VICTORIA's richest private schools made profits of up to $14 million last year, with financial reports showing taxpayers contributed more than half of some schools' gains.

The extent of taxpayers' contributions to the surpluses of schools such as Scotch College, Melbourne Grammar and Geelong Grammar is likely to intensify the debate about funding for private schools.

A review of school funding will conclude next year, but Prime Minister Julia Gillard's election pledge guaranteeing the current funding levels for private schools until 2013 means changes could not occur before then.

Ms Gillard's promise drew criticism from public education advocates and the Greens, on whose support she now relies, who want the funding formula overhauled.

Scotch College, which boasts facilities including a diving pool, 18 tennis courts and an observatory, had a profit of $14 million last year.

It received $4.7 million in yearly government grants.

Melbourne Grammar made $8.2 million above its operating costs after receiving $4.5 million in grants, while Geelong Grammar made $10.6 million after receiving $6.3 million in grants.

The schools also generated millions from donations and extra building grants.

Economist Trevor Cobbold, of Save Our Schools, said government funding was meant to keep a lid on fees, but schools were instead reinvesting in their business to drive a cycle of growth and enrichment.

''Instead of grants making schools more affordable, it's making them more elite,'' he said.

Despite large surpluses in 2009, year 12 fees were up 5 per cent at Geelong Grammar to $27,700 in 2010, 4.8 per cent at Scotch to $22,572, and 5 per cent at Melbourne Grammar to $22,380.

But principals said fee rises would be even higher without the benefit of surpluses or government income, which helped fund building, technology and maintenance costs, and kept class sizes small.

They argued their pupils would cost more to government if they were in the public system, and all students were entitled to receive some funding.

''The government has an obligation to ensure that all children obtain a school education,'' Geelong Grammar principal Stephen Meek said in an email. He said that almost all the school's yearly grants were used to fund scholarships.

Philip Grutzner, principal of Carey Baptist Grammar, which received $6 million in government grants, said parents ''made significant sacrifices to send their students here and the grants help keep the costs of educating their children down''.

Scotch College did not reply to interview requests. Melbourne Grammar principal Roy Kelley said its government funding was minimal given its 1800 students and that education costs had risen faster than its fees.

Haileybury said its yearly government contribution of $13.8 million reflected a less-wealthy student cohort, which attracts more funding.

The Sunday Age looked at six schools' financial reports, lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, as a taste of what will be available in December on the My School website to make schools more accountable for their spending.

Public school principal David Adamson, of Essendon Keilor College, said the reports showed how much was possible if funding was redistributed.

''Transfer that federal money to us for one year and we could do so much. My floors are rotten, the window frames are rotten and the floor rocks and rolls as you walk down the corridor,'' he said.

The federal government funds about 80 per cent of regular private school grants, and the state government the remainder.

Federal grants are a complicated hybrid. In 2001, the Howard government amended the system to fund private schools based on the socio-economic status (SES) of students, rather than a school's resources.

But the formula applied only to schools it advantaged, and not those for whom it would reduce funding, a loophole worth $800 million a year.

In 2007, Labor promised to change the system if elected, but instead has guaranteed funding.

''The government is extending privilege to the already privileged,'' said Australian Education Union head Angelo Gavrielatos. ''It is indefensible.''

If you look at this funding for Elite Private Schools which labor did they cant change it till the next review in 2013 or when ever it is up .. Howard put this in place with the next review date of 2013 ... i think it would be sensible to leave it in place as much as possible till then even though the Elites schools rort it ..

This was all brought up when Howard was in and why certain schools got these sorts of amounts Kings College $14 million  , Geelong Grammer $9 million .. this is in 2005 / 2006

Jealous ???

People pay big fees to send their children to private schools, so that their children have the best education.

They pay tax, so their school should recieve funding the same as every one else.

The school doesn't make a profit, the money goes back into facilities

I am certainly not a fan of the private school system, and I would much rather see the money going to public schools.
The disparity between the public and private in regards to resources and facilities is obscene, and all these elite schools should receive zero government funding.
The simple fact is that the few grand per student is neither here nor there for the people who CHOOSE to send their kids to these schools, but if redirected to the public system, it would deliver a marked improvement in facilities for them.

Elite schools are a choice, like elite cars, and we should not subsidise them out of a misguided ideal of fairness, as it is really just high class welfare, and makes as much sense as handing out the equivalent of the dole payment, or pension, to everybody, to be fair, when it should only go to those who need it.

The argument that these schools save us money, is a complete furphy, because the simple fact is that the people that choose to send their kids to private schools, will continue to do so, and if the fees rise from 20k to 22k, then they may need to decide whether to install a few less tennis courts, or manage to curb fee rises, by investing in less elitist infrastructure spending.

If you take note of the wording of the OP, you`ll see slanted individual cases portrayed as average for their group, there are quite a few examples of propaganda like deceptions in this document, if you care to look.  This slanted type of "journalism" was branded by my Father as a "coward`s lie"

mozzaok wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 12:35pm:

I am certainly not a fan of the private school system, and I would much rather see the money going to public schools. The disparity between the public and private in regards to resources and facilities is obscene, and all these elite schools should receive zero government funding. The simple fact is that the few grand per student is neither here nor there for the people who CHOOSE to send their kids to these schools, but if redirected to the public system, it would deliver a marked improvement in facilities for them. Elite schools are a choice, like elite cars, and we should not subsidise them out of a misguided ideal of fairness, as it is really just high class welfare, and makes as much sense as handing out the equivalent of the dole payment, or pension, to everybody, to be fair, when it should only go to those who need it. The argument that these schools save us money, is a complete furphy, because the simple fact is that the people that choose to send their kids to private schools, will continue to do so, and if the fees rise from 20k to 22k, then they may need to decide whether to install a few less tennis courts, or manage to curb fee rises, by investing in less elitist infrastructure spending.

It is the usual garbage reporting that states a handful of schools at the top elitist level ad then hopes the reader will make the absurd assumption that this applies to all private schools. the actual FACTS - something many people actively avoid - is that most private schools are low-fee catholic or christian schools for whom govt sponsorship is ESSENTIAL. parents at these schools are generally not rich at all but rather the people who want to send their kids to a private school and so choose the low-fee ones because that is all; they can afford.

And despite Mozza's protestations, the collapse of the private schooling sector would generate a huge flood of students into the public sector where the govt can spend 50% MORE per student than they currently do. The argument is quite simple and quite clear and using the handful of elite, megarich and uber-exclusive schools to make a point is disingenuous.

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 12:28pm:

They pay tax, so their school should recieve funding the same as every one else.

When this was investigated in 2005 / 2006 under Howard / Costello the same question was asked ...but their is no state school , no independent or catholic school that receives even $1 million in funding under this scheme they get about $200,000 - $300,000 per school ...

So the discrepancy of same funding is very clear because these ELITE schools got 9$ million or $14 million per school all the while charging each of their students $20,000 per year ... When a state school would get next to nothing in fee's let alone multi million handouts it is a disgrace but as said cant be stopped until 2013

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 12:28pm: They pay tax, so their school should recieve funding the same as every one else. When this was investigated in 2005 / 2006 under Howard / Costello the same question was asked ...but their is no state school , no independent or catholic school that receives even $1 million in funding under this scheme they get about $200,000 - $300,000 per school ... So the discrepancy of same funding is very clear because these ELITE schools got 9$ million or $14 million per school all the while charging each of their students $20,000 per year ... When a state school would get next to nothing in fee's let alone multi million handouts it is a disgrace but as said cant be stopped until 2013

The govt funding for private schools is around $7000 per student compared to $10,000 per public school student.  do the maths. if a private school has 200 students then it wil get around $1.4M in govt money. It really IS that simple.

and dont cry poverty on public schools. they get MORE than private schools to do the same job

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 4:14pm:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 4:03pm: Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 12:28pm: They pay tax, so their school should recieve funding the same as every one else. When this was investigated in 2005 / 2006 under Howard / Costello the same question was asked ...but their is no state school , no independent or catholic school that receives even $1 million in funding under this scheme they get about $200,000 - $300,000 per school ... So the discrepancy of same funding is very clear because these ELITE schools got 9$ million or $14 million per school all the while charging each of their students $20,000 per year ... When a state school would get next to nothing in fee's let alone multi million handouts it is a disgrace but as said cant be stopped until 2013 The govt funding for private schools is around $7000 per student compared to $10,000 per public school student.  do the maths. if a private school has 200 students then it wil get around $1.4M in govt money. It really IS that simple. and dont cry poverty on public schools. they get MORE than private schools to do the same job

longy why do you bother     they dont want too understand  :D :D :D :D :D :D

bwood1946 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 4:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 4:14pm: Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 4:03pm: Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 12:28pm: They pay tax, so their school should recieve funding the same as every one else. When this was investigated in 2005 / 2006 under Howard / Costello the same question was asked ...but their is no state school , no independent or catholic school that receives even $1 million in funding under this scheme they get about $200,000 - $300,000 per school ... So the discrepancy of same funding is very clear because these ELITE schools got 9$ million or $14 million per school all the while charging each of their students $20,000 per year ... When a state school would get next to nothing in fee's let alone multi million handouts it is a disgrace but as said cant be stopped until 2013 The govt funding for private schools is around $7000 per student compared to $10,000 per public school student.  do the maths. if a private school has 200 students then it wil get around $1.4M in govt money. It really IS that simple. and dont cry poverty on public schools. they get MORE than private schools to do the same job longy why do you bother     they dont want too understand  :D :D :D :D :D :D

or just as likely, they went to public schools where they learned bike maintenance, political correctness and how to care for their dog while the private schools learned reading, writing, maths and science.

Long it is not the private schools that is the problem it is the ELITE no other schools under the SES scheme received $9 million or $14 million .. this is not the same funding or equal funding it is actually atrociously biased.. Their are plenty of site on the internet if you do not understand why ... just google Elite school funding John Howard...


Quote:

Many elite schools in Sydney and Melbourne now charge fees in excess of $20 000 per year and many have increased their fees by over $10 000 since 2001. Yet these schools continue to receive increasing funding from the Commonwealth Government while levying higher and higher fees. Many get over $4 million a year, with two receiving $12 million and $9 million a year. Geelong Grammar, the most expensive school in Australia, gets nearly $4.5 million. Several get over $3000 a student, despite fees of over $20000.

and this was supposed to be funded on a needs based system what a crock..


Quote:

Schools charging $20 000 and more per student are the preserve of the wealthiest families in Australia. The large fee increases have put elite private schools further beyond the reach of most families, despite claims that the SES funding scheme would put downward pressure on fees. Affordability of these schools has declined significantly for all other households. On average, it declined by 30% in NSW and by 17% in Victoria between 2001 and 2009. These huge fee and government funding increases have delivered a massive resource advantage over government schools. Funding per student available to elite private schools is generally at least double government school expenditure. In the case of Geelong Grammar it is three times as high. The resources available to elite private schools appear to be about double those available to government schools. In NSW, many elite private schools had total funding of $24 000 to over $26 000 per Year 12 student compared in 2009 to $12 035 for government secondary students in 2007-08. In Victoria, many had total funding of between about $22 000 and $24 000 per Year 12 student compared to $10 817 for government secondary students. Geelong Grammar with total funding of $29 993 per Year 12 student had nearly three times the resources of Victorian government schools. Government schools are further disadvantaged because they enrol higher proportions of students with complex learning needs that incur higher costs. Students from low SES families, Indigenous students and students with disabilities comprise a much higher proportion of government school enrolments than they do in elite private schools. As a result, government schools face much higher costs than the elite private schools in meeting student needs. They have far more to do with fewer resources.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:

Long it is not the private schools that is the problem it is the ELITE no other schools under the SES scheme received $9 million or $14 million .. this is not the same funding or equal funding it is actually atrociously biased.. Their are plenty of site on the internet if you do not understand why ... just google Elite school funding John Howard... Quote: Many elite schools in Sydney and Melbourne now charge fees in excess of $20 000 per year and many have increased their fees by over $10 000 since 2001. Yet these schools continue to receive increasing funding from the Commonwealth Government while levying higher and higher fees. Many get over $4 million a year, with two receiving $12 million and $9 million a year. Geelong Grammar, the most expensive school in Australia, gets nearly $4.5 million. Several get over $3000 a student, despite fees of over $20000. and this was supposed to be funded on a needs based system what a crock.. [quote]Schools charging $20 000 and more per student are the preserve of the wealthiest families in Australia. The large fee increases have put elite private schools further beyond the reach of most families, despite claims that the SES funding scheme would put downward pressure on fees. Affordability of these schools has declined significantly for all other households. On average, it declined by 30% in NSW and by 17% in Victoria between 2001 and 2009. These huge fee and government funding increases have delivered a massive resource advantage over government schools. Funding per student available to elite private schools is generally at least double government school expenditure. In the case of Geelong Grammar it is three times as high. The resources available to elite private schools appear to be about double those available to government schools. In NSW, many elite private schools had total funding of $24 000 to over $26 000 per Year 12 student compared in 2009 to $12 035 for government secondary students in 2007-08. In Victoria, many had total funding of between about $22 000 and $24 000 per Year 12 student compared to $10 817 for government secondary students. Geelong Grammar with total funding of $29 993 per Year 12 student had nearly three times the resources of Victorian government schools. Government schools are further disadvantaged because they enrol higher proportions of students with complex learning needs that incur higher costs. Students from low SES families, Indigenous students and students with disabilities comprise a much higher proportion of government school enrolments than they do in elite private schools. As a result, government schools face much higher costs than the elite private schools in meeting student needs. They have far more to do with fewer resources.

