buying capacity and living standards, there is no valid justification for such regressive changes - period!

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 6:29pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 6:24pm: Meantime, back on the Progressive Taxation thread: - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60#61 Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 6:15pm: Quote: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/ [quote] Taxable income/Tax on this income 1985–86 $0–$4,594 = Nil $35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000 2000-01 $1 - $6,000 = Nil $60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000 2009–10 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 2010–11 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 What's right and wrong with the above trends!? How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!? Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts.... How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!? Ever heard of the low-income tax rebate which effectively increase the tax free levlt to $10000 or even as high as $17000? This is what happens when you use statistics selectively - you get the wrong answer. also you have neglected to include govt payments which have massively favoured lower income earners (as they should) to the extent that the effective rate of tax for a family is zero until they earn at least $42000. by any standard that indicates a very significant shift to lower income earners.   so a question for you. do you concede the right for a person to earn more than the average wage? It certainly doesnt seem to sound like it.

In terms of disposable incomes, buying capacity and living standards, there is no valid justification for such regressive changes - period!


[/quote]

nothing more than a banner statement utterly devoid of reason and logic. As a debater you are very disappointing as you have not mounted a logical or rational defence of a single statement you have made. But to debunk the innaccurate statement abover:

1) Disposable incomes are MUCH higher now than in the 80s you long for
2) buying capacity is vastly increased in almost every area except housing - which is a differen issue altogether
3) Living standards are notably higher now than 25 years ago.

so the justification is quite simple. IT WORKED! and on every criteria you specified!

FFS, Longy, affordable accommodation is one of the most crucial and stressful challenges facing the majority of Australians on a daily basis - especially those on below-average incomes!

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

FFS, Longy, affordable accommodation is one of the most crucial and stressful challenges facing the majority of Australians on a daily basis - especially those on below-average incomes!

congratulations. out of that entire rebuttal of your incorrect point of view, you picked up on the ONE thing that has gone backwards in the last 25 years and has nothing whatsover do do with rates of taxation. How about you try and actually SUBSTANTIATE your claims - meaning to substantially support your case not pick and choose a few issues.

so it it the case that Thy refuses to justify her point of view using any actual facts?

THE wealthiest private schools in Australia should disclose income generated from trusts and donations as well as what assets and capital they have on an updated My School website, a leading union has demanded.

Angelo Gavrielatos, the Australian Education Union president, said he wanted the website to publish all current and potential income available to both public and private schools, including private donations and property and financial investments.

He said the total resources at a school's disposal should be known to the wider public, despite a push against publishing this information by the private education sector.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-for-private-schools-to-reveal-all-income-20100728-10w2r.html

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 11:12am:

THE wealthiest private schools in Australia should disclose income generated from trusts and donations as well as what assets and capital they have on an updated My School website, a leading union has demanded. Angelo Gavrielatos, the Australian Education Union president, said he wanted the website to publish all current and potential income available to both public and private schools, including private donations and property and financial investments. He said the total resources at a school's disposal should be known to the wider public, despite a push against publishing this information by the private education sector. http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-for-private-schools-to-reveal-all-income-20100728-10w2r.html

Why should any school, public or private, have to publically publish its financial sources? ANd especially POTENTIAL sources? what is that supposed to mean? but what do you expect from and Education Union official whose primary purpose is to support labor and its own agenda. Education actually failes to get on their agenda.

Even this one imcrook, already 10 pages too.