From another discussion board & I also saw it on TV this morning:


http://community.ebay.com.au/topic/Community-Spirit/Budget/600158525


Quote:

THE BUDGET Apr 22, 2013 07:07 AM I listened to Amanda Vanstone and Grahame Richardson this morning and what I heard was very concerning. They both agreed that what ever party wins the election in September the GST will most likely rise at some stage to at least 15% because the deficit at this stage ( and rising) is so huge and there is NO money in the coffers. The mining boom has weakened somewhat and this government has grossly overspent, the OZ dollar is to strong against other currencies but GR stated any credible treasury department would have foreseen and taken appropriate measures long before now because the OZ dollar has been high for over 2 years. The Swan budget will be interesting but I think it will be his "swan song"

The GST should've been 15% from 1993 as Hewson proposed.

20 years with 50% more GST revenue would have achieved wonders in health & education.

Thanks to Keating the GST was postponed & watered down.

Labor shot themselves in the foot and Aust with it there :( :( :( :( :(

Hi Swag,
well I think all the State leaders will agree to it because most of them are broke too.
None of them had any money for Gonski.

Swagman wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:11pm:

The GST should've been 15% from 1993 as Hewson proposed. 20 years with 50% more GST revenue would have achieved wonders in health & education. Thanks to Keating the GST was postponed & watered down. Labor shot themselves in the foot and Aust with it there :( :( :( :( :(

LOL


Swagman,

Your powers of observation and deduction amaze me!!!!       :P




If you give a spendthrift drunk more money to spend, will he curb his drunkenness ?

And if we give politicians more money to spend will our pollies suddenly become less negligent and wasteful in their spending policies ?

LOL

Dream on!






Pollies [of any every 'persuasion'] love spending other peoples money, extravagantly, WASTEFULLY, and especially when there is no proper accountability .

Correct Yadda,
the more we give them the more they will spend & they'll even borrow more too.

Swagman wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:11pm:

The GST should've been 15% from 1993 as Hewson proposed. 20 years with 50% more GST revenue would have achieved wonders in health & education. Thanks to Keating the GST was postponed & watered down. Labor shot themselves in the foot and Aust with it there :( :( :( :( :(

How about a 660 billion dollar sovereign wealth fund from the proceeds of a 78% super profits tax just like Norway has :)

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:13pm:

Hi Swag, well I think all the State leaders will agree to it because most of them are broke too. None of them had any money for Gonski.

Funny how Gonski recommended about 5.5 billion dollars to assist with upgrading and improving the education system in Australia

The fine print included about 1.8 billion to the elite private school system

I wonder how many politicians send their children to the public school system (which educates about 70% of the students in Australia)

Indeed, I wonder which school Gonski's children attend

Why is the tax payer providing funding for a SO CALLED private education???? And why is the tax payer funding religious based schools - which include catholic, Jewish and Islamic schools etc???

And these religious schools can circumvent the anti-discrimination act by refusing to employ teachers that dont meet religious criteria.

Gonski's recommendations are fine provided that private education system is left out of the money loop.

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:28pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:11pm: The GST should've been 15% from 1993 as Hewson proposed. 20 years with 50% more GST revenue would have achieved wonders in health & education. Thanks to Keating the GST was postponed & watered down. Labor shot themselves in the foot and Aust with it there :( :( :( :( :( How about a 660 billion dollar sovereign wealth fund from the proceeds of a 78% super profits tax just like Norway has :)

But Norway is an intelligent, civilised and long term looking nation.

(Australia's so called mining and energy resource sector is 84% foreign owned - Australia is laughed at overseas and the biggest sucker nation on the planet - we are collectively a bunch of idiotic moronic clown puppets that emit a foul cowardly stench into the stratosphere)

Chimp,

Quote:

Gonski's recommendations are fine provided that private education system is left out of the money loop.

Dear Chimp,
Is it fair that the rich pay twice -
once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:27pm:

Correct Yadda, the more we give them the more they will spend & they'll even borrow more too.

Thanks bobby.

And tonight you didn't find my post, too verbose, and unintelligible ?          ;)

Even though i used more than one line, to express myself!          :P

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:29pm:

The fine print included about 1.8 billion to the elite private school system I wonder how many politicians send their children to the public school system (which educates about 70% of the students in Australia) Indeed, I wonder which school Gonski's children attend Why is the tax payer providing funding for a SO CALLED private education???? And why is the tax payer funding religious based schools - which include catholic, Jewish and Islamic schools etc???

Julia Gillard caved in to pressure from Tony Abbott when Abbott claimed Julia was discriminating against private schools. Julia was so embarrassed and intimidated by what Tony said that she decided not to give less funding to private schools. It's just like how she caved in to pressure to cut costs to get back to the budget surplus, removing discounts for upfront payment of HECS fees and cutting support for single mothers. This was despite what Wayne Swan said earlier that returning to surplus was no longer a good idea. Julia's government simply can't stick to the same plan persistently. If we have to put up with a deficit, then fine. Don't start cutting costs again. It is an erratic government with no clear direction and frequently back-flips. When they do figure out what to do, they end up hurting or disadvantaging the wrong people.

Julia is a political coward and I think she should resign right now. Immediately. She just can't stand up to Tony's attacks. I support Tony's motion for a vote of no confidence. Let's kick this coward out of office.

That's three strikes, Julia. You're out.

Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:27pm: Correct Yadda, the more we give them the more they will spend & they'll even borrow more too. Thanks bobby. And tonight you didn't find my post, too verbose, and unintelligible ?          ;) Even though i used more than one line, to express myself!          :P

It could have been more concise but I struggled through it found what you were trying to say.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:33pm:

Chimp, Quote: Gonski's recommendations are fine provided that private education system is left out of the money loop. Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education?

They don't pay twice ... they pay taxes just like everyone else ... you don't get a say in where those taxes are spent, the govt. on the other hand has a duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford.

should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:49pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:27pm: Correct Yadda, the more we give them the more they will spend & they'll even borrow more too. Thanks bobby. And tonight you didn't find my post, too verbose, and unintelligible ?          ;) Even though i used more than one line, to express myself!          :P It could have been more concise but I struggled through it found what you were trying to say.

LOL

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:50pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:33pm: Chimp, Quote: Gonski's recommendations are fine provided that private education system is left out of the money loop. Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education? They don't pay twice ... they pay taxes just like everyone else ... you don't get a say in where those taxes are spent, the govt. on the other hand has a duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling?

Otherwise there will be a Labor induced class war.

Ya gotta love the naivety of some - the extra money from 1993 from GST would have gone into all the usual pet projects and not the hospitals and the health system.

We all know that government is doing it tough and so they need to come back to your pocket again and again.  Why not make a donation now.  I'll set up a trust fund at the bank, and we'll accept donations to save Australia from bankruptcy.

In about a year's time with good donations, I could very effectively manage that from my new estate in South America or some other safe haven..........The Bahamas sound good.... ::)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:31pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:28pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:11pm: The GST should've been 15% from 1993 as Hewson proposed. 20 years with 50% more GST revenue would have achieved wonders in health & education. Thanks to Keating the GST was postponed & watered down. Labor shot themselves in the foot and Aust with it there :( :( :( :( :( How about a 660 billion dollar sovereign wealth fund from the proceeds of a 78% super profits tax just like Norway has :) But Norway is an intelligent, civilised and long term looking nation. (Australia's so called mining and energy resource sector is 84% foreign owned - Australia is laughed at overseas and the biggest sucker nation on the planet - we are collectively a bunch of idiotic moronic clown puppets that emit a foul cowardly stench into the stratosphere)

and now after giving all of our wealth away to the rest of the world they tell us that they are short of money and we have to take it up the arse :(

...pay twice???