[/quote]

If you believe it is about ELITE schools - about 20 in the country then make the thread about them - not include all private schools in the argument. And even then the argument will be - and fairly so - that wealth or lack of it shoudl not qualify or disqualify ANY student from govt funding.

i had written ELITE in all posts if i have to bold make it size 16 font so people understand i cant help that ... and yes these schools should not be allowed any funding from the government at all under the needs based scheme like the SES..

They charge 20,000 per year , per student  which is more then enough to cover costs this was supposed to help keep costs down but they have doubled....on top of fees they get very generous funding from the private sector that state schools do not ... they do not need or want for anything yet the state schools are falling apart...

This isn't fair , this isn't equal  but not much can be doe tillthe next review in 2013

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

i had written ELITE in all posts if i have to bold make it size 16 font so people understand i cant help that ... and yes these schools should not be allowed any funding from the government at all under the needs based scheme like the SES.. They charge 20,000 per year , per student  which is more then enough to cover costs this was supposed to help keep costs down but they have doubled....on top of fees they get very generous funding from the private sector that state schools do not ... they do not need or want for anything yet the state schools are falling apart... This isn't fair , this isn't equal  but not much can be doe tillthe next review in 2013

The argument goes that govt support for education should exist for ALL schools on apro-rata basis. it is equitable and fair. Means-testing has its place, but not for fundamentals or for everything. effectively penalising people for the temerity to be wealthy are the actions of a mean-spirited, spiteful and intrinsically poverty-minded government. Like it or not, the wealthy pay far more in taxes than the rest of us while receiving vastly less in benefits. in a country as rich as ours, penalising them further seems particularly nasty.

Quote:

it is equitable and fair.

-longy

Ever noticed that right wingers only ever use the terms, "equitable and fair", when referring to middle and high class government welfare?

The ridiculous argument that taking funding away from the richest schools would cause a flood of Sebastians, and Samanthas into the public system is the most preposterous idea that these defenders of high class welfare call upon, and if any of them really believe that the parents who send their kids to these schools would send them to the local high school if Geelong Grammar raised its fees, you can tell "em they're dreamin'.

The fact that they believe that entrenching wealth to a minority by propping up institutions of elitist privilege is fair and equitable shows just how little concept they hold of the real meaning of those terms.

I'm hoping people here are joking when they say that children who attend private schools are less deserving of support than children who attend public schools.

What kind of people discriminate against children according to the school they attend?

it is not equitable and fair when these schools are getting 3 , 4 , 10 x times the amount of funding that any state , private or independent school gets.. some cant afford the extortion of fees that is charged so have no option but to send to a state school .. does this mean these schools don't deserve the same level of funds  .. imagine what each school could do with $9 million ...

no one is saying that these kids don't deserve it but the argument goes the other way as well .. if the parents can afford $20,000 per year good on them but dot expect the state school system to suffer because of it either ...equitable and fair you say i cant see that in the current funding state neither can anyone who reads the reports

deepthought wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 8:53pm:

I'm hoping people here are joking when they say that children who attend private schools are less deserving of support than children who attend public schools. What kind of people discriminate against children according to the school they attend?

That would be the despicably elitist-cum-draconian Howardian Era Libs - and their supporters!

Equitist wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:46pm:

deepthought wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 8:53pm: I'm hoping people here are joking when they say that children who attend private schools are less deserving of support than children who attend public schools. What kind of people discriminate against children according to the school they attend? That would be the despicably elitist-cum-draconian Howardian Era Libs - and their supporters!

How so?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:

it is not equitable and fair when these schools are getting 3 , 4 , 10 x times the amount of funding that any state , private or independent school gets.. some cant afford the extortion of fees that is charged so have no option but to send to a state school .. does this mean these schools don't deserve the same level of funds  .. imagine what each school could do with $9 million ... no one is saying that these kids don't deserve it but the argument goes the other way as well .. if the parents can afford $20,000 per year good on them but dot expect the state school system to suffer because of it either ...equitable and fair you say i cant see that in the current funding state neither can anyone who reads the reports

Are you talking about total funding to schools?   Or just federal funding?

Has anyone noticed how the private religious schools have all jumped on the labor BER scam and upgraded their schools. They couldn't get the freebies quick enough. They were quicker than a rat up a drain pipe to grab the handouts ;)

only the FEDERAL funding under the SES scheme but even if you included state funding in every shape or form no one state school would get $9 million on their own

Parents who send their kids to private schools are opting-out of the state public education system.

People who use private motor vehicles are opting-out of the state public transport system.

So, who proposes that the Federal Govt should disproportionately-subsidise those who choose to drive private motor vehicles, by way of large non-means-tested and effectively-exclusive cash hand-outs!?

wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:39am:

Scotch College, which boasts facilities including a diving pool, 18 tennis courts and an observatory, had a profit of $14 million last year. It received $4.7 million in yearly government grants.

* Diving pool

* 18 tennis courts - 18!

* Observatory

* Profit of $14 million in a single year

* $4.7 million in annual Govt grants

Obscene!

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:59pm:

only the FEDERAL funding under the SES scheme but even if you included state funding in every shape or form no one state school would get $9 million on their own

Schools are paid per student, you do realise that I trust.  The total is irrelevant as it is apportioned according to the number of students attending the school.

Where do your figures come from?

Equitist wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:06pm:

Parents who send their kids to private schools are opting-out of the state public education system. People who use private motor vehicles are opting-out of the state public transport system. So, who proposes that the Federal Govt should disproportionately-subsidise those who choose to drive private motor vehicles, by way of large non-means-tested and effectively-exclusive cash hand-outs!?

Are you proposing that children who attend private schools be discriminated against?

Equitist wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:11pm:

wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 11:39am: Scotch College, which boasts facilities including a diving pool, 18 tennis courts and an observatory, had a profit of $14 million last year. It received $4.7 million in yearly government grants. * Diving pool * 18 tennis courts - 18! * Observatory * Profit of $14 million in a single year * $4.7 million in annual Govt grants Obscene!

Obscene?

I'm quite amazed.

I had no idea people like you existed.  This thread is a real eye opener.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:

Has anyone noticed how the private religious schools have all jumped on the labor BER scam and upgraded their schools. They couldn't get the freebies quick enough. They were quicker than a rat up a drain pipe to grab the handouts ;)

Weren't the funds offered to all schools?

deepthought you can find them just google Elite school funding John Howard ..... SES school funding  the problem being this cant be changed until 2012  / 2013 when it is next up for review ..

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199222091.html

http://www.saveourschools.com.au/funding/government-funding-of-elite-private-schools-is-an-upper-class-welfare-policy

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:25pm:

deepthought found them just google Elite school funding John Howard ..... SES school funding

You're not willing to provide the source for the figures you are relying on?

posted above i cant post every link as their are hundreds going back to 2001 when johnny started this

mozzaok wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 8:24pm:

Quote: it is equitable and fair. -longy Ever noticed that right wingers only ever use the terms, "equitable and fair", when referring to middle and high class government welfare? The ridiculous argument that taking funding away from the richest schools would cause a flood of Sebastians, and Samanthas into the public system is the most preposterous idea that these defenders of high class welfare call upon, and if any of them really believe that the parents who send their kids to these schools would send them to the local high school if Geelong Grammar raised its fees, you can tell "em they're dreamin'. The fact that they believe that entrenching wealth to a minority by propping up institutions of elitist privilege is fair and equitable shows just how little concept they hold of the real meaning of those terms.

Ever realise that leftwingers describe 'equitable and fair' as taking from those who earn it and giving it to those that dont but abusing them for being well-off at the same time? Do you realise why people mock lefties? Its because you are so often the under-performing, over-complaining non-achievers that protest about the successful in our society and demand that they be brought down to your level rather than aspiring to rise to theirs. Or in short - LOSERS.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:59pm:

only the FEDERAL funding under the SES scheme but even if you included state funding in every shape or form no one state school would get $9 million on their own

it probably did not occur to you or the alarmist writer of the original OP that the funding maye have include tied-grants to particularly building projects - just as any and all schools get in addition to their per-student fees. My kids school - a very small school got over $1M for just this kind of project in addition to their regular funding.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:33pm:

posted above i cant post every link as their are hundreds going back to 2001 when johnny started this

OK.

In order to understand the equability of this you need to understand enrolment numbers too.

Have you established them?

What exactly is it you are opposed to?  The SES model?

Incidentally there is nothing stopping the GALP from changing the model for funding.  Jules committed to it just recently though.

i didn't realise this quote from crikey rings so true about you comments on other voters .


Quote:

The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in.

Equitist wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:11pm:

wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 11:39am: Scotch College, which boasts facilities including a diving pool, 18 tennis courts and an observatory, had a profit of $14 million last year. It received $4.7 million in yearly government grants. * Diving pool * 18 tennis courts - 18! * Observatory * Profit of $14 million in a single year * $4.7 million in annual Govt grants Obscene!

I live near the school. The school body is very active and raises a lot of its own funds - most in fact. and being around for 100+ years tends to help such matters. And as a non-profit orangisation it does not make a profit at all. any surplus over expenditure is put back into the school.

Equitist wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:06pm:

Parents who send their kids to private schools are opting-out of the state public education system. People who use private motor vehicles are opting-out of the state public transport system. So, who proposes that the Federal Govt should disproportionately-subsidise those who choose to drive private motor vehicles, by way of large non-means-tested and effectively-exclusive cash hand-outs!?

The difference is more than a little obvious. People dont 'opt out' of public transport. they 'opt-in' rather than do what the vast majority do which is to own their own car. We dont have the soviet model which is public-owned everything.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:41pm:

i didn't realise this quote from crikey rings so true about you comments on other voters . Quote: The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in.

Are you looking at Equitist?  Because I think you will find he is a lefty.

His envy and bitter hatred of private school children is amazing.  I have never seen such angry discrimination and had no idea people like that existed.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:41pm:

i didn't realise this quote from crikey rings so true about you comments on other voters . Quote: The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in.

Do you want me to say that the Labor party has a profoundly successful ability to attract criminals, rapists and child sex offenders? Because by any calculation, the long, long list of Labor MPs who are or have been in jail on very serious offences should be an acute embarrassment to all labor supporters. And I dont need to write an opinion peice and vent my bile and partisanship like this discredited crikey writer. I only need to quote the court statistics and the prisoner population figures. so how many ALP pollies are in jail for sex crimes against children????

and you dare to talk about Liberals and their supporters with a (literal) record like that!!!

deepthought wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:40pm:

OK. In order to understand the equability of this you need to understand enrolment numbers too. Have you established them? What exactly is it you are opposed to?  The SES model? Incidentally there is nothing stopping the GALP from changing the model for funding.  Jules committed to it just recently though.

Their was something Howard put in place that stops the SES in 2012 until then it cant be amended from what little i have read ...

I don't think enrollment numbers would matter when you compare $300,000 which was ave state school funding to $9 million

The SES is supposed to be based on socio economic status but the rich seem to be getter the better deal double  , triple that of the state schools and are not as disadvantaged as other schools .. the model is flawed ...


Quote:

Government schools are further disadvantaged because they enrol higher proportions of students with complex learning needs that incur higher costs. Students from low SES families, Indigenous students and students with disabilities comprise a much higher proportion of government school enrolments than they do in elite private schools. As a result, government schools face much higher costs than the elite private schools in meeting student needs. They have far more to do with fewer resources. It was claimed that the SES funding model would direct government funding according to need. However, it has conspicuously failed in this regard. Rather than being a “needs-based‟ scheme, it is an upper class welfare scheme.

deepthought wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:45pm:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 10:41pm: i didn't realise this quote from crikey rings so true about you comments on other voters . Quote: The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in. Are you looking at Equitist?  Because I think you will find he is a lefty. His envy and bitter hatred of private school children is amazing.  I have never seen such angry discrimination and had no idea people like that existed.