Using that rationality, people who choose to pay for private health care, or purchase expensive vehicles should be subsidised for their affluent decision making

We wouldn't want Clive Palmer or Gina to be out of pocket now would we ladies and gentlemen

Especially seeing as our beloved Gina prefers foreign workers on special slave visas and wants people to work for 2 dollars per day.

I have no issue with private education - but lets apply the nice principles of corporate capitalism to these so called institutions of  higher supreme learning. Let them pay their own way rather than leach on the corporate welfare teat.

Its the least that can be done for these elitist capitalists - who after all, hold capitalist and corporate ideals dear to their hearts

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:33pm: Chimp, Quote: Gonski's recommendations are fine provided that private education system is left out of the money loop. Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education? They don't pay twice ... they pay taxes just like everyone else ... you don't get a say in where those taxes are spent, the govt. on the other hand has a duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling? Otherwise there will be a Labor induced class war.

Wow - I must have missed something - Australia has never been without a class war, and it is getting worse.  here is M my learned rendition of the current malaise of the 'classless society - the only lack of class in it is the way it is run and is running....

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/money-divides

:'(   ::)   :'(   >:(  I have been saying for some time now that we are on the verge of a civil war.  Someone asked today if Obama was good for America - I said much the same - that country is heading for a Second Civil War withe the disadvantaged pitted against the super-advantaged.

Labor/Democrats - whatever - all socio-fascists end up with a ruling oligarchy of Bolshevik mates, who are more equal than the rest.

SSDD.  :o

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 11:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:31pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:28pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:11pm: The GST should've been 15% from 1993 as Hewson proposed. 20 years with 50% more GST revenue would have achieved wonders in health & education. Thanks to Keating the GST was postponed & watered down. Labor shot themselves in the foot and Aust with it there :( :( :( :( :( How about a 660 billion dollar sovereign wealth fund from the proceeds of a 78% super profits tax just like Norway has :) But Norway is an intelligent, civilised and long term looking nation. (Australia's so called mining and energy resource sector is 84% foreign owned - Australia is laughed at overseas and the biggest sucker nation on the planet - we are collectively a bunch of idiotic moronic clown puppets that emit a foul cowardly stench into the stratosphere) and now after giving all of our wealth away to the rest of the world they tell us that they are short of money and we have to take it up the arse :(

The State is under corporate rule - foreign corporate rule to be precise

Its a Corpocracy - a type of slave fascist Oligarchical tyranny.

This is why when Rudd stuck his head up just a little bit and suggested that MAYBE, just MAYBE the elite corporate mining sector (which is 83% foreign owned) could pay additional tax when it generates super profits.

And we all know what happened to Rudd - overnight the corporately run media had a frenzy. This evil Marxist must be stopped - and stopped he was, by his own party.

You understood then and there who was in control of this country - and it wasn't the government or the people.

We are essentially supreme buggerwits in this country

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:33pm:

Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education?

I don't know what the problem is. The government could just give them a tax refund for private schooling fees.

Most of the rich's income is disposable income anyway. It's not necessary for survival. The rich will not starve to death from being over-taxed. All they have to do is spend less on real-estate and residential property, mansions, butlers, cleaners, maids, babysitters, cosmetic surgery, luxury products and jewelry. They spend a lot of their money on unnecessarily goods, services and private property that are not capital goods and do not contribute to the economy. Much of their disposable income comes from a market highly distorted in their favour where the rewards are not strictly proportional to the human effort put in, but follow a non-linear, exponential relationship. In other words, not only do they not need all that wealth, they don't deserve all of it.

To each according to his need and effort.


John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:50pm:

should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling?

Exactly. Why should I pay for their private education when they can already pay? It makes private education just as cheap as public education. It makes it even harder for public school students to compete with private ones. Now it seems like private school students are getting a free ride. I would rather that it was the other way round: stop supporting these private schools, force them to charge higher fees and possibly go broke.

added a poll



Quote:

Question: Should the GST rise to 15% to stop Govt. bankruptcy?

Chimp,

Quote:

And we all know what happened to Rudd - overnight the corporately run media had a frenzy. This evil Marxist must be stopped - and stopped he was, by his own party.

The Melbourne AGE newspaper is left wing.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 11:08pm:

Wow - I must have missed something - Australia has never been without a class war, and it is getting worse.  here is M my learned rendition of the current malaise of the 'classless society - the only lack of class in it is the way it is run and is running....

As far as the relationship between capitalism and socialism is concerned, there is only one class in Australia: the bourgeoisie. We are all bourgeoisie because we all aspire to accumulate private property, except for the homeless ones and "downshifters" who are effectively in rebellion against our bourgeoisie society. There is therefore no real class war. It is just one group of bourgeoisies against another group.


Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 11:08pm:

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/money-divides

See above. It's bourgeoisie vs. bourgeoisie.


Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 11:08pm:

:'(   ::)   :'(   >:(  I have been saying for some time now that we are on the verge of a civil war.  Someone asked today if Obama was good for America - I said much the same - that country is heading for a Second Civil War withe the disadvantaged pitted against the super-advantaged.

It's a civil war that won't change anything. There will always be high-income bourgeoisie and low-income bourgeoisie.


Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 11:08pm:

Labor/Democrats - whatever - all socio-fascists end up with a ruling oligarchy of Bolshevik mates, who are more equal than the rest.

It's funny how you regard the ALP as "socialist" when they have done little to eliminate a culture of wealth accumulation. You see, Karl Marx was against accumulation of private property. He saw it as a waste of time and resources. It is no wonder our export industry can't compete. We pay higher wages in order to keep our people in the game of "keeping up with the Joneses," because of course nobody wants to be left behind in this competition to accumulate as much private property as possible before their old age.

Bolsheviks? Socialists? What Bolsheviks? What socialists? I don't see them anywhere. The ones who appear to be Bolsheviks and socialists are really wolves in sheep's clothing, false prophets who have done nothing to rid this society of a culture that compels people to accumulate private property to keep up with the Joneses.

Until the ALP starts campaigning to eliminate and reduce private property, I will never regard them as socialists, regardless of how much they increase social security payments, which only serves to increase the bourgeoisie culture of greed. Social security isn't really socialism. It's bourgeoisie welfare. The ALP is just there to help the least fortunate bourgeoisie.

The only "true socialists" (in terms of reducing/eliminating private property) in this land are the down-shifters and they have nothing to do with the government.

Come on people - vote in the poll :

Just imagine paying even more taxes.

inevitable and probably the fairest way to raise revenue

I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances.

Kat wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 8:19am:

I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances.

Why?  No let me guess.  You don't pay income tax now so income tax increases don't effect you and so an increase in the GST will (shock horror) mean that you will actually have to pay some tax to contribute to the running of the Government?  ::)

The issue of the GST raised its head initially (by the Reaper himself) as one way of assisting the humongous cost of the aging of the population.