ACtually, equitist is a woman. and calling her a leftie is quite generous. she is way, way left of the Greens and occupies a portion of the political spectrum formally inhabited by Stalin. an extreme leftie that hates wealth, private enterprise and the right to private ownership. And thats her generous side!

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:49pm:

deepthought wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 10:40pm: OK. In order to understand the equability of this you need to understand enrolment numbers too. Have you established them? What exactly is it you are opposed to?  The SES model? Incidentally there is nothing stopping the GALP from changing the model for funding.  Jules committed to it just recently though. Their was something Howard put in place that stops the SES in 2012 until then it cant be amended from what little i have read ... I don't think enrollment numbers would matter when you compare $300,000 which was ave state school funding to $9 million The SES is supposed to be based on socio economic status but the rich seem to be getter the better deal double  , triple that of the state schools and are not as disadvantaged as other schools .. the model is flawed ...

A) it can be amended. it is only legislation after all
B) so you want to compare AVERAGE public school support (which is wrong anyhow) to PEAK private school funding? public school funding is $10000 per child. does the average public school only have 30 kids?

OK, I just had a look at Geelong Grammar's website (as an example).  They have an enrolment number of 1500 students.

According to the article the first poster put up they received $6.3 million in grants.

That equates to $4200 per student.

I'm guessing that you dudes know that a state school student costs about three times that amount?

You ought to be thanking Geelong Grammar for saving taxpayers cash instead of spitting hatred.

deepthought wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:51pm:

OK, I just had a look at Geelong Grammar's website (as an example).  They have an enrolment number of 1500 students. According to the article the first poster put up they received $6.3 million in grants. That equates to $4200 per student. I'm guessing that you dudes know that a state school student costs about three times that amount? You ought to be thanking Geelong Grammar for saving taxpayers cash.

This will confuse them greatly because they are FACTS and they like to deal with preconceptions and emotions.  It is much easier to abuse those who are doing well than to seek to emulate them. It is much easier to stay on the dole than to seek to become a successful business owner. And so the cycle continues and those who complain stay poor while those who work hard get rich. Guess who the anti-private school people on here are???

here is a chart i am trying to find the figure i saw the other day showing state school funding per year it is a lot less then you think.. 33 % compared to 68 %

http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjMOrrpbiFadHBd2gVlBlsTjeGzyTWO8ZhKI4HU3ORAzi9mkCmhEDU6SJ0RT0pkeaOS4n8XzoW-mzVJ2XjmWvbCao9eCPRmiTQZceM00JiPT6dewl19ujF7bZaFXs4uoTt42Qvk&q=cache%3AlmGccTVGHTAJ%3Awww.aeufederal.org.au%2FMedia%2FSpeeches%2FRobAustOpin230104.pdf%20elite%20school%20funding%20Howard&docid=d50ccb38802fccca2f86028d8509b04e&a=bi&pagenumber=3&w=827

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:58pm:

This will confuse them greatly because they are FACTS and they like to deal with preconceptions and emotions.  It is much easier to abuse those who are doing well than to seek to emulate them. It is much easier to stay on the dole than to seek to become a successful business owner. And so the cycle continues and those who complain stay poor while those who work hard get rich. Guess who the anti-private school people on here are???

Yes, I apologise for introducing reality into the fantasy.

But I thought everyone knew that, on average, private school children cost about half as much (to the taxpayer) as a state school student.

The reality is the parents of private school children do not get value for money.

But that is the choice they make.  I for one would like to see greater fairness in funding.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:59pm:

here is a chart i am trying to find the figure i saw the other day showing state school funding per year it is a lot less then you think.. 33 % compared to 68 % http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjMOrrpbiFadHBd2gVlBlsTjeGzyTWO8ZhKI4HU3ORAzi9mkCmhEDU6SJ0RT0pkeaOS4n8XzoW-mzVJ2XjmWvbCao9eCPRmiTQZceM00JiPT6dewl19ujF7bZaFXs4uoTt42Qvk&q=cache%3AlmGccTVGHTAJ%3Awww.aeufederal.org.au%2FMedia%2FSpeeches%2FRobAustOpin230104.pdf%20elite%20school%20funding%20Howard&docid=d50ccb38802fccca2f86028d8509b04e&a=bi&pagenumber=3&w=827

Chart didnt work but IM sure I know what it is. it is a chart of FEDERAL govt only funding probably from the education UNion who love to misrepresent facts almost as much as they love stalinism. you have to add state govt funding into the mix which is where you get the actual fact that public schools are funded 30% HIGHER than private schools - which is inequitable and provate funding should be increase 30% IMMEDIATELY!

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:59pm:

here is a chart i am trying to find the figure i saw the other day showing state school funding per year it is a lot less then you think.. 33 % compared to 68 %

You are quoting only federal funding (though your figures are not quite accurate).

The model for federal funding of private schools and state government funding of government schools was introduced by a Labor Government - Whitlam's if I recall.

The total funding is disproportionately in favour of state schools.

the reality is they choose to send them to a private school , they choose to pay the schools fees , the school chooses to run in the private sector and use these fees for what ever .. hence why would you ask for government funding if private ... private business cant ..

but that isn't the point i don't begrudge the funding to private , catholic , independent  and state and this is only about ELITE and as the chart above shows the SES funding is screwed

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:10pm:

the reality is they choose to send them to a private school , they choose to pay the schools fees , the school chooses to run in the private sector and use these fees for what ever .. hence why would you ask for government funding if private ... private business cant .. but that isn't the point i don't begrudge the funding to private , catholic , independent  and state and this is only about ELITE and as the chart above shows the SES funding is screwed

as was amply shown, Geelong Grammars funding was below the average for private schools. so what was your problem again?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:10pm:

the reality is they choose to send them to a private school , they choose to pay the schools fees , the school chooses to run in the private sector and use these fees for what ever .. hence why would you ask for government funding if private ... private business cant .. but that isn't the point i don't begrudge the funding to private , catholic , independent  and state and this is only about ELITE and as the chart above shows the SES funding is screwed

Education is one of the services provided by government.

Are you proposing that taxpayers can opt out of paying taxes if they opt out of using the services?

deepthought wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:12pm:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 11:10pm: the reality is they choose to send them to a private school , they choose to pay the schools fees , the school chooses to run in the private sector and use these fees for what ever .. hence why would you ask for government funding if private ... private business cant .. but that isn't the point i don't begrudge the funding to private , catholic , independent  and state and this is only about ELITE and as the chart above shows the SES funding is screwed Education is one of the services provided by government. Are you proposing that taxpayers can opt out of paying taxes if they opt out of using the services?

This is an old and on-going argument. I maintain that very little of the anti-private school arguments are based on principle. Most are nothing more than greed and envy masquerading as protest. The voices of the under-acheiver shouting at those who are doing better. Rather than complain, we should aim to make ourselves successful enough so that our kids can attend these schools - or not. But let it be our choice and not because we cant afford it.

no i propose if the school is elitist and does not require funding for the 18th oval they are not funded ,, other schools cant even afford air conditioning in hot summers of QLD

State school funding for 2006 / 2007 for all of Australia totaled $22 odd million plus the $300,000 or so from federal doesn't even come close

QLD : 4.3 Million
NSW : 7.5 Million
VIC : 4.7 Million

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:21pm:

no i propose if the school is elitist and does not require funding for the 18th oval they are not funded ,, other schools cant even afford air conditioning in hot summers of QLD State school funding for 2006 / 2007 for all of Australia totaled $22 odd million plus the $300,000 or so from federal doesn't even come close QLD : 4.3 Million NSW : 7.5 Million VIC : 4.7 Million

Try again... or do you really want us to believe that the ENTIRE nationwide state govt education funding was $22MILLION?

they are the figures i can see ..

Surely, folks, the primary role of governments in education, ought to be to: overcome the relative socio-economic advantages and disadvantages experienced by children by accident of birth - rather than to reinforce or exacerbate the polarisation!?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:28pm:

they are the figures i can see ..

Then your credibility just fell thru the floor. exactly how many TEACHERS do you think you can emply for $22M? about 250. nation wide. perhaps you might want to get your figures a bit more accurate.

Equitist wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:32pm:

Surely, folks, the primary role of governments in education, ought to be to: overcome the relative socio-economic advantages and disadvantages experienced by children by accident of birth - rather than to reinforce or exacerbate the polarisation!?

Silly me... I thought the purpose of education was... AN EDUCATION.

kind of explains a lot, dont it!

Here is an old article - which aptly predicts the increased polarisation...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/more-privilege-for-the-privileged/2007/05/22/1179601409350.html


Quote:

More privilege for the privileged Ross Gittins May 23, 2007 It's amazing what the onset of an election does to lift the performance of a government, particularly if its opponents are looking in any degree competitive. Consider our discovery - just since the budget - that John Howard is our Great Education Prime Minister. That's funny because, until he set us straight, I'd have said the one thing Howard wasn't on about was education. Not at any level - school, vocational education and training, or university. In fairness, the state governments haven't been much better. But I certainly hadn't noticed the feds setting them a good example. Education is one area where Australia's spent the past decade resting on its laurels. In the case of schools, Howard's greatest achievement has been to bias federal grants heavily in favour of private schools - particularly the least needy. Consider this comparison from Making Federalism Work for Schools, a report prepared by Lyndsay Connors for the NSW Public Education Alliance. In 1974, when the Whitlam government brought the Commonwealth into school funding in a significant way, about 70 per cent of its grants went to government schools and 27 per cent to private schools (with the remainder going on joint programs). This was roughly in line with the two sectors' shares of enrolments. Today, the budget shows public schools getting 31 per cent of the money while the private schools get 69 per cent. But public schools still have two-thirds of the enrolments. Mainly because of Commonwealth grants, funding for non-government schools is growing at three times the rate of spending on public schools, which is far in excess of the growth in the private sector's share of enrolments. Only about 13 per cent of students attend independent non-government schools (as opposed to Catholic systemic schools), which is less than a fifth the number of students at public schools. But the Commonwealth now spends more on that 13 per cent than it does on students at public schools. Get this: the minimum grant per student paid to private schools ranked as the least needy is now far higher than the grant per student paid to public schools. This is the "education revolution" no one wants to talk about. The feds are quietly moving to a position where they look after the private schools and leave the public schools to the states. In 2004-05, governments at both levels spent about $31 billion on the recurrent operations of all schools. Of this, the states spent more than three times what the feds spent: $24 billion versus $7 billion. But whereas the state and territory governments devoted only 7 per cent of their spending to private schools, the feds devoted more than 69 per cent of their spending to private schools. To put it another way, government schools get 9 per cent of their recurrent funds from the Commonwealth, whereas non-government schools get 73 per cent of their recurrent spending grants from the Commonwealth. The trouble with this is that it's the feds who've got all the money. The Commonwealth raises 80 per cent of the taxation, but does only 54 per cent of government spending. The states raise 16 per cent of the taxation, but do about 40 per cent of the spending. Australia is the only country where the provision of public funding for private schools is the dominant function of the national government - and constitutes the largest item in its education budget. The independent schools are now the fastest growing sector. And, relative to need, they do best. One study found that 27 per cent of the students in independent schools attended schools where just the money from school fees paid by parents exceeded the average resources per student in public schools. In 2004 these schools received $368 million a year in government grants, which helped to raise their total resources per student to more than 62 per cent above the average resources per student in public schools. In other words, the Howard Government has changed its private school funding formula in such a way as to increase the privilege of the privileged private schools. Overall, 55 per cent of students at independent schools attend schools where the total resources per student are higher than they are for public schools. But that means 45 per cent of students at independent schools attend schools where total resources per student are lower than they are for public schools. These are safe to include the more recently established Anglican and evangelical Christian independent schools in outer suburbs, where parents can't afford to pay all that much in the way of school fees. So Howard has changed the Commonwealth's grants to private schools in a way that's discriminatory even among the independent schools. But don't say he doesn't follow biblical principles - to whoever hath, it shall be given. How did he manage to put such a regressive bias into grants to independent schools? Paradoxically, by switching to a funding formula based on the average socioeconomic status of people in the suburb or town each of an independent school's parents came from - but adding a rule that no school's grant would be reduced under the new arrangement. ...

Quote:

So Howard has changed the Commonwealth's grants to private schools in a way that's discriminatory even among the independent schools. But don't say he doesn't follow biblical principles - to whoever hath, it shall be given. How did he manage to put such a regressive bias into grants to independent schools? Paradoxically, by switching to a funding formula based on the average socioeconomic status of people in the suburb or town each of an independent school's parents came from - but adding a rule that no school's grant would be reduced under the new arrangement. In other words, the new formula could make an independent school better off but not worse off. This threw up many anomalies, with huge increases in grants going to some privileged schools (including one my son had gone to) patronised by parents who tended to be among the best-off people in not-well-off suburbs or towns. Another odd feature of all this is that Howard has not imposed anything much in the way of conditions on the big grants he's paying to private schools. What they do choose to do - such as continuing to impose hefty annual fee increases on their parents - is up to them. By contrast, he and his minister are always coming up with new conditions they want to impose on public schools, and always threatening to withhold grants if the states fail to comply. You get the feeling his bias is as much anti-public as it is pro-private.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/more-privilege-for-the-privileged/2007/05/22/1179601409350.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

This argument is always the same and I repeat that those who complain about the successes of others are essentially condeming themseves to failure and poverty. Rather than criticising, I want to be successful and prosperous and I will see what they do that is right and emulate it. That is why I am successful. The self-made successes are those that didnt whinge or complain about the wealth of others but worked hard and did something about their situations. You can complain, whinge and moan and create all these arguments that you think are truly amazing but when it is all finished, success comes to those that strive hard. The rest look for excuses.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:35pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 11:32pm: Surely, folks, the primary role of governments in education, ought to be to: overcome the relative socio-economic advantages and disadvantages experienced by children by accident of birth - rather than to reinforce or exacerbate the polarisation!? Silly me... I thought the purpose of education was... AN EDUCATION. kind of explains a lot, dont it!

Stop being so obtuse, Bates - you know what I'm getting at! Moreover, if you were half as good a Xtian as you purport to be, then you would admit that such is the fair and proper thing to do!

How ironic, that the overseeing architect, of the present elitist private funding scheme (and one of your heroes), once gave lip service to the phrase: "Little Children are sacred", eh!? Especially since he was personally responsible for the grossly disproportionate neglect of the education of the very same children that he was referring to as "sacred"...

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:46pm:

This argument is always the same and I repeat that those who complain about the successes of others are essentially condeming themseves to failure and poverty. Rather than criticising, I want to be successful and prosperous and I will see what they do that is right and emulate it. That is why I am successful. The self-made successes are those that didnt whinge or complain about the wealth of others but worked hard and did something about their situations. You can complain, whinge and moan and create all these arguments that you think are truly amazing but when it is all finished, success comes to those that strive hard. The rest look for excuses.

FFS, Bates, where do you get off...advocating a grossly-unlevel lifetime playing field and then blaming the systemically-under-privileged and neglected for failing to overcome compounding disadvantages and barriers from early childhood onwards!?

I don't think government funding should go directly to the schools but rather to parents in the form of vouchers. That way it's more like a real market where one school competes with another for the parents' vouchers, and theoretically the better school wins.

Equitist wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:32pm:

Surely, folks, the primary role of governments in education, ought to be to: overcome the relative socio-economic advantages and disadvantages experienced by children by accident of birth - rather than to reinforce or exacerbate the polarisation!?

Governments do not, nor should not engage in social engineering, at least not in a democratic country like our own.

The primary role of government in education is to ensure every child has access to one.

And the current model does exactly that.

The only correct and proper argument regarding the education of Australia's children is outcomes.

On average, throughout the country, private schools have a better academic record.

On average throughout the country, private school students cost taxpayers about half what a state school student costs.

That private schools offer different facilities, or different length swimming pools is irrelevant as far as your argument about education is concerned.  

What is best for a child should be a decision for a parent to make.  Not a decision that should be made by the bitter and envious peering over the school fence shouting 'obscene' while attempting to drag everyone down to their level.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:21pm:

no i propose if the school is elitist and does not require funding for the 18th oval they are not funded ,, other schools cant even afford air conditioning in hot summers of QLD State school funding for 2006 / 2007 for all of Australia totaled $22 odd million plus the $300,000 or so from federal doesn't even come close QLD : 4.3 Million NSW : 7.5 Million VIC : 4.7 Million

It is many billions of dollars.

Over 36 billion dollars in 2007/8 with nearly 80% of that going to state schools.

In terms of cost private school students do not get anywhere near the taxpayer contribution that a state school student receives.

That is indisputable fact so the only argument here seems to be that of the envy of those who have greater resources to top up the taxpayers contribution because they choose to for the sake of their child.

There is an awful lot of misinformation in this thread.

I hope it is not intentional.

Quote:

Over 36 billion dollars in 2007/8 with nearly 80% of that going to state schools.

Where did you get that rubbery percentage from? If this was the true then the private schools wouldn't be throwing such a tantrum. Private schools receive $27 billion pa in funding.

It has nothing to do with bitterness and envy - only fairness. Considering government schools are teaching two-thirds of all students nationwide, by 2012 it will receive just 36 per cent of federal education funds.

There is no equity in this and unfortunately the Labor government has committed itself to continue this funding.


Quote:

This system is so flawed that private schools are given huge increases every year regardless of their wealth or income while public schools are being denied the chance to expand the educational opportunities of student," he said. "True equity in education can only exist when government schools set the standard for high quality education

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:46pm:

This argument is always the same and I repeat that those who complain about the successes of others are essentially condeming themseves to failure and poverty. .

No one is complaining about the success of others and you do not even know the status of other here , work wise or financial wise ... We are just pointing out the Liberal elitist mentality when it comes to funding of our schools ...

If you think 66% of the funding compared to 36% of the school funding share is fair when we have some state schools needing new buildings , repairing of the old buildings , air con , halls or libraries , computers plus other resources .... alongside the elitist schools that can only spend the government money on a 18th oval because they want for nothing you are the one who needs a slap back into reality..

When they have everything you can think  of and need for nothing at all plus some get huge private sector funding on top of the exorbitant school fee's of 20,000 + per year .. They do not deserve this level or any level of funds .. We really need to get the other schools up to modern day standards both building and resources wise before these elitist schools get their 18th oval    

mantra wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 5:52am:

Quote: Over 36 billion dollars in 2007/8 with nearly 80% of that going to state schools. Where did you get that rubbery percentage from? If this was the true then the private schools wouldn't be throwing such a tantrum. Private schools receive $27 billion pa in funding. It has nothing to do with bitterness and envy - only fairness. Considering government schools are teaching two-thirds of all students nationwide, by 2012 it will receive just 36 per cent of federal education funds. There is no equity in this and unfortunately the Labor government has committed itself to continue this funding. [quote]This system is so flawed that private schools are given huge increases every year regardless of their wealth or income while public schools are being denied the chance to expand the educational opportunities of student," he said. "True equity in education can only exist when government schools set the standard for high quality education

[/quote]

The figures come direct from the source.

The Federal Government's 2010 Report on Government Services.



Quote:

Australian, State and Territory government recurrent expenditure on school education was $36.4 billion in 2007-08 (table 4.1). Expenditure on government schools was $28.8 billion, or 79.0 per cent of the total.

And as there is such a massive discrepancy you may care to reveal the source of your rubbery figure.

mantra wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 5:52am:

[quote] It has nothing to do with bitterness and envy - only fairness. Considering government schools are teaching two-thirds of all students nationwide, by 2012 it will receive just 36 per cent of federal education funds. There is no equity in this and unfortunately the Labor government has committed itself to continue this funding.

Is it fair that some students, according to the decision of their parents to send them to a particular school, receive about half what other students receive in taxpayer support?

How would it be that if you decided to drive a particular kind of car you had to pay twice as much for petrol (as an example)?  Fairness?  Or discrimination?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 7:38am:

No one is complaining about the success of others and you do not even know the status of other here , work wise or financial wise ... We are just pointing out the Liberal elitist mentality when it comes to funding of our schools ... If you think 66% of the funding compared to 36% of the school funding share is fair when we have some state schools needing new buildings , repairing of the old buildings , air con , halls or libraries , computers plus other resources .... alongside the elitist schools that can only spend the government money on a 18th oval because they want for nothing you are the one who needs a slap back into reality.. When they have everything you can think  of and need for nothing at all plus some get huge private sector funding on top of the exorbitant school fee's of 20,000 + per year .. They do not deserve this level or any level of funds .. We really need to get the other schools up to modern day standards both building and resources wise before these elitist schools get their 18th oval

Are you suggesting that some taxpayers receive nothing at all for their contribution and why do you actively discriminate against their children so?

deepthought wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 9:14am:

Are you suggesting that some taxpayers receive nothing at all for their contribution and why do you actively discriminate against their children so?

Their tax dollars you say if some even pay taxes ... I mean some of these can be earning 10 x more then me yet pay the same amount of tax what a crock .. They can see their tax dollars in road , rail and other areas ..

It is Socio Economic based setup eg...needs based and was supposed to bring down the high fee's which haven't happened .. RORT at the best by these schools and these elite schools do not require these funds which is clearly evident by the private funding they get on top of the fee's they charge and alongside  the 10 swimming pools , the 18 ovals etc... As pointed out in a post some of these schools make profit 4.7 million in a year ..

Is it right for these schools to get this massive funding when other schools cant even afford to build a school hall , or a class room ..

It is a needs based system they do not need for anything as they have it all plus more so therefore by definition they do not qualify

Equitist wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 11:46pm: This argument is always the same and I repeat that those who complain about the successes of others are essentially condeming themseves to failure and poverty. Rather than criticising, I want to be successful and prosperous and I will see what they do that is right and emulate it. That is why I am successful. The self-made successes are those that didnt whinge or complain about the wealth of others but worked hard and did something about their situations. You can complain, whinge and moan and create all these arguments that you think are truly amazing but when it is all finished, success comes to those that strive hard. The rest look for excuses. FFS, Bates, where do you get off...advocating a grossly-unlevel lifetime playing field and then blaming the systemically-under-privileged and neglected for failing to overcome compounding disadvantages and barriers from early childhood onwards!?

Like it or not, most failure to succeed in life can be directed at the person themselves. Some people get a better head start in life that is true and it will always be true. But the successful in life are successful because of what they DO - not their privilged or non-priviledged backgrounds.  You are falling for the con that success is about what you are GIVEN. Success in life is about what YOU do about it. Thats why sucessful people come from all walks of life  - because they worked at it.

mantra wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 5:52am:

Quote: Over 36 billion dollars in 2007/8 with nearly 80% of that going to state schools. Where did you get that rubbery percentage from? If this was the true then the private schools wouldn't be throwing such a tantrum. Private schools receive $27 billion pa in funding. It has nothing to do with bitterness and envy - only fairness. Considering government schools are teaching two-thirds of all students nationwide, by 2012 it will receive just 36 per cent of federal education funds. There is no equity in this and unfortunately the Labor government has committed itself to continue this funding. [quote]This system is so flawed that private schools are given huge increases every year regardless of their wealth or income while public schools are being denied the chance to expand the educational opportunities of student," he said. "True equity in education can only exist when government schools set the standard for high quality education

[/quote]

Wow are you inthe education union because you are pretty good at using statistics perversely and unethically. Yes 36% of federal funding goes to public shools BUT about 99% of state funding goes to public schools as well. any fair, rational and ethical statistic would count both sources of govt income. And the worst thing about it is that you would consider your single 'fact' trumps the truth because it is better to support your argument than to expound the truth.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 9:49am:

deepthought wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 9:14am: Are you suggesting that some taxpayers receive nothing at all for their contribution and why do you actively discriminate against their children so? Their tax dollars you say if some even pay taxes ... I mean some of these can be earning 10 x more then me yet pay the same amount of tax what a crock .. They can see their tax dollars in road , rail and other areas .. It is Socio Economic based setup eg...needs based and was supposed to bring down the high fee's which haven't happened .. RORT at the best by these schools and these elite schools do not require these funds which is clearly evident by the private funding they get on top of the fee's they charge and alongside  the 10 swimming pools , the 18 ovals etc... As pointed out in a post some of these schools make profit 4.7 million in a year .. Is it right for these schools to get this massive funding when other schools cant even afford to build a school hall , or a class room .. It is a needs based system they do not need for anything as they have it all plus more so therefore by definition they do not qualify

earn 10 times and pay the same tax?? on what plaent do you live coz it aint the same one the rest of us life. That is pure rubbish.

ya full of it long.. a non for profit org such as the school got 9 million dollars in fed funding under the SES scheme but made a yearly profit of 4.7 million ..

their are people out their who pay SFA in tax but earn a pretty penny

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 6:29pm:

their are people out their who pay SFA in tax but earn a pretty penny

Loser talk... the words of one who wil never succeed because he is worried about what everyone else is doing and gettin gmore than him.