What happens when the population ages?

The proportion of income tax payers declines and the proportion of retirees increases.  A vast number will not be self funded and will therefore avail themselves of the pension and the 'free' health system and the burden of payment will rest upon the declining proportion of income tax payers.

Governments will go into deficit and borrow more to pay for their pork barrelling schemes rather than commit suicide and increase taxes. :(

Broad based taxes such as the GST collect tax from everyone.  Drug dealers, cash tradies, tourists etc etc etc

:(

Swagman wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 9:17am:

Kat wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:19am: I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances. Why?  No let me guess.  You don't pay income tax now so income tax increases don't effect you and so an increase in the GST will (shock horror) mean that you will actually have to pay some tax to contribute to the running of the Government?  ::)

Um, no.

Actually, I do pay tax.

You may assume otherwise, if you wish, but that doesn't make it true.

Kat wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 9:35am:

Swagman wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:17am: Kat wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:19am: I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances. Why?  No let me guess.  You don't pay income tax now so income tax increases don't effect you and so an increase in the GST will (shock horror) mean that you will actually have to pay some tax to contribute to the running of the Government?  ::) Um, no. Actually, I do pay tax. You may assume otherwise, if you wish, but that doesn't make it true.

Fine, but what are your reasons for not increasing the GST? :-?

This is the result of voting in Economic Vandals.

The illegal boats alone have cost 6 billion dollars.

It will take years and years to peel back the 180 odd billion dollars in overseas debt that Gillard and Co. have racked up.

red baron wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 1:48pm:

This is the result of voting in Economic Vandals. The illegal boats alone have cost 6 billion dollars. It will take years and years to peel back the 180 odd billion dollars in overseas debt that Gillard and Co. have racked up.

The debt is far more than $180 billion.
I don't know how Abbott will ever pay it back.
So many businesses are down sizing & closing.
The economy is in ruins & I expect it to go on for decades.

The only question now is which country to go and live in?

red baron wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 1:48pm:

This is the result of voting in Economic Vandals. The illegal boats alone have cost 6 billion dollars. It will take years and years to peel back the 180 odd billion dollars in overseas debt that Gillard and Co. have racked up.

you have no time to pay this back

it will have doubled in 2 weeks the way you give your

power away to the puppets by voting them in..

2 horse pantomime and both horses freemasonic

namaste

- : )

Swagman wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:11pm:

The GST should've been 15% from 1993 as Hewson proposed. 20 years with 50% more GST revenue would have achieved wonders in health & education. Thanks to Keating the GST was postponed & watered down. Labor shot themselves in the foot and Aust with it there

With the term the Liberals had in power health & education would still be struggling but we would have some trillionairs in the business community .

Kat wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 8:19am:

I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances.

And so you should.  So should everyone - what strain of stockholm syndrome would cause any private citizen to be in favour of increasing taxes?

... wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Kat wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:19am: I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances. And so you should.  So should everyone - what strain of stockholm syndrome would cause any private citizen to be in favour of increasing taxes?

Yes - it's so hard to run a business & employ people now -
what will it be like when GST rises to 15%?

I must add that I shall shortly be a victim of the economic downturn -
thanks Kevin & Julia.

If the Rich and corporate elite actually paid Tax then we wouldn't even need a GST in the first place

Last financial year. 40% of the top 100 corporations didn't pay any tax at all. The remaining, typically paid about 15% on average

Remove the scams and tax dodging schemes and the burden on the common citizen will be reduced and proper services and infrastructure funded

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

If the Rich and corporate elite actually paid Tax then we wouldn't even need a GST in the first place Last financial year. 40% of the top 100 corporations didn't pay any tax at all. The remaining, typically paid about 15% on average Remove the scams and tax dodging schemes and the burden on the common citizen will be reduced and proper services and infrastructure funded

and how about our pollies NO MORE TAX FREE expense accounts..no more subsidised lunches.and duty free drinks..

Im all for that..

drive their own bloody cars and get a fuel rebate..like anyone else.

they are no more special than anyone else.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:50pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:33pm: Chimp, Quote: Gonski's recommendations are fine provided that private education system is left out of the money loop. Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education? They don't pay twice ... they pay taxes just like everyone else ... you don't get a say in where those taxes are spent, the govt. on the other hand has a duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling?

so on one hand you say we dont get to choose where our taxes are spent and then you complain about where your taxes are spent...

what a classic!

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 11:11pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:33pm: Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education? I don't know what the problem is. The government could just give them a tax refund for private schooling fees. Most of the rich's income is disposable income anyway. It's not necessary for survival. The rich will not starve to death from being over-taxed. All they have to do is spend less on real-estate and residential property, mansions, butlers, cleaners, maids, babysitters, cosmetic surgery, luxury products and jewelry. They spend a lot of their money on unnecessarily goods, services and private property that are not capital goods and do not contribute to the economy. Much of their disposable income comes from a market highly distorted in their favour where the rewards are not strictly proportional to the human effort put in, but follow a non-linear, exponential relationship. In other words, not only do they not need all that wealth, they don't deserve all of it. To each according to his need and effort. John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling? Exactly. Why should I pay for their private education when they can already pay? It makes private education just as cheap as public education. It makes it even harder for public school students to compete with private ones. Now it seems like private school students are getting a free ride. I would rather that it was the other way round: stop supporting these private schools, force them to charge higher fees and possibly go broke.

pretty poor argument. Why should I pay for your public education?  you can pay for it yourself. You just have to go without some things just like the majority of private school parents do now.

... wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Kat wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:19am: I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances. And so you should.  So should everyone - what strain of stockholm syndrome would cause any private citizen to be in favour of increasing taxes?

where have you been? this forum is full of drongos thatr oppose tax cuts and think  tax should be increased. Oh but I forget . they want taxes increased for OTHER people! Im in favour of a 15% GST if it is revenue neutral and removes other taxes such as stamp duty and payroll tax. just as the original GST was revenue neutral.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:11pm: The GST should've been 15% from 1993 as Hewson proposed. 20 years with 50% more GST revenue would have achieved wonders in health & education. Thanks to Keating the GST was postponed & watered down. Labor shot themselves in the foot and Aust with it there With the term the Liberals had in power health & education would still be struggling but we would have some trillionairs in the business community .

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/forehead-slap-smiley-emoticon.gif

It took nearly 10 years to pay off Labor's debt.

10 YEARS!!!!!!!

How long to pay off the $270 odd Billion Labor have racked up so far.

Just the interest bill on that $96 Billion Labor debt could have made a big difference.  What's going to be the opportunity cost of Labor's latest spending binge?  :(


... wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

And so you should.  So should everyone - what strain of stockholm syndrome would cause any private citizen to be in favour of increasing taxes

The NBN is a tax increase.

Every Labor budget brought down in the last 20 years has been a tax increase.

If you want universal healthcare and you have more retirees and less taxpayers you have to raise taxes or sell assets.

Govt debt is a tax increase. :(

Swag,

Quote:

How long to pay off the $270 odd Billion Labor have racked up so far.

The debt will never be paid -
it will only increase - no matter who is in power.

...about 95% of Australia's TOTAL debt resides in Private/Corporate hands

Media very quiet on that front

(but then again the Media is also as corporately owned entity and in debt as well)

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

pretty poor argument. Why should I pay for your public education?  you can pay for it yourself.

I wonder if you even understand the difference between a private and public education. You probably think that people just pay more for one than the other. You should know that "public schools" are often called "government schools" as well. That's because the government provides a large portion of the funds for public education. A lot of people send their kids to public schools because they cannot afford private schooling.

Private schools fund their education programs through higher fees. (It's like buying a Mac instead of a PC.) This is how they are able to make themselves independent of government funding, and is why people sometimes also call them "independent schools." In theory, they are able to remain profitable or financially viable without government help. Whether or not they receive government funding anyway is another matter. The difference, however, is still parents contributing a large portion of the costs. Private schools are for people who are able to pay whereas public schools are for people who are not able to pay, or don't want to pay.

The answer, therefore is no. A lot of people cannot pay for public education themselves. What they do pay in fees is a small portion of the total cost of the education, much of which the government provides.

If people want a higher quality of education in private schools, they should just pay higher fees or purchase additional benefits. Government funding for private/independent schools defeats the purpose of having independent schools.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:11pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:33pm: Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education? I don't know what the problem is. The government could just give them a tax refund for private schooling fees. Most of the rich's income is disposable income anyway. It's not necessary for survival. The rich will not starve to death from being over-taxed. All they have to do is spend less on real-estate and residential property, mansions, butlers, cleaners, maids, babysitters, cosmetic surgery, luxury products and jewelry. They spend a lot of their money on unnecessarily goods, services and private property that are not capital goods and do not contribute to the economy. Much of their disposable income comes from a market highly distorted in their favour where the rewards are not strictly proportional to the human effort put in, but follow a non-linear, exponential relationship. In other words, not only do they not need all that wealth, they don't deserve all of it. To each according to his need and effort. John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling? Exactly. Why should I pay for their private education when they can already pay? It makes private education just as cheap as public education. It makes it even harder for public school students to compete with private ones. Now it seems like private school students are getting a free ride. I would rather that it was the other way round: stop supporting these private schools, force them to charge higher fees and possibly go broke. pretty poor argument. Why should I pay for your public education?  you can pay for it yourself. You just have to go without some things just like the majority of private school parents do now.

If anyone has to "go without" to put their kid in a private school they shouldn't be using a private school. I expect the things they "do without" though are the 3rd car etc whereas ppl that have to "do without" to send their kids to public school do without a car @ all kinda thing.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 8:19pm:

... wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 6:57pm: Kat wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:19am: I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances. And so you should.  So should everyone - what strain of stockholm syndrome would cause any private citizen to be in favour of increasing taxes? where have you been? this forum is full of drongos thatr oppose tax cuts and think  tax should be increased. Oh but I forget . they want taxes increased for OTHER people! Im in favour of a 15% GST if it is revenue neutral and removes other taxes such as stamp duty and payroll tax. just as the original GST was revenue neutral.

The original GST proposal was that it would remove lots of other taxes the majority of which were not removed but merely renamed. Some werent even renamed (stamp duty was 1 wasnt it?)

@ least we dont have a bedroom tax like the UK. I have a friend there whose wife left him and took the kid so now he has to pay a bedroom tax for having a spare bedroom.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 8:19pm:

... wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 6:57pm: Kat wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:19am: I would strongly oppose an attempt to raise the GST under any circumstances. And so you should.  So should everyone - what strain of stockholm syndrome would cause any private citizen to be in favour of increasing taxes? where have you been? this forum is full of drongos thatr oppose tax cuts and think  tax should be increased. Oh but I forget . they want taxes increased for OTHER people! Im in favour of a 15% GST if it is revenue neutral and removes other taxes such as stamp duty and payroll tax. just as the original GST was revenue neutral.

Longy,
It can't be revenue neutral.
The Govt. needs more money otherwise it will be broke.
It's already broke & borrowing money just to pay all the public servants.

100,000 new public servants were hired when there was no money to pay for them.

This fiscal situation was caused by Labor & happened even when there was a mining boom.

Tony is silent on all of this because he knows the only answer is to sack
100,000 public servants & have a 15%  GST.

If they raise the GST they will also have to compensate those on welfare like pensioners. Any government that raises the GST  has a death wish, especially in its first term.
They would probably have a better chance of selling the broadening of the GST to cover everything, including food, even the cake with or without the fresh cream added.

On a personal note I would prefer to pay a higher GST, even 20% but have income tax reduced or the tax free threshold lifted to 30 or 40 grand.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:33pm: Chimp, Quote: Gonski's recommendations are fine provided that private education system is left out of the money loop. Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education? They don't pay twice ... they pay taxes just like everyone else ... you don't get a say in where those taxes are spent, the govt. on the other hand has a duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling? Otherwise there will be a Labor induced class war.

We already have that it was introduced by labor (this government). when they started with this, we will help WORKING FAMILIES policy.

If you not a Working family your nothing.

skippy. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 8:14am:

On a personal note I would prefer to pay a higher GST, even 20% but have income tax reduced or the tax free threshold lifted to 30 or 40 grand.

OMG that's the most sensible thing I've seen you post. :o

You see this is the great bloody black financial hole that LABOR has dug for us all. Spend, spend, spend, spend...and it will be the poor old Liberals who will be the lambs to the slaughter to lead our Country out of the financial wilderness that Gillard and Co. has thrust us in.

It is almost inconceivable that in six short years this useless bloody Government of Financial Idiots could take us from surplus and good prospects to the black hole we are now in.

red baron wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 8:44am:

You see this is the great bloody black financial hole that LABOR has dug for us all. Spend, spend, spend, spend...and it will be the poor old Liberals who will be the lambs to the slaughter to lead our Country out of the financial wilderness that Gillard and Co. has thrust us in. It is almost inconceivable that in six short years this useless bloody Government of Financial Idiots could take us from surplus and good prospects to the black hole we are now in.

All during an unprecedented mining boom too.... :(

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 12:47am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: pretty poor argument. Why should I pay for your public education?  you can pay for it yourself. I wonder if you even understand the difference between a private and public education. You probably think that people just pay more for one than the other. You should know that "public schools" are often called "government schools" as well. That's because the government provides a large portion of the funds for public education. A lot of people send their kids to public schools because they cannot afford private schooling. Private schools fund their education programs through higher fees. (It's like buying a Mac instead of a PC.) This is how they are able to make themselves independent of government funding, and is why people sometimes also call them "independent schools." In theory, they are able to remain profitable or financially viable without government help. Whether or not they receive government funding anyway is another matter. The difference, however, is still parents contributing a large portion of the costs. Private schools are for people who are able to pay whereas public schools are for people who are not able to pay, or don't want to pay. The answer, therefore is no. A lot of people cannot pay for public education themselves. What they do pay in fees is a small portion of the total cost of the education, much of which the government provides. If people want a higher quality of education in private schools, they should just pay higher fees or purchase additional benefits. Government funding for private/independent schools defeats the purpose of having independent schools.

that is a very confused and blinkered opinion. you also clearly know nothing at all about private schools. The vast majority of them are low fee schools which are COMPLETELY UNVIABLE without govt funding. remove that funding and the vast majority of those kids are back in public schools at 30% more funding per head than currently.