Enjoy welfare!

no idea long you have no freckign idea what so ever , but as a coalition supporter it isn't surprising

Mantra is very emotionally driven regarding the subject of private schools, IMO (she is a woman though, so it's excused). Things like private schools enrage women in particular because they are extremely obsessed with 'equality' to an extent that even the biggest of the beta-bitch males do not approach. Cultural marxism and blank slateism have a much more profound influence on females than men.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

no idea long you have no freckign idea what so ever , but as a coalition supporter it isn't surprising

You've got to want success, if you don't whining about not having the spoils of it doesn't make a lot of sense.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 6:37pm: no idea long you have no freckign idea what so ever , but as a coalition supporter it isn't surprising You've got to want success, if you don't whining about not having the spoils of it doesn't make a lot of sense.

exactly. sometimes the ALP should stand for the Australian Losers Party.

it doesn't take to much intelligence to know this is a forum , you cant tell how rich or hard working or successful some one is.. but you can tell from the closed minded posts what sort of values some one has ..  

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 6:52pm:

it doesn't take to much intelligence to know this is a forum , you cant tell how rich or hard working or successful some one is.. but you can tell from the closed minded posts what sort of values some one has ..

Have a crack at it.

from the posts from some individuals  i have seen here it shows no respect for others opinions at all  , Then it would be just outright lies in some cases / posts .. but as said coalition supporters are getting this reputation and this pretty much sums them up sore losers


Quote:

The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in.

 

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 9:49am:

deepthought wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 9:14am: Are you suggesting that some taxpayers receive nothing at all for their contribution and why do you actively discriminate against their children so? Their tax dollars you say if some even pay taxes ... I mean some of these can be earning 10 x more then me yet pay the same amount of tax what a crock .. They can see their tax dollars in road , rail and other areas .. It is Socio Economic based setup eg...needs based and was supposed to bring down the high fee's which haven't happened .. RORT at the best by these schools and these elite schools do not require these funds which is clearly evident by the private funding they get on top of the fee's they charge and alongside  the 10 swimming pools , the 18 ovals etc... As pointed out in a post some of these schools make profit 4.7 million in a year .. Is it right for these schools to get this massive funding when other schools cant even afford to build a school hall , or a class room .. It is a needs based system they do not need for anything as they have it all plus more so therefore by definition they do not qualify

Some of the parents of those who attend private schools pay no taxes?  Source please.

And you contradict yourself by saying they pay no taxes but they can see their taxes spent on road and rail.  Why not education too?  Why do you divide society and say only some are deserving of a taxpayer funded education?  Since when have some Australians become so discriminatory?  Since the return of divisive government in 2007?

it was a mocking of the amount they pay don't get your panties in a knot over words...

they choose the super rich o school they pay the fees and expect the average Australian to fork out our hard earned tax dollars to fund these school as well .. FFS they made a 4.7 million profit  why the hell they need funds for ...

no thanks i am not funding some snotty nose elitist kid because their parent have a complaint they pay tax ...

If they can afford that and there toorak mansion so be it

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 10:20pm:

no thanks i am not funding some snotty nose elitist kid . . .

And therein lies the fundamental difference between the left and right.  

While the right believe every child has the same entitlement from the public purse in a society which calls itself decent and equitable, the left still divide society into the worthy and the unworthy.

And inevitably decide the 'unworthy' (the 'snotty elitist') should pick up the bill for no material benefit themselves.

This class based ego-centric antagonism, generated from bitter envy and hatred, is anathema to the Liberal voter who seeks equality of entitlement for all Australians.

deepthought wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:14am:

While the right believe every child has the same entitlement from the public purse in a society which calls itself decent and equitable, the left still divide society into the worthy and the unworthy.

It is not equal , it is not fair and this is the reason why they should get nothing what state school make $4.7million profit , what state school has the resources of 18 ovals , 10 tennis courts and the other resources on offer at these schools that any state , independent or catholic would ever see in their lifetimes ... If they actually needed it then fine but they don't and don't deserve it on the basis of socio economic SES scheme which is what these funds are ... if you make $4.7 million profit you are not on the low socio economic scale..

deepthought wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:14am:

This class based ego-centric antagonism, generated from bitter envy and hatred, is anathema to the Liberal voter who seeks equality of entitlement for all Australians.

I think even a national supporter would be offended and would more then love to receive $9 million of funding for one school in their region .. The liberal voter has never sort equality for all Australians that would have to be the biggest lie of all time ...

They have always been known as the elitist party , always looking after the big end of town and rejecting the workers rights  .. WORK CHOICES was a prime example of equal rights , private health cover boosted financially from government then they let them jack up fee's , asylum seeker rights, government and CEO wage rises went through the roof under Howard and not monitored all the while no wage rises for the average worker ... very fair , very equal

You , your party , your ideals are what is wrong with this country and at least we got rid of this party  from destroying the country job future further ....

I think the Liberal's philosophy tends to achieve true equality more than the Labor philosophy. The example of Work Choices, brought up in the previous post, illustrates that well. Those against Work Choices say they are for "worker's rights". But by enforcing "worker's rights" you are giving them something they didn't have to begin with. So it's not really a "right" at all. You have no inherit right not to be fired. Real rights, the ones that matter, are natural rights. Life, liberty and property don't exist because we have laws. We have laws because life, liberty and property have always existed, they are inherent in our human nature. If you want to go beyond that, if you want to give somebody a right they wouldn't naturally have without the government, you necessarily have to take rights away from others. Like in the case of "worker's rights", you necessarily have to take away certain freedoms from their employers. The people who gave them jobs to begin with. So what you're doing is tilting the playing field. Without enforced "worker's rights" what you have is a truly level playing field where employers and employees enter into consensual contracts for employment without outside inference from the government. That seems more equal than tilting the playing field for the unionised workers.

The same applies across the board. Liberals tend to believe in a level playing field whereas Labor consistently attempts to tilt the playing field for whatever reasons. Whether it's allegiance to the unions or a legitimate attempt to achieve more equal results. Note I said attempt, because while intentions may be good the results often aren't. I think it was the noble prize winning economist Milton Friedman who noted that societies who put equality ahead of freedom get neither while societies who put freedom first, get a great deal of both. And I think that's the major difference between the Liberals and Labor. While the Liberals aren't perfect on promoting liberty, they've definitely disappointed me, the core of their philosophical differences with Labor is the idea that freedom should put ahead of equality as a political goal. Labor doesn't think like that. They think force is a legitimate means of achieving equality and that's why they consistently tilt the playing field. Whether it's "worker's rights" or progressive taxation. The closest they've got recently to a truly level playing field proposal is the national broadband network. Although I personally believe something like that should be handled by the private sector. If they keep bringing ideas like that forward that might stay in power beyond this little stint as a coalition government.

bob that is utter crap and you know it ... entering into contracts , dealing with employers is hard enough to do let alone for the younger generation.. we fought for certain principles / conditions in our employment this is the rights and the Liberals stripped it away with work choices hence why they are not in government now ...

a prime example of this liberal mentality is when i was made redundant after 9 + years due to GFC ... they said they didn't have to pay me long service leave because i hadn't reached 10 years  .. utter shite it is paid pro rata after 7 years i only knew this as i was older / wiser but some of the younger employees who were laid off at same time never knew their entitlements / pay outs etc...and left them very
open to being ripped off..

The employer employs staff to make his business run he does so according to the award whether state or federal or modern now.. under the award certain conditions rights exist always have until they were removed under work choices ...  

deepthought wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:14am:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 10:20pm: no thanks i am not funding some snotty nose elitist kid . . . And therein lies the fundamental difference between the left and right.   While the right believe every child has the same entitlement from the public purse in a society which calls itself decent and equitable, the left still divide society into the worthy and the unworthy. And inevitably decide the 'unworthy' (the 'snotty elitist') should pick up the bill for no material benefit themselves. This class based ego-centric antagonism, generated from bitter envy and hatred, is anathema to the Liberal voter who seeks equality of entitlement for all Australians.

Perfectly said. well done!

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:17am:

bob that is utter crap and you know it ... entering into contracts , dealing with employers is hard enough to do let alone for the younger generation.. we fought for certain principles / conditions in our employment and the Liberals stripped it away with work choices hence why they are not in government now ... a prime example of this liberal mentality is when i was made redundant after 9 + years due to GFC ... they said they didn't have to pay me long service leave .. utter shite it is paid pro rata after 7 years in knew this as i was older / wiser but some of the younger employees who were laid off at same time never knew their entitlements and left them open to being ripped off..

If it's young people you are worried about, how about looking at minimum wage laws, working hours laws, and all the work place restrictions that discourage employers from employing young people?

BobH wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:03am:

I think the Liberal's philosophy tends to achieve true equality more than the Labor philosophy. The example of Work Choices, brought up in the previous post, illustrates that well. Those against Work Choices say they are for "worker's rights". But by enforcing "worker's rights" you are giving them something they didn't have to begin with. So it's not really a "right" at all. You have no inherit right not to be fired. Real rights, the ones that matter, are natural rights. Life, liberty and property don't exist because we have laws. We have laws because life, liberty and property have always existed, they are inherent in our human nature. If you want to go beyond that, if you want to give somebody a right they wouldn't naturally have without the government, you necessarily have to take rights away from others. Like in the case of "worker's rights", you necessarily have to take away certain freedoms from their employers. The people who gave them jobs to begin with. So what you're doing is tilting the playing field. Without enforced "worker's rights" what you have is a truly level playing field where employers and employees enter into consensual contracts for employment without outside inference from the government. That seems more equal than tilting the playing field for the unionised workers. The same applies across the board. Liberals tend to believe in a level playing field whereas Labor consistently attempts to tilt the playing field for whatever reasons. Whether it's allegiance to the unions or a legitimate attempt to achieve more equal results. Note I said attempt, because while intentions may be good the results often aren't. I think it was the noble prize winning economist Milton Friedman who noted that societies who put equality ahead of freedom get neither while societies who put freedom first, get a great deal of both. And I think that's the major difference between the Liberals and Labor. While the Liberals aren't perfect on promoting liberty, they've definitely disappointed me, the core of their philosophical differences with Labor is the idea that freedom should put ahead of equality as a political goal. Labor doesn't think like that. They think force is a legitimate means of achieving equality and that's why they consistently tilt the playing field. Whether it's "worker's rights" or progressive taxation. The closest they've got recently to a truly level playing field proposal is the national broadband network. Although I personally believe something like that should be handled by the private sector. If they keep bringing ideas like that forward that might stay in power beyond this little stint as a coalition government.

Another very well written response. Congrats, Bob!

lol congrats on losing the election

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:22am:

BobH wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 9:03am: I think the Liberal's philosophy tends to achieve true equality more than the Labor philosophy. The example of Work Choices, brought up in the previous post, illustrates that well. Those against Work Choices say they are for "worker's rights". But by enforcing "worker's rights" you are giving them something they didn't have to begin with. So it's not really a "right" at all. You have no inherit right not to be fired. Real rights, the ones that matter, are natural rights. Life, liberty and property don't exist because we have laws. We have laws because life, liberty and property have always existed, they are inherent in our human nature. If you want to go beyond that, if you want to give somebody a right they wouldn't naturally have without the government, you necessarily have to take rights away from others. Like in the case of "worker's rights", you necessarily have to take away certain freedoms from their employers. The people who gave them jobs to begin with. So what you're doing is tilting the playing field. Without enforced "worker's rights" what you have is a truly level playing field where employers and employees enter into consensual contracts for employment without outside inference from the government. That seems more equal than tilting the playing field for the unionised workers. The same applies across the board. Liberals tend to believe in a level playing field whereas Labor consistently attempts to tilt the playing field for whatever reasons. Whether it's allegiance to the unions or a legitimate attempt to achieve more equal results. Note I said attempt, because while intentions may be good the results often aren't. I think it was the noble prize winning economist Milton Friedman who noted that societies who put equality ahead of freedom get neither while societies who put freedom first, get a great deal of both. And I think that's the major difference between the Liberals and Labor. While the Liberals aren't perfect on promoting liberty, they've definitely disappointed me, the core of their philosophical differences with Labor is the idea that freedom should put ahead of equality as a political goal. Labor doesn't think like that. They think force is a legitimate means of achieving equality and that's why they consistently tilt the playing field. Whether it's "worker's rights" or progressive taxation. The closest they've got recently to a truly level playing field proposal is the national broadband network. Although I personally believe something like that should be handled by the private sector. If they keep bringing ideas like that forward that might stay in power beyond this little stint as a coalition government. Another very well written response. Congrats, Bob!