If you dont want to pay for my kids schooling (at a 30% discount) then I see no reason why I should pay for yours.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 5:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: Mnemonic wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:11pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:33pm: Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education? I don't know what the problem is. The government could just give them a tax refund for private schooling fees. Most of the rich's income is disposable income anyway. It's not necessary for survival. The rich will not starve to death from being over-taxed. All they have to do is spend less on real-estate and residential property, mansions, butlers, cleaners, maids, babysitters, cosmetic surgery, luxury products and jewelry. They spend a lot of their money on unnecessarily goods, services and private property that are not capital goods and do not contribute to the economy. Much of their disposable income comes from a market highly distorted in their favour where the rewards are not strictly proportional to the human effort put in, but follow a non-linear, exponential relationship. In other words, not only do they not need all that wealth, they don't deserve all of it. To each according to his need and effort. John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling? Exactly. Why should I pay for their private education when they can already pay? It makes private education just as cheap as public education. It makes it even harder for public school students to compete with private ones. Now it seems like private school students are getting a free ride. I would rather that it was the other way round: stop supporting these private schools, force them to charge higher fees and possibly go broke. pretty poor argument. Why should I pay for your public education?  you can pay for it yourself. You just have to go without some things just like the majority of private school parents do now. If anyone has to "go without" to put their kid in a private school they shouldn't be using a private school. I expect the things they "do without" though are the 3rd car etc whereas ppl that have to "do without" to send their kids to public school do without a car @ all kinda thing. SOB

never had kids right? never had that parental drive to go without for your kids sake?

well at least you didnt breed.

Having another go at BOAG insted of dicussing the topic.

GST to rise to 15%

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Having another go at BOAG

I just don't get it. Do you not know an R from an A?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 5:23am:

If anyone has to "go without" to put their kid in a private school they shouldn't be using a private school. I expect the things they "do without" though are the 3rd car etc whereas ppl that have to "do without" to send their kids to public school do without a car @ all kinda thing. SOB

If they can't afford to send their kids to a public school, then they can't afford to have kids in the first place.

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Having another go at BOAG insted of dicussing the topic. GST to rise to 15%

I see the poll has 9 NOs so far but no reasons for it?

If you want increased services and increased hand outs and increased infrastructure then tax revenues have to increase.

Everyone pays GST so its the most equitable, sustainable & fairest way to go...... :(

It taxes the black economy

It taxes tourists

It taxes drug dealers

It scoops in tax revenues from where the tax man can't get.

:) :) :) :)

Swagman wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Having another go at BOAG insted of dicussing the topic. GST to rise to 15% I see the poll has 9 NOs so far but no reasons for it? If you want increased services and increased hand outs and increased infrastructure then tax revenues have to increase. Everyone pays GST so its the most equitable, sustainable & fairest way to go...... :( It taxes the black economy It taxes tourists It taxes drug dealers It scoops in tax revenues from where the tax man can't get. :) :) :) :)

there is another option: cutting unnecessary expenditure.

Quantum wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Having another go at BOAG I just don't get it. Do you not know an R from an A?

he supports SOB... doesn't that fully explain your query?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

Quantum wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 1:16pm: dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Having another go at BOAG I just don't get it. Do you not know an R from an A? he supports SOB... doesn't that fully explain your query?

True that.

Quantum wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 5:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 4:50pm: Quantum wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 1:16pm: dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Having another go at BOAG I just don't get it. Do you not know an R from an A? he supports SOB... doesn't that fully explain your query? True that.

sometimes around here a person with an Iq of 80 stands about the crowd.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 5:14pm:

Quantum wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 5:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 4:50pm: Quantum wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 1:16pm: dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Having another go at BOAG I just don't get it. Do you not know an R from an A? he supports SOB... doesn't that fully explain your query? True that. sometimes around here a person with an Iq of 80 stands about the crowd.

I wouldn't be criticising anyone's IQ dopey ... it's stand ABOVE the crowd, not about the crowd ...

Quantum wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 5:23am: If anyone has to "go without" to put their kid in a private school they shouldn't be using a private school. I expect the things they "do without" though are the 3rd car etc whereas ppl that have to "do without" to send their kids to public school do without a car @ all kinda thing. SOB If they can't afford to send their kids to a public school, then they can't afford to have kids in the first place.

your nothing But a UNCARING bastard QUANTUM

Education is FREE, the Same as health services.

[/quot
I see the poll has 9 NOs so far but no reasons for it?

If you want increased services and increased hand outs and increased infrastructure then tax revenues have to increase.
[/quote]

No all the ellitist BASTARDS out there have to go with a little less.

The same as the rest of us.

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

Quantum wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 5:23am: If anyone has to "go without" to put their kid in a private school they shouldn't be using a private school. I expect the things they "do without" though are the 3rd car etc whereas ppl that have to "do without" to send their kids to public school do without a car @ all kinda thing. SOB If they can't afford to send their kids to a public school, then they can't afford to have kids in the first place. your nothing But a UNCARING bastard QUANTUM

Then you explain how people who can afford to have kids can't afford to send them somewhere that is mostly free.

If uniforms, school fees, and books, are going to break the budget, then how could you afford the real expenses that kids bring to a household?

Quantum wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 5:47pm: Quantum wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 5:23am: If anyone has to "go without" to put their kid in a private school they shouldn't be using a private school. I expect the things they "do without" though are the 3rd car etc whereas ppl that have to "do without" to send their kids to public school do without a car @ all kinda thing. SOB If they can't afford to send their kids to a public school, then they can't afford to have kids in the first place. your nothing But a UNCARING bastard QUANTUM Then you explain how people who can afford to have kids can't afford to send them somewhere that is mostly free. If uniforms, school fees, and books, are going to break the budget, then how could you afford the real expenses that kids bring to a household?

for parents struggling to pay, those things are often provided free of charge or at greatly reduced rates.

Swagman wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Having another go at BOAG insted of dicussing the topic. GST to rise to 15% I see the poll has 9 NOs so far but no reasons for it? If you want increased services and increased hand outs and increased infrastructure then tax revenues have to increase. Everyone pays GST so its the most equitable, sustainable & fairest way to go...... :( It taxes the black economy It taxes tourists   NOT entirely - they are able to claim it back !! It taxes drug dealers  Yeh, in your dreams!! It scoops in tax revenues from where the tax man can't get. Yes, like off the low paid and pensioners who cannot really afford it while leaving the high income earners to pay less income tax! That's where it should come from!! :) :) :) :)

If anyone has to "go without"

There not the ones that are sending their kids to private schools.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:06pm:

From another discussion board & I also saw it on TV this morning: http://community.ebay.com.au/topic/Community-Spirit/Budget/600158525 Quote: THE BUDGET Apr 22, 2013 07:07 AM I listened to Amanda Vanstone and Grahame Richardson this morning and what I heard was very concerning. They both agreed that what ever party wins the election in September the GST will most likely rise at some stage to at least 15% because the deficit at this stage ( and rising) is so huge and there is NO money in the coffers. The mining boom has weakened somewhat and this government has grossly overspent, the OZ dollar is to strong against other currencies but GR stated any credible treasury department would have foreseen and taken appropriate measures long before now because the OZ dollar has been high for over 2 years. The Swan budget will be interesting but I think it will be his "swan song"

And you believe Richardson?  One of the biggest liars around - bar Gillard!!