Have to agree, well put BH  :)

mellie wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 9:22am: BobH wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 9:03am: I think the Liberal's philosophy tends to achieve true equality more than the Labor philosophy. The example of Work Choices, brought up in the previous post, illustrates that well. Those against Work Choices say they are for "worker's rights". But by enforcing "worker's rights" you are giving them something they didn't have to begin with. So it's not really a "right" at all. You have no inherit right not to be fired. Real rights, the ones that matter, are natural rights. Life, liberty and property don't exist because we have laws. We have laws because life, liberty and property have always existed, they are inherent in our human nature. If you want to go beyond that, if you want to give somebody a right they wouldn't naturally have without the government, you necessarily have to take rights away from others. Like in the case of "worker's rights", you necessarily have to take away certain freedoms from their employers. The people who gave them jobs to begin with. So what you're doing is tilting the playing field. Without enforced "worker's rights" what you have is a truly level playing field where employers and employees enter into consensual contracts for employment without outside inference from the government. That seems more equal than tilting the playing field for the unionised workers. The same applies across the board. Liberals tend to believe in a level playing field whereas Labor consistently attempts to tilt the playing field for whatever reasons. Whether it's allegiance to the unions or a legitimate attempt to achieve more equal results. Note I said attempt, because while intentions may be good the results often aren't. I think it was the noble prize winning economist Milton Friedman who noted that societies who put equality ahead of freedom get neither while societies who put freedom first, get a great deal of both. And I think that's the major difference between the Liberals and Labor. While the Liberals aren't perfect on promoting liberty, they've definitely disappointed me, the core of their philosophical differences with Labor is the idea that freedom should put ahead of equality as a political goal. Labor doesn't think like that. They think force is a legitimate means of achieving equality and that's why they consistently tilt the playing field. Whether it's "worker's rights" or progressive taxation. The closest they've got recently to a truly level playing field proposal is the national broadband network. Although I personally believe something like that should be handled by the private sector. If they keep bringing ideas like that forward that might stay in power beyond this little stint as a coalition government. Another very well written response. Congrats, Bob! Have to agree, well put BH  :)

The only society to genuinely create almost 100% equality was the USSR. Yet who would choose their equality over our 'inequality'?

deepthought wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 10:22pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 9:57pm: Has anyone noticed how the private religious schools have all jumped on the labor BER scam and upgraded their schools. They couldn't get the freebies quick enough. They were quicker than a rat up a drain pipe to grab the handouts ;) Weren't the funds offered to all schools?

It truly amazes me that the shallowness of this argument is not apparent to those who fall on the right, and far right of the political spectrum.

Instead of starting from the false premise that everyone deserves the same amount of government assistance, irrespective of personal circumstance, perhaps the people supporting the fact of these elitist schools receiving millions in government subsidies could give their reasons for believing it is fair and equitable to continue the current system, rather than introducing a new system with a sliding scale that would see more of the government money going to the needy rather than the greedy, and these elite schools cut off from receiving any subsidies.
Many private schools provide a good education, and try and maintain affordable fees, but while they are being held up against these elitist schools as points of comparison, they cannot compete, and using government assistance to help fund the increasing gap between what is offered by the elitist schools, and the rest, is something that I believe should be stopped.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:45am:

deepthought wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 10:22pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 9:57pm: Has anyone noticed how the private religious schools have all jumped on the labor BER scam and upgraded their schools. They couldn't get the freebies quick enough. They were quicker than a rat up a drain pipe to grab the handouts ;) Weren't the funds offered to all schools? It truly amazes me that the shallowness of this argument is not apparent to those who fall on the right, and far right of the political spectrum. Instead of starting from the false premise that everyone deserves the same amount of government assistance, irrespective of personal circumstance, perhaps the people supporting the fact of these elitist schools receiving millions in government subsidies could give their reasons for believing it is fair and equitable to continue the current system, rather than introducing a new system with a sliding scale that would see more of the government money going to the needy rather than the greedy, and these elite schools cut off from receiving any subsidies. Many private schools provide a good education, and try and maintain affordable fees, but while they are being held up against these elitist schools as points of comparison, they cannot compete, and using government assistance to help fund the increasing gap between what is offered by the elitist schools, and the rest, is something that I believe should be stopped.

Yopur opposition is entirely ideological rather than practical.


Quote:

Instead of starting from the false premise that everyone deserves the same amount of government assistance

And here is the best example of that. What you are saying is that the group of people who pay vastly more in taxes should be excluded from any support from this govt for a BASIC entitlement - education. What is so 'false' about that? And even if you id take all the funds from elite private schools (about 20) how much do you think you'd save? about enough to buy toilet paper for the public schools and little more. The 'false assumption' is the one YOU make - that only some people are entitled to govt support and not everyone. It is a greedy and selfish attiutude that seeks to punish those who are successful. The vast array of welfare and other benefits are already excluded from the well-off and the few that remain are the ones that you people STILL love to complain about. Like it or not, the well-off in our community pay the lions share of the taxation, provide much of the employment and provided a great deal of charitable work. and the response of the commuity? TO HATE THEM.  Truly wonderful.

Yes the funds should be stopped to the ELITE schools altogether due to the fact that a school can make a $4.7 million dollar profit (supposed to be non profit) and still receive over $9 million in funding from the government ...

The independent , the Catholic , the state schools never ever received this level of funds or never recorded a profit ....

It is okay or will be shortly because the current news on this SES funding is that these ELITE schools are tipped to be removed from the scheme altogether as we are arguing here ...finally they have seen the sense ... the rest of the SES will be reviewed under the socio economic bracket like it was supposed to be and funds allocated appropriately they seem to have moved it up ...

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 12:39pm:

Yes the funds should be stopped to the ELITE schools altogether due to the fact that a school can make a $4.7 million dollar profit (supposed to be non profit) and still receive over $9 million in funding from the government ... The independent , the Catholic , the state schools never ever received this level of funds or never recorded a profit .... It is okay or will be shortly because the current news on this SES funding is that these ELITE schools are tipped to be removed from the scheme altogether as we are arguing here ...finally they have seen the sense ... the rest of the SES will be reviewed under the socio economic bracket like it was supposed to be and funds allocated appropriately they seem to have moved it up ...

Never recorded a 'profit'? how can you be so sure?  of course, you actually arent sure and are merely guessing. and non-profit organisations dont distribute profit. any surpluses are by law required to go back into the development of the business (or school).

But I especially love the implication that if you are successful as a business (eg mining) or as a non-profit(eg a school) you MUST be punished for it. It's the labor way. support the losers at the expense of the successful and dont forget to abuse tham at the same time.

yep but it really doesn't matter now the ELITE schools will be dropped from the SES funding very soon ..... but they still will receive their private funding .. i just wish they could go back into the books and take the cash back of them and re-distribute to the needier schools

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 12:39pm:

Yes the funds should be stopped to the ELITE schools altogether due to the fact that a school can make a $4.7 million dollar profit (supposed to be non profit) and still receive over $9 million in funding from the government ... The independent , the Catholic , the state schools never ever received this level of funds or never recorded a profit .... It is okay or will be shortly because the current news on this SES funding is that these ELITE schools are tipped to be removed from the scheme altogether as we are arguing here ...finally they have seen the sense ... the rest of the SES will be reviewed under the socio economic bracket like it was supposed to be and funds allocated appropriately they seem to have moved it up ...

I saw an article, some time back, on Sydney Church of England Girls Grammar School (SCEGGS) that they had SO much money flowing in from the Howard Liberal Government funding scheme they didn't know what to do with it

The school had started an investment division - and spending surpluses on prime properties around Sydney and playing the real estate speculation game

DESPITE this, the school had raised fees, in line with what the market would bear, above and beyond the CPI

Now THIS seems, to me, to be a case no valid need of additional Government grants, assistance or hand-outs

I was educated at a private school so my knowledge of what the public schooling system is like is a little sheltered.

However there is a need for private schools to receive additional Government funding. The costs of running the school are often not covered by fees alone.

Remember that private schools are no different to public schools in that they are providing a service to the community in delivering well educated young people to get on in life and play a responsible role in our future.

I haven't made up my mind yet what school my little girl will attend - mainly because I don't know where we'll be living in 5 years - but I'd like to think I will have both private and public schools as options which are supported by my taxes.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

However there is a need for private schools to receive additional Government funding. The costs of running the school are often not covered by fees alone.

As there are many that DON'T - the likes of King's College and SCEGGS - who are having a good laugh

St Michael's Catholic Primary School in Daylesford is but one private school that could well have done with one of the many vote buying millions thrown at the 'old boys' networks

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 12:39pm: Yes the funds should be stopped to the ELITE schools altogether due to the fact that a school can make a $4.7 million dollar profit (supposed to be non profit) and still receive over $9 million in funding from the government ... The independent , the Catholic , the state schools never ever received this level of funds or never recorded a profit .... It is okay or will be shortly because the current news on this SES funding is that these ELITE schools are tipped to be removed from the scheme altogether as we are arguing here ...finally they have seen the sense ... the rest of the SES will be reviewed under the socio economic bracket like it was supposed to be and funds allocated appropriately they seem to have moved it up ... I saw an article, some time back, on Sydney Church of England Girls Grammar School (SCEGGS) that they had SO much money flowing in from the Howard Liberal Government funding scheme they didn't know what to do with it The school had started an investment division - and spending surpluses on prime properties around Sydney and playing the real estate speculation game DESPITE this, the school had raised fees, in line with what the market would bear, above and beyond the CPI Now THIS seems, to me, to be a case no valid need of additional Government grants, assistance or hand-outs

But if they had wasted the money you'd be ok with them getting it? This is the fundamental problem with your position - that it actively disciminates against success and competence. The better you are, the more effective you are the more we wil penalise you fir it? What kind of regime is that? Education is not some minor ancillary to life; it is a fundamental requirement and one the government is obligated to support regardless of income or success. there are a great number of govt programs that are not available to the successful and well-off. Will you not be happy until ONLY the poor get govt support? the whole 'government for the people' notion seems to escape you...

private , independent , state , catholic schools are not what we are talking about... please read the TOPIC of the post ...

It is ELITE these are only a handful of schools in each state about 60 schools Australia wide like :

Sydney Church of England Girls Grammar School (SCEGGS)
Geelong Grammar
Kings College
Melbourne Grammar  

Their is no justification for funding these schools that are for the preserve of the wealthy , Howard said it was supposed to reduce the schools fee's , curb future fee's  and make it easier for all to attend he lied .. In the last couple of years since they have raked in huge funding the have doubled and tripled their fee's ... and some have made obnoxious profits ... It was set up under a socio economic model but this also was a lie as when you can afford $20, 000 per year in fees you socio economic status isn't that bad ...

The facilities that get built from these funds are not for publics  use , yet they claim they are entitled to funding because they pay taxes ...

They can fund their own and leave the government funding to go to other much more deserving areas  , indigenous , special needs etc..

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 2:44pm:

yep but it really doesn't matter now the ELITE schools will be dropped from the SES funding very soon ..... but they still will receive their private funding .. i just wish they could go back into the books and take the cash back of them and re-distribute to the needier schools

And the irony is that even if they did that, the elite schools woudl be mega successful and the 'needier' schools would remain needy and low-performing.  'performance' in any endeavour is rarely dependant soley on money. it is only a portion of the equation and not the major one. The public school system is in difficulties but money is not the problem nor will more correct the problem.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:

private , independent , state , catholic schools are not what we are talking about... please read the TOPIC of the post ... It is ELITE these are only a handful of schools in each state like Sydney Church of England Girls Grammar School (SCEGGS) Geelong Grammar Kings College Melbourne Grammar   Their is no justification for funding these schools that are for the preserve of the wealthy , Howard said it was supposed to reduce the schools fee's and make it easier for all to attend he lied .. In the last couple of years since they have raked in huge funding the have doubled and tripled their fee's ... and some have made obnoxious profits ... It was set up under a socio economic model but this also was a lie as when you can afford 20, 000 per year in fees you socio economic status isn't that bad ...

why do their fees in any way worry you? you arent sending anyone there! The school gets the same per-student grants as any other private school so they arent getting singled out in any way. they get less than your 'precious' public schools so again, what is your problem other than you think education is not a prime priority of govt? Then again perhaps you are like Gillard who thinsk so highly of education that she neglected to keep the portfolio!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 12:39pm: Yes the funds should be stopped to the ELITE schools altogether due to the fact that a school can make a $4.7 million dollar profit (supposed to be non profit) and still receive over $9 million in funding from the government ... The independent , the Catholic , the state schools never ever received this level of funds or never recorded a profit .... It is okay or will be shortly because the current news on this SES funding is that these ELITE schools are tipped to be removed from the scheme altogether as we are arguing here ...finally they have seen the sense ... the rest of the SES will be reviewed under the socio economic bracket like it was supposed to be and funds allocated appropriately they seem to have moved it up ... I saw an article, some time back, on Sydney Church of England Girls Grammar School (SCEGGS) that they had SO much money flowing in from the Howard Liberal Government funding scheme they didn't know what to do with it The school had started an investment division - and spending surpluses on prime properties around Sydney and playing the real estate speculation game DESPITE this, the school had raised fees, in line with what the market would bear, above and beyond the CPI Now THIS seems, to me, to be a case no valid need of additional Government grants, assistance or hand-outs But if they had wasted the money you'd be ok with them getting it?

I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD
They clearly don't NEED it

the fees fund the school , they also get private donations / funding , they also get paid by sporting teams to provide scholarships and other benefits state schools don,t receive ... they have far more resources then any other type of school eg 18 ovals ..

They do not deserve the funding at all and it is about time someone did some thing .. They will be dropping the ELITE from the funding list and reviewing the rest so at least that is a start ...

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:03pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 12:39pm: Yes the funds should be stopped to the ELITE schools altogether due to the fact that a school can make a $4.7 million dollar profit (supposed to be non profit) and still receive over $9 million in funding from the government ... The independent , the Catholic , the state schools never ever received this level of funds or never recorded a profit .... It is okay or will be shortly because the current news on this SES funding is that these ELITE schools are tipped to be removed from the scheme altogether as we are arguing here ...finally they have seen the sense ... the rest of the SES will be reviewed under the socio economic bracket like it was supposed to be and funds allocated appropriately they seem to have moved it up ... I saw an article, some time back, on Sydney Church of England Girls Grammar School (SCEGGS) that they had SO much money flowing in from the Howard Liberal Government funding scheme they didn't know what to do with it The school had started an investment division - and spending surpluses on prime properties around Sydney and playing the real estate speculation game DESPITE this, the school had raised fees, in line with what the market would bear, above and beyond the CPI Now THIS seems, to me, to be a case no valid need of additional Government grants, assistance or hand-outs But if they had wasted the money you'd be ok with them getting it? I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it

This goes right to a key ideological position then doesnt it? Essentially this isnt an argument about private schools per se, but rather that you dont believe ANY govt funding should go to ANYONE who doesnt desperately need it. Correct?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:20pm:

the fees fund the school , they also get private donations / funding , they also get paid by sporting teams to provide scholarships and other benefits state schools don,t receive ... they have far more resources then any other type of school eg 18 ovals .. They do not deserve the funding at all and it is about time someone did some thing .. They will be dropping the ELITE from the funding list and reviewing the rest so at least that is a start ...

Because it is ultra important that people who have the audacity to get sponsors or involve the parents in funding drives or save, plan and invest should be punished for it. right? after all what would happen if public schools tried these things? We couldnt have them trying to get sponsors or - shock horror - asking their parents to actually get involved with the school! And if your wish comes true and some schools are disciminated against in funding, nothing will change. these schools will still be wealthy and very successful and most publci schools will still be poor and under-performing. You will just have lost one more target to blame.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it

Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz?


"Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?"

A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:32pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz? "Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator.

You mean THIS AA Gill:


Career and controversies

He was once ejected from one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, along with his dining partner Joan Collins. Ramsay's reason was that Gill had written a review of his restaurant that covered his personal life more than the food, including calling him a wonderful chef, but a "second-rate human being".[5]

Gill has been critical of Welsh people; in 1998 his descriptions of Welsh people as "loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls" in The Sunday Times were reported to the Commission for Racial Equality as racist.[6] Gill's comment was used as a prime example of what was described as "persistent anti-Welsh racism in the UK media" in a motion in the National Assembly for Wales put forward by 18 AMs representing the four main political parties.[7]

Gill has also been critical of the English describing them as "embarrassing" and an "ugly race" as well as a "lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd".[8][9]

In October 2009, Gill sparked controversy by reporting in his Sunday Times column that he shot a baboon dead. His column averred that he knew "perfectly well there [was] absolutely no excuse for [the shooting]", and that he killed the animal in order to "get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone".[10][11] He went on to state that "[t]hey die hard, baboons. But not this one. A soft-nosed .357 blew his lungs out."[11] The action prompted outrage from animal rights groups[11].

In July 2010, an article by Gill in the Sunday Times referred to BBC Sport presenter Clare Balding as a "dyke on a bike", leading to Balding complaining to the Press Complaints Commission.[12] [13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._Gill



Who does this tosser think he is?

Not someone to look up to or aspire to.

It doesn't matter any more long the days of the wealthy rorting the government funds are over ... they just have to make do on what they get now from other sources ..

bit tough but i am sure they will survive ... but i am sure also that these funds will be going to a much better areas in the communities  .

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:28pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:03pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 12:39pm: Yes the funds should be stopped to the ELITE schools altogether due to the fact that a school can make a $4.7 million dollar profit (supposed to be non profit) and still receive over $9 million in funding from the government ... The independent , the Catholic , the state schools never ever received this level of funds or never recorded a profit .... It is okay or will be shortly because the current news on this SES funding is that these ELITE schools are tipped to be removed from the scheme altogether as we are arguing here ...finally they have seen the sense ... the rest of the SES will be reviewed under the socio economic bracket like it was supposed to be and funds allocated appropriately they seem to have moved it up ... I saw an article, some time back, on Sydney Church of England Girls Grammar School (SCEGGS) that they had SO much money flowing in from the Howard Liberal Government funding scheme they didn't know what to do with it The school had started an investment division - and spending surpluses on prime properties around Sydney and playing the real estate speculation game DESPITE this, the school had raised fees, in line with what the market would bear, above and beyond the CPI Now THIS seems, to me, to be a case no valid need of additional Government grants, assistance or hand-outs But if they had wasted the money you'd be ok with them getting it? I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it This goes right to a key ideological position then doesnt it? Essentially this isnt an argument about private schools per se, but rather that you dont believe ANY govt funding should go to ANYONE who doesnt desperately need it. Correct?

There are , no doubt, MANY private schools in need of 'boost' funding by the Federal Government
That is the very reason Whitlam started the scheme in the FIRST place - to fit under-funded private schools with libraries and science labs and raise these schools to the state standard

Abuse by the Howard Government turned this well meant plan into a giant pork-barrell set around a votes-needs basis

I have NO issue on Federal funding to private schools where it is justified

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:32pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz? "Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator.

Well said and if you think about it that is almost a maxim. The complainers are almost always the lowest contributors - if they in fact contribute at all.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:32pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz? "Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator. Well said and if you think about it that is almost a maxim. The complainers are almost always the lowest contributors - if they in fact contribute at all.

NOT well said at all.

If you read about the man andrei is quoting you would soon realise that when it comes to "low contributions" he would well be up there in terms of his societal contributions.

And lets be honest , this quote;

"Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?"


is really saying " Lets return to the olden days when the riff raff couldnt vote and us rich toffs had all the power and influence"




No thanks.

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:38pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:32pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz? "Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator. You mean THIS AA Gill: Career and controversies He was once ejected from one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, along with his dining partner Joan Collins. Ramsay's reason was that Gill had written a review of his restaurant that covered his personal life more than the food, including calling him a wonderful chef, but a "second-rate human being".[5] Gill has been critical of Welsh people; in 1998 his descriptions of Welsh people as "loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls" in The Sunday Times were reported to the Commission for Racial Equality as racist.[6] Gill's comment was used as a prime example of what was described as "persistent anti-Welsh racism in the UK media" in a motion in the National Assembly for Wales put forward by 18 AMs representing the four main political parties.[7] Gill has also been critical of the English describing them as "embarrassing" and an "ugly race" as well as a "lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd".[8][9] In October 2009, Gill sparked controversy by reporting in his Sunday Times column that he shot a baboon dead. His column averred that he knew "perfectly well there [was] absolutely no excuse for [the shooting]", and that he killed the animal in order to "get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone".[10][11] He went on to state that "[t]hey die hard, baboons. But not this one. A soft-nosed .357 blew his lungs out."[11] The action prompted outrage from animal rights groups[11]. In July 2010, an article by Gill in the Sunday Times referred to BBC Sport presenter Clare Balding as a "dyke on a bike", leading to Balding complaining to the Press Complaints Commission.[12] [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._Gill Who does this tosser think he is? Not someone to look up to or aspire to.

so the usual shoot the messenger instead of the message again? I wish I could say I was surprised...

but dark that is the Coalition / liberal party catchcry

A.A Gill is well known for being outspoken and forthright.
One of the reasons I suppose the Sunday Times keep him on their books.

How does this make his comment any less true?

Buzz is a prime example of what goes on up and down the country.
People making a lot of noise about how 'OUR' taxes should be spent.

When you actually look at what they themselves contribute it can be very little.

Is it right people who put in so little themselves should be telling us how it should be spent.
PS - they often then cry that OTHERS should be paying more!!  ;D

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Greens......

Andrei you don't even live in this country yet you like to comment on it how does that make what you say any less true ..

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:00pm:

Andrei you don't even live in this country yet you like to comment on it how does that make what you say any less true ..

Even as a non-resident he pays the same amount in tax as many of our loudest whingers... and when you take into account the welfare they receive, his ZERO tax contribution is actually more than these people.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:50pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:38pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:32pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz? "Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator. You mean THIS AA Gill: Career and controversies He was once ejected from one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, along with his dining partner Joan Collins. Ramsay's reason was that Gill had written a review of his restaurant that covered his personal life more than the food, including calling him a wonderful chef, but a "second-rate human being".[5] Gill has been critical of Welsh people; in 1998 his descriptions of Welsh people as "loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls" in The Sunday Times were reported to the Commission for Racial Equality as racist.[6] Gill's comment was used as a prime example of what was described as "persistent anti-Welsh racism in the UK media" in a motion in the National Assembly for Wales put forward by 18 AMs representing the four main political parties.[7] Gill has also been critical of the English describing them as "embarrassing" and an "ugly race" as well as a "lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd".[8][9] In October 2009, Gill sparked controversy by reporting in his Sunday Times column that he shot a baboon dead. His column averred that he knew "perfectly well there [was] absolutely no excuse for [the shooting]", and that he killed the animal in order to "get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone".[10][11] He went on to state that "[t]hey die hard, baboons. But not this one. A soft-nosed .357 blew his lungs out."[11] The action prompted outrage from animal rights groups[11]. In July 2010, an article by Gill in the Sunday Times referred to BBC Sport presenter Clare Balding as a "dyke on a bike", leading to Balding complaining to the Press Complaints Commission.[12] [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._Gill Who does this tosser think he is? Not someone to look up to or aspire to. so the usual shoot the messenger instead of the message again? I wish I could say I was surprised...

Here's me attacking the message;

""Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?"


is really saying " Lets return to the olden days when the riff raff couldnt vote and us rich toffs had all the power and influence"




No thanks."

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:50pm: darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:38pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:32pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz? "Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator. You mean THIS AA Gill: Career and controversies He was once ejected from one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, along with his dining partner Joan Collins. Ramsay's reason was that Gill had written a review of his restaurant that covered his personal life more than the food, including calling him a wonderful chef, but a "second-rate human being".[5] Gill has been critical of Welsh people; in 1998 his descriptions of Welsh people as "loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls" in The Sunday Times were reported to the Commission for Racial Equality as racist.[6] Gill's comment was used as a prime example of what was described as "persistent anti-Welsh racism in the UK media" in a motion in the National Assembly for Wales put forward by 18 AMs representing the four main political parties.[7] Gill has also been critical of the English describing them as "embarrassing" and an "ugly race" as well as a "lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd".[8][9] In October 2009, Gill sparked controversy by reporting in his Sunday Times column that he shot a baboon dead. His column averred that he knew "perfectly well there [was] absolutely no excuse for [the shooting]", and that he killed the animal in order to "get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone".[10][11] He went on to state that "[t]hey die hard, baboons. But not this one. A soft-nosed .357 blew his lungs out."[11] The action prompted outrage from animal rights groups[11]. In July 2010, an article by Gill in the Sunday Times referred to BBC Sport presenter Clare Balding as a "dyke on a bike", leading to Balding complaining to the Press Complaints Commission.[12] [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._Gill Who does this tosser think he is? Not someone to look up to or aspire to. so the usual shoot the messenger instead of the message again? I wish I could say I was surprised... Here's me attacking the message; ""Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" is really saying " Lets return to the olden days when the riff raff couldnt vote and us rich toffs had all the power and influence" No thanks."