Sorry, All you ellitist Bastards have to go with a little less, (maybe get rid of the second mobile phone) For the Good of the Country, including Liberal and Labor party supporters, just like the rest of us effected by this economic recession that got worse since the GFC.

Don't give us 15% GST tax to those of us not wasting the countrys money.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

The vast majority of them are low fee schools which are COMPLETELY UNVIABLE without govt funding. remove that funding and the vast majority of those kids are back in public schools at 30% more funding per head than currently.

Have a look at this article.

http://www.theage.com.au/data-point/private-fees-mount-as-education-costs-soar-20130124-2d8c4.html

I downloaded the data and put it in a spreadsheet:

http://i35.tinypic.com/6z93k1.png

Just what exactly do you mean by "low fees?" Private school fees on average are 5 to 8 times higher than public school ones. See the data shown in the above web page. They don't seem "low" to me at all so it looks like you're being a little dishonest here. A "vast majority" of private schools cannot be charging "low fees" if on average their fees are 5 to 8 times higher than public schools, because as you know the mean/average of anything reflects the "vast majority" of whatever you're measuring. This is a feeble attempt to understate the value of private school fees.


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

If you dont want to pay for my kids schooling (at a 30% discount) then I see no reason why I should pay for yours.

I should not be responsible or liable for the costs of giving your kids a more expensive education. The taxes I pay should only go to public schools. You had a choice between cheaper goods and services but chose something more expensive anyway. I will not support a kind of education I never needed myself. I will only pay for your kids' schooling if it's the same kind of education I received. I have no desire to have my taxes going to an "optional" form of education.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 5:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: Mnemonic wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:11pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:33pm: Dear Chimp, Is it fair that the rich pay twice - once for their own kids & again for other people's kids to get an education? I don't know what the problem is. The government could just give them a tax refund for private schooling fees. Most of the rich's income is disposable income anyway. It's not necessary for survival. The rich will not starve to death from being over-taxed. All they have to do is spend less on real-estate and residential property, mansions, butlers, cleaners, maids, babysitters, cosmetic surgery, luxury products and jewelry. They spend a lot of their money on unnecessarily goods, services and private property that are not capital goods and do not contribute to the economy. Much of their disposable income comes from a market highly distorted in their favour where the rewards are not strictly proportional to the human effort put in, but follow a non-linear, exponential relationship. In other words, not only do they not need all that wealth, they don't deserve all of it. To each according to his need and effort. John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: should they chose to go to private education, that is their choice .... why should my taxes subsidies their private schooling? Exactly. Why should I pay for their private education when they can already pay? It makes private education just as cheap as public education. It makes it even harder for public school students to compete with private ones. Now it seems like private school students are getting a free ride. I would rather that it was the other way round: stop supporting these private schools, force them to charge higher fees and possibly go broke. pretty poor argument. Why should I pay for your public education?  you can pay for it yourself. You just have to go without some things just like the majority of private school parents do now. If anyone has to "go without" to put their kid in a private school they shouldn't be using a private school. I expect the things they "do without" though are the 3rd car etc whereas ppl that have to "do without" to send their kids to public school do without a car @ all kinda thing. SOB never had kids right? never had that parental drive to go without for your kids sake? well at least you didnt breed.

Dear Longweekend,
your adherence to Nazi ideology has been noted -
the inferior should be prevented from breeding.


Hitler - Mein Kampf:

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html



Quote:

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

Longweekend,
You are forgiven for promulgating  Nazi ideology on Ozpolitic.

namaste.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 1:43pm: dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Having another go at BOAG insted of dicussing the topic. GST to rise to 15% I see the poll has 9 NOs so far but no reasons for it? If you want increased services and increased hand outs and increased infrastructure then tax revenues have to increase. Everyone pays GST so its the most equitable, sustainable & fairest way to go...... :( It taxes the black economy It taxes tourists It taxes drug dealers It scoops in tax revenues from where the tax man can't get. :) :) :) :) there is another option: cutting unnecessary expenditure.

Dear Longweekend,
I agree -
for a start there are too many public servants.

.

I had to make 2 more posts to get the page to flip.

Quantum wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 5:47pm: Quantum wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 5:23am: If anyone has to "go without" to put their kid in a private school they shouldn't be using a private school. I expect the things they "do without" though are the 3rd car etc whereas ppl that have to "do without" to send their kids to public school do without a car @ all kinda thing. SOB If they can't afford to send their kids to a public school, then they can't afford to have kids in the first place. your nothing But a UNCARING bastard QUANTUM Then you explain how people who can afford to have kids can't afford to send them somewhere that is mostly free. If uniforms, school fees, and books, are going to break the budget, then how could you afford the real expenses that kids bring to a household?

do what the Fins do and don't have stupid school uniforms which is just another get rich quick scam business.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:50pm:

...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford.

They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education.

it has nothing to do with insulaltion, solar panels or anything else ... trying to link them together shows you have no real idea ...

you want private education, you pay ... govt. already pays once for an education system (as it should) ... why should it pay for two?

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education.

Hi Torpedo,
I agree,
it really annoys me when any politician stands on their soap box
& makes some pronouncement about say a new $ zillion scheme.

With what money?

They make promises with money they will borrow - money we don't have.

It's like some drunken loser standing outside a pub
promising everyone a drink - when they have no money.

Tony & JuLiar do it at least once per week.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

I should not be responsible or liable for the costs of giving your kids a more expensive education. The taxes I pay should only go to public schools. You had a choice between cheaper goods and services but chose something more expensive anyway.

are you saying that those who choose to go to different school, (be it because they live in a demographically undesired area, or low academic standards) should not really have that choice? So if they can't afford to move to StIves - is just a tough luck? And you decided to keep your kids in Public (either because you don't have the problems with location, or either because you preferred to save money rather than spending it on kids education, or whether you just can't afford an extra dollar for private education), but still get the 30% taxpayer's support? Do you really think that all the people who send their kids to private schools are rich? Do you really think that all people who pay for private schooling are just showing off?
Most people that I know struggle to pay bills, many private (particularly religious) schools sometimes even discount, or in some circumstances waive the fees completely until family recovers financially, when reasonable enough explanation provided.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:45pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education. Hi Torpedo, I agree, it really annoys me when any politician stands on their soap box & makes some pronouncement about say a new $ zillion scheme. With what money? They make promises with money they will borrow - money we don't have. It's like some drunken loser standing outside a pub promising everyone a drink - when they have no money. Tony & JuLiar do it at least once per week.

well, it's typical for left wingers. I just don't understand why so many people buy it today, don't we all already know some history? It's like stepping on the rake over and over and over

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:45pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education. it has nothing to do with insulaltion, solar panels or anything else ... trying to link them together shows you have no real idea ... you want private education, you pay ... govt. already pays once for an education system (as it should) ... why should it pay for two?

The system is one - educational system, which includes all kinds of educational organisations, so long they provide legitimate and fair academical standards. Those who choose to pay more, should be able to, simply because they have different plans. Why should they send them to Dundas public, just because they live in the area? they can't afford to move to Killara...

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:48pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:45pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education. it has nothing to do with insulaltion, solar panels or anything else ... trying to link them together shows you have no real idea ... you want private education, you pay ... govt. already pays once for an education system (as it should) ... why should it pay for two? The system is one - educational system, which includes all kinds of educational organisations, so long they provide legitimate and fair academical standards. Those who choose to pay more, should be able to, simply because they have different plans. Why should they send them to Dundas public, just because they live in the area? they can't afford to move to Killara...

no, there are two systems ... the public education system and the private education system ... if there was one this debate wouldn't be happening.

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:48pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:45pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education. it has nothing to do with insulaltion, solar panels or anything else ... trying to link them together shows you have no real idea ... you want private education, you pay ... govt. already pays once for an education system (as it should) ... why should it pay for two? The system is one - educational system, which includes all kinds of educational organisations, so long they provide legitimate and fair academical standards. Those who choose to pay more, should be able to, simply because they have different plans. Why should they send them to Dundas public, just because they live in the area? they can't afford to move to Killara... no, there are two systems ... the public education system and the private education system ... if there was one this debate wouldn't be happening.

In your opinion... in my opinion education is education, be it public or private, they both fall under the same category and they both provide brighter future for the country.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:48pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:45pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education. it has nothing to do with insulaltion, solar panels or anything else ... trying to link them together shows you have no real idea ... you want private education, you pay ... govt. already pays once for an education system (as it should) ... why should it pay for two? The system is one - educational system, which includes all kinds of educational organisations, so long they provide legitimate and fair academical standards. Those who choose to pay more, should be able to, simply because they have different plans. Why should they send them to Dundas public, just because they live in the area? they can't afford to move to Killara...

You said it THOSE WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE  ... I've no problem with those chosing to pay more doing so ... it's your money, go for it. ... I have a problem with my tax dollars going toward you chosing to send your kids to private .... why should they? If i send my kids to private it is my choice and I will pay for it.

To use your argument, If I don't like my local shopping centre because of the local rif raf, why should't the govt. pay cab fare for me and my family to go to a more suitable shopping centre? Just because I cannot afford to live in the suburb with the nice shopping centre should I be punished for it?

It's a stupid argument.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:23pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:48pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:45pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education. it has nothing to do with insulaltion, solar panels or anything else ... trying to link them together shows you have no real idea ... you want private education, you pay ... govt. already pays once for an education system (as it should) ... why should it pay for two? The system is one - educational system, which includes all kinds of educational organisations, so long they provide legitimate and fair academical standards. Those who choose to pay more, should be able to, simply because they have different plans. Why should they send them to Dundas public, just because they live in the area? they can't afford to move to Killara... no, there are two systems ... the public education system and the private education system ... if there was one this debate wouldn't be happening. In your opinion... in my opinion education is education, be it public or private, they both fall under the same category and they both provide brighter future for the country.

thats like saying animals are animals you you and I are no different from Giraffe's .... we fall under the same category don't we?

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

You said it THOSE WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE  ... I've no problem with those chosing to pay more doing so ... it's your money, go for it. ... I have a problem with my tax dollars going toward you chosing to send your kids to private .... why should they? .

because if you don't then many of those private schools will raise their fees to the roof and the kids will be forced to go to public school in the area they live in! Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing!

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

In your opinion... in my opinion education is education, be it public or private, they both fall under the same category and they both provide brighter future for the country.

I completely agree.
Public or private, education is education and both should see taxpayer money.
We have to look after all our children - let's not go labelling into public v private.

Let's not marginalise people. The education system should be treated the same.

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

To use your argument, If I don't like my local shopping centre because of the local rif raf, why should't the govt. pay cab fare for me and my family to go to a more suitable shopping centre? Just because I cannot afford to live in the suburb with the nice shopping centre should I be punished for it?

Shopping centre - 5 minutes in 5 minutes out, you don't even have to communicate with local, what a silly comparison. At school you spend at least 6 hours of your daily life

.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: To use your argument, If I don't like my local shopping centre because of the local rif raf, why should't the govt. pay cab fare for me and my family to go to a more suitable shopping centre? Just because I cannot afford to live in the suburb with the nice shopping centre should I be punished for it? Shopping centre - 5 minutes in 5 minutes out, you don't even have to communicate with local, what a silly comparison. At school you spend at least 6 hours of your daily life

I went shopping with my wife yesterday for what was supposed to be a quick trip ... it took 6 hours . Some women shop all day everyday ..... it is not the comparison that is silly, it is your argument , the comparison is valid.

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:35pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: To use your argument, If I don't like my local shopping centre because of the local rif raf, why should't the govt. pay cab fare for me and my family to go to a more suitable shopping centre? Just because I cannot afford to live in the suburb with the nice shopping centre should I be punished for it? Shopping centre - 5 minutes in 5 minutes out, you don't even have to communicate with local, what a silly comparison. At school you spend at least 6 hours of your daily life I went shopping with my wife yesterday for what was supposed to be a quick trip ... it took 6 hours . Some women shop all day everyday ..... it is not the comparison that is silly, it is your argument , the comparison is valid.

6 hours 5 days a week? Do you have to put up with bullies at the shops? Are you struggling to deal with personnel on a daily basis. Come on, it's not a great comparison. Who cares about women who shop daily, it's their problem, they can drive up to different place, they are big girls and most have driving licences. I am a woman, and this argument is not valid for me, when begin to compare the benefits.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: You said it THOSE WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE  ... I've no problem with those chosing to pay more doing so ... it's your money, go for it. ... I have a problem with my tax dollars going toward you chosing to send your kids to private .... why should they? . because if you don't then many of those private schools will raise their fees to the roof and the kids will be forced to go to public school in the area they live in! Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing!

It doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing ....

why don't you use your argument for the kids who's parents cannot afford private education? Are not their kids forced to school in the area they live? Should some have priority over others?

You won't convince old John.

Believe it or not, and I still struggle with it.

John's admitted school in the public system packed with wogs in NSW in his opinion is as good as my private school in the UK which has Prime Ministers in its alumni and Royalty attendees.

Quite unbelievable.

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:34pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: You said it THOSE WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE  ... I've no problem with those chosing to pay more doing so ... it's your money, go for it. ... I have a problem with my tax dollars going toward you chosing to send your kids to private .... why should they? . because if you don't then many of those private schools will raise their fees to the roof and the kids will be forced to go to public school in the area they live in! Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing! It doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing .... why don't you use your argument for the kids who's parents cannot afford private education? Are not their kids forced to school in the area they live? Should some have priority over others?

That's why they have public schools, for those parents who just can't afford it. And that's right, those parents really struggle, should everyone else also struggle?

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:39pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:35pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: To use your argument, If I don't like my local shopping centre because of the local rif raf, why should't the govt. pay cab fare for me and my family to go to a more suitable shopping centre? Just because I cannot afford to live in the suburb with the nice shopping centre should I be punished for it? Shopping centre - 5 minutes in 5 minutes out, you don't even have to communicate with local, what a silly comparison. At school you spend at least 6 hours of your daily life I went shopping with my wife yesterday for what was supposed to be a quick trip ... it took 6 hours . Some women shop all day everyday ..... it is not the comparison that is silly, it is your argument , the comparison is valid. 6 hours 5 days a week? Do you have to put up with bullies at the shops? Are you struggling to deal with personnel on a daily basis. Come on, it's not a great comparison. Who cares about women who shop daily, it's their problem, they can drive up to different place, they are big girls and most have driving licences. I am a woman, and this argument is not valid for me, when begin to compare the benefits.

what benefits? The benefits  for a few select kids ?? ... the govt. should use the money it puts into private schools to make good the local public school and deal with the problems you claimy exist, instead they haven't got the money because they are busy subsidising some other persons lifestyle choice  .... wouldn't putting the money into fixing the public school then benefit everybody?