True, but it was your SECOND post! But your reading between the lines of what he said was truly ridiculous. And I think in calmer times you'd agree that was a little over-the-top.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:09pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 5:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:50pm: darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:38pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:32pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz? "Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator. You mean THIS AA Gill: Career and controversies He was once ejected from one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, along with his dining partner Joan Collins. Ramsay's reason was that Gill had written a review of his restaurant that covered his personal life more than the food, including calling him a wonderful chef, but a "second-rate human being".[5] Gill has been critical of Welsh people; in 1998 his descriptions of Welsh people as "loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls" in The Sunday Times were reported to the Commission for Racial Equality as racist.[6] Gill's comment was used as a prime example of what was described as "persistent anti-Welsh racism in the UK media" in a motion in the National Assembly for Wales put forward by 18 AMs representing the four main political parties.[7] Gill has also been critical of the English describing them as "embarrassing" and an "ugly race" as well as a "lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd".[8][9] In October 2009, Gill sparked controversy by reporting in his Sunday Times column that he shot a baboon dead. His column averred that he knew "perfectly well there [was] absolutely no excuse for [the shooting]", and that he killed the animal in order to "get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone".[10][11] He went on to state that "[t]hey die hard, baboons. But not this one. A soft-nosed .357 blew his lungs out."[11] The action prompted outrage from animal rights groups[11]. In July 2010, an article by Gill in the Sunday Times referred to BBC Sport presenter Clare Balding as a "dyke on a bike", leading to Balding complaining to the Press Complaints Commission.[12] [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._Gill Who does this tosser think he is? Not someone to look up to or aspire to. so the usual shoot the messenger instead of the message again? I wish I could say I was surprised... Here's me attacking the message; ""Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" is really saying " Lets return to the olden days when the riff raff couldnt vote and us rich toffs had all the power and influence" No thanks." True, but it was your SECOND post! But your reading between the lines of what he said was truly ridiculous. And I think in calmer times you'd agree that was a little over-the-top.

How is it over the top.

The man is bemoaning the fact that poor people are having a say in how taxes are spent.

The corollary of this is that rich people should have MORE of a say in how taxes are spent.


Trip back to the 1700's anyone?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 4:56pm:

A.A Gill is well known for being outspoken and forthright. One of the reasons I suppose the Sunday Times keep him on their books. How does this make his comment any less true? Buzz is a prime example of what goes on up and down the country. People making a lot of noise about how 'OUR' taxes should be spent. When you actually look at what they themselves contribute it can be very little. Is it right people who put in so little themselves should be telling us how it should be spent. PS - they often then cry that OTHERS should be paying more!!  ;D Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Greens......

As a full time PAYE worker Buzz payed his dues every year from 1973 to 2006

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 5:09pm: darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 5:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:50pm: darkhall67 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:38pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:32pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'm not 'OK' with them getting it - PERIOD They clearly don't NEED it Probably a good job you don't actually contribute very much to the tax pool in the first place then isn't it Buzz? "Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" A.A. Gill, writer and political commentator. You mean THIS AA Gill: Career and controversies He was once ejected from one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, along with his dining partner Joan Collins. Ramsay's reason was that Gill had written a review of his restaurant that covered his personal life more than the food, including calling him a wonderful chef, but a "second-rate human being".[5] Gill has been critical of Welsh people; in 1998 his descriptions of Welsh people as "loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls" in The Sunday Times were reported to the Commission for Racial Equality as racist.[6] Gill's comment was used as a prime example of what was described as "persistent anti-Welsh racism in the UK media" in a motion in the National Assembly for Wales put forward by 18 AMs representing the four main political parties.[7] Gill has also been critical of the English describing them as "embarrassing" and an "ugly race" as well as a "lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd".[8][9] In October 2009, Gill sparked controversy by reporting in his Sunday Times column that he shot a baboon dead. His column averred that he knew "perfectly well there [was] absolutely no excuse for [the shooting]", and that he killed the animal in order to "get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone".[10][11] He went on to state that "[t]hey die hard, baboons. But not this one. A soft-nosed .357 blew his lungs out."[11] The action prompted outrage from animal rights groups[11]. In July 2010, an article by Gill in the Sunday Times referred to BBC Sport presenter Clare Balding as a "dyke on a bike", leading to Balding complaining to the Press Complaints Commission.[12] [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._Gill Who does this tosser think he is? Not someone to look up to or aspire to. so the usual shoot the messenger instead of the message again? I wish I could say I was surprised... Here's me attacking the message; ""Has anyone ever noticed that some of the people who yell the loudest about how our taxes should be spent are actually amongst the lowest contributers to this very same pool of revenue? Who on earth do they think they are?" is really saying " Lets return to the olden days when the riff raff couldnt vote and us rich toffs had all the power and influence" No thanks." True, but it was your SECOND post! But your reading between the lines of what he said was truly ridiculous. And I think in calmer times you'd agree that was a little over-the-top. How is it over the top. The man is bemoaning the fact that poor people are having a say in how taxes are spent. The corollary of this is that rich people should have MORE of a say in how taxes are spent. Trip back to the 1700's anyone?

To say PRECISELY what he said - but without your embellishments  - he said that the LOUDEST voices in complaint are also the LOWEST contributors. DO you want to contend that that is in fact not true?

And it goes a little something like this - hit it!
;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr67Jp2Ylx0

yep pretty much summed it up

For those of you who think there are different classes of people in Australia, some of whom are entitled to a taxpayer funded education and some of whom are not, how would you feel about those who do not get any benefit from their contributions claiming back the full cost of a state school education?

As, according to you, they are not entitled to any benefit, then they should, in all fairness, not pay anything.

If they choose to pay the outrageous school fees of the ELITE schools that is their choice not the taxpayers.. These school operate above the bounds of all other schools in resources and funding , private grants ,scholarships etc... they do not need these funds at all to operate unlike the rest of the schools in Australia which could do with more funding ...

This is only approx 60 - 70 schools in all of Australia so if they don't want to pay the fees because they cant get it on tax pick another school ... Others don't get a choice on what school they can chose but the funding is needs based and these schools do not need it.. hence in a couple of months once it is sorted they wont be receiving it anymore ...

deepthought wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

For those of you who think there are different classes of people in Australia, some of whom are entitled to a taxpayer funded education and some of whom are not, how would you feel about those who do not get any benefit from their contributions claiming back the full cost of a state school education? As, according to you, they are not entitled to any benefit, then they should, in all fairness, not pay anything.

So the answer is . . .

if they want to claim a tax break on education send their kid to a cheaper school .. my tax dollars go on police i don't use , i cant claim that back ..

no one cares about some poor little rich kids parents who fork out $20, 000 per year and then still want their school funded .. they don't care that their are schools in Australia that desperately need the funds more then them ...

They only send their kids to those schools for a status factor and i am not paying for status i am paying for education ..

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

if they want to claim a tax break on education send their kid to a cheaper school .. my tax dollars go on police i don't use , i cant claim that back .. no one cares about some poor little rich kids parents who fork out $20, 000 per year and then still want their school funded .. they don't care that their are schools in Australia that desperately need the funds more then them ... They only send their kids to those schools for a status factor and i am not paying for status i am paying for education ..

If only you knew; clearly you don't.

Elite private schools and some not so Elite private schools don't just educate, which mind they generally do very well; they nurture and develop Men & Women.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

if they want to claim a tax break on education send their kid to a cheaper school .. my tax dollars go on police i don't use , i cant claim that back .. no one cares about some poor little rich kids parents who fork out $20, 000 per year and then still want their school funded .. they don't care that their are schools in Australia that desperately need the funds more then them ... They only send their kids to those schools for a status factor and i am not paying for status i am paying for education ..

The funding is not for the school, it is for education.

And you say you would deny some children the same rights as other children?

their is education and education no one is denying its your choice but if you want the ELite school as you option that makes $4.7 million in profit and charges fess then dot expect us to pay ..

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:50pm:

their is education and education no one is denying its your choice but if you want the ELite school as you option that makes $4.7 million in profit and charges fess then dot expect us to pay ..

Wow, where did you learn to read and write?

:D

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:50pm:

their is education and education no one is denying its your choice but if you want the ELite school as you option that makes $4.7 million in profit and charges fess then dot expect us to pay ..

So you do advocate discrimination?

That amazes me in contemporary Australia.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:50pm:

their is education and education no one is denying its your choice but if you want the ELite school as you option that makes $4.7 million in profit and charges fess then dot expect us to pay ..

I think Rudd & Gizzard got it arse about face; clearly we need an oxygen tax.

deepthought wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:55pm:

So you do advocate discrimination? That amazes me in contemporary Australia.

That is exactly what you are doing , that is exactly what these elite schools are doing .. that is the Liberal Party mentality ...

They want equal share of funding but it is needs based so they say the less fortunate have to go without all while they get theirs ..

That is precisely why they are not in government because the Indis saw their scam

deepthought wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:48pm:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 9:41pm: if they want to claim a tax break on education send their kid to a cheaper school .. my tax dollars go on police i don't use , i cant claim that back .. no one cares about some poor little rich kids parents who fork out $20, 000 per year and then still want their school funded .. they don't care that their are schools in Australia that desperately need the funds more then them ... They only send their kids to those schools for a status factor and i am not paying for status i am paying for education .. The funding is not for the school, it is for education. And you say you would deny some children the same rights as other children?

Quick everyone, dig out your credit cards and dig deep, dt has uncovered an area of tremendous need, so let's ALL chip in and make sure those poor kids get that 19th tennis court they so desperately need.
Would you deny them their right to that extra court?
Then damn you, you heartless demons, without our aid these kids will have to make do with just 18, Oh the humanity!

i am confused now i thought they wanted their 18th oval ... not a tennis court .. decisions ...decisions but maybe if they come up with a Abbott black hole costing scenario they might get both

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 10:22pm:

deepthought wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 9:55pm: So you do advocate discrimination? That amazes me in contemporary Australia. That is exactly what you are doing , that is exactly what these elite schools are doing .. that is the Liberal Party mentality ... They want equal share of funding but it is needs based so they say the less fortunate have to go without all while they get theirs .. That is precisely why they are not in government because the Indis saw their scam

On the contrary.

Whereas I advocate a universal entitlement to education funding from the public purse, you advocate that only some children are deserving of support.

Now tell me again who is selective in their application of the rights of all?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 10:50pm:

i am confused now i thought they wanted their 18th oval ... not a tennis court .. decisions ...decisions but maybe if they come up with a Abbott black hole costing scenario they might get both

You are confused.

In Australia, each child attending any school should have an equal entitlement to education funding.  

This should not depend on their contribution.

The funding provided by government is for the education of the child not the benefit of the school.   That the school may have other sources of funds is irrelevant.

Are you aware that every child attending a private school actually saves the taxpayer money?  

And yet you say that is not only fair, but that in some cases, some children should receive even less?  Or even nothing at all?

How is it you are unable to see the inequity in that.

I am not sure if these Liberal party SES funding supporters here have dementia or not but i will say it again ELITE schools their is only 60 - 70 in Australia .... i am talking about it does not cover all private school like they are trying to make out  ...

Several got $2 million , some got $4million , some got 9 million , and some got $14 million no private , independent , catholic or state school ever saw that amount ... that is the argument yet you say each child should have equal entitlement ....

I wouldn't call it equal when a schools that needs for nothing due to how it is funded and resourced from all areas gets $14 million under a socio economic scheme .. The liberal party when implementing it said it would make these schools more accessible to everyone by reducing their fees but they have doubled and tripled and making the schools less accessible , once again utter lies from the coalition but it is what they are about ...  

If you go on about how they are missing out when compared to less resourced schools because you want equal funding then strip them of the 13 + million of funding money and redistribute them the exact same amounts the other schools received...

But no you still think schools getting this level of funding when most other schools got $200,000 was equal funding , equally resourced ... I am just glad it has come time for this welfare scheme for the rich that they have rorted so well is finishing soon..

You do not know what equality is so please carrying on because the rich are being disadvantaged ... boo f..ckin hoo no one cares if they are they can afford to ... that is what you want for your child you pay for it but dot take the funds that are not yours ..

Here is a thread imcrook could have added to.

How many labor politicians and their children have gone or are going to private schools?

You maybe surprised.