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:44pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:34pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: You said it THOSE WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE  ... I've no problem with those chosing to pay more doing so ... it's your money, go for it. ... I have a problem with my tax dollars going toward you chosing to send your kids to private .... why should they? . because if you don't then many of those private schools will raise their fees to the roof and the kids will be forced to go to public school in the area they live in! Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing! It doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing .... why don't you use your argument for the kids who's parents cannot afford private education? Are not their kids forced to school in the area they live? Should some have priority over others? That's why they have public schools, for those parents who just can't afford it. And that's right, those parents really struggle, should everyone else also struggle?

the govt. shouldn't support any sort of class differentiation when it comes to kids ... all kids deserve the same treatment .... govt. has to provide an education system, if you say it isn't good enough for your kids and you want a fancier one, you pay for it,. Why should I?

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:48pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:42pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:39pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:35pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: To use your argument, If I don't like my local shopping centre because of the local rif raf, why should't the govt. pay cab fare for me and my family to go to a more suitable shopping centre? Just because I cannot afford to live in the suburb with the nice shopping centre should I be punished for it? Shopping centre - 5 minutes in 5 minutes out, you don't even have to communicate with local, what a silly comparison. At school you spend at least 6 hours of your daily life I went shopping with my wife yesterday for what was supposed to be a quick trip ... it took 6 hours . Some women shop all day everyday ..... it is not the comparison that is silly, it is your argument , the comparison is valid. 6 hours 5 days a week? Do you have to put up with bullies at the shops? Are you struggling to deal with personnel on a daily basis. Come on, it's not a great comparison. Who cares about women who shop daily, it's their problem, they can drive up to different place, they are big girls and most have driving licences. I am a woman, and this argument is not valid for me, when begin to compare the benefits. what benefits? The benefits  for a few select kids ?? ... the govt. should use the money it puts into private schools to make good the local public school and deal with the problems you claimy exist, instead they haven't got the money because they are busy subsidising some other persons lifestyle choice  .... wouldn't putting the money into fixing the public school then benefit everybody?

Again, not a single parent I personally know, who send their kids to non-public schools is rich, all take loans to pay for education. Why? because they want their kids to have future... omG

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:

You won't convince old John. Believe it or not, and I still struggle with it. John's admitted school in the public system packed with wogs in NSW in his opinion is as good as my private school in the UK which has Prime Ministers in its alumni and Royalty attendees. Quite unbelievable.

And there is a perfect example of why subsidising private schools is a waste of money ... Andrei struggles with basic comprehension despite spending many tens of thousands of dollars on his education  .... you just cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear and if parents are delusional, they should pay  ... care to put up my quote Andrei and prove me wrong?

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:46pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:44pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:34pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: You said it THOSE WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE  ... I've no problem with those chosing to pay more doing so ... it's your money, go for it. ... I have a problem with my tax dollars going toward you chosing to send your kids to private .... why should they? . because if you don't then many of those private schools will raise their fees to the roof and the kids will be forced to go to public school in the area they live in! Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing! It doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing .... why don't you use your argument for the kids who's parents cannot afford private education? Are not their kids forced to school in the area they live? Should some have priority over others? That's why they have public schools, for those parents who just can't afford it. And that's right, those parents really struggle, should everyone else also struggle? the govt. shouldn't support any sort of class differentiation when it comes to kids ... all kids deserve the same treatment .... govt. has to provide an education system, if you say it isn't good enough for your kids and you want a fancier one, you pay for it,. Why should I?

You go tell it to those kids who don't know how to differentiate, kids with behavioral problems, kids from junkie families, etc. And I will see government taking the action on it. pfft. laughable. Do you really think parents would comply, kids would comply? You will never get it right if you continue provide support only for this kind of learning facilities. Australian population will degrade faster than is already predicted.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:48pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:42pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:39pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:35pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: To use your argument, If I don't like my local shopping centre because of the local rif raf, why should't the govt. pay cab fare for me and my family to go to a more suitable shopping centre? Just because I cannot afford to live in the suburb with the nice shopping centre should I be punished for it? Shopping centre - 5 minutes in 5 minutes out, you don't even have to communicate with local, what a silly comparison. At school you spend at least 6 hours of your daily life I went shopping with my wife yesterday for what was supposed to be a quick trip ... it took 6 hours . Some women shop all day everyday ..... it is not the comparison that is silly, it is your argument , the comparison is valid. 6 hours 5 days a week? Do you have to put up with bullies at the shops? Are you struggling to deal with personnel on a daily basis. Come on, it's not a great comparison. Who cares about women who shop daily, it's their problem, they can drive up to different place, they are big girls and most have driving licences. I am a woman, and this argument is not valid for me, when begin to compare the benefits. what benefits? The benefits  for a few select kids ?? ... the govt. should use the money it puts into private schools to make good the local public school and deal with the problems you claimy exist, instead they haven't got the money because they are busy subsidising some other persons lifestyle choice  .... wouldn't putting the money into fixing the public school then benefit everybody? Again, not a single parent I personally know, who send their kids to non-public schools is rich, all take loans to pay for education. Why? because they want their kids to have future... omG

thats fine, and good on them, and I may even decide to do so myself when my kids are old enough .... but that still doesn't mean tax dollars should pay for it. If I decide to go private (and it's the most likely scenario) I am happy to pay, even if I have to borrow or steal to do so. What I won't settle for is the parents who decide not to, having to pay for my choice ....

"I would prefer to go to my school over yours"

Now please tell us John why you would want to attend your school if you think the teaching quality is worse and the quality of kids there is worse?

Otherwise, you are clearly stating your free school, packed with wogs, is on a par with my school - alumni Prime Ministers.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:50pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:46pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:44pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:34pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: You said it THOSE WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE  ... I've no problem with those chosing to pay more doing so ... it's your money, go for it. ... I have a problem with my tax dollars going toward you chosing to send your kids to private .... why should they? . because if you don't then many of those private schools will raise their fees to the roof and the kids will be forced to go to public school in the area they live in! Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing! It doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing .... why don't you use your argument for the kids who's parents cannot afford private education? Are not their kids forced to school in the area they live? Should some have priority over others? That's why they have public schools, for those parents who just can't afford it. And that's right, those parents really struggle, should everyone else also struggle? the govt. shouldn't support any sort of class differentiation when it comes to kids ... all kids deserve the same treatment .... govt. has to provide an education system, if you say it isn't good enough for your kids and you want a fancier one, you pay for it,. Why should I? You go tell it to those kids who don't know how to differentiate, kids with behavioral problems, kids from junkie families, etc. And I will see government taking the action on it. pfft. laughable. Do you really think parents would comply, kids would comply? You will never get it right if you continue provide support only for this kind of learning facilities. Australian population will degrade faster than is already predicted.

Ohh, so you think you deserve better than them because they come from a lower socioeconomic background or have other issues? The govt. does take action on it , my sister is a teacher in the public system and she specialises on problem kids, and with great results, the govt. could do more if it wasn't subsidising tennis courts and swimming pools for stuck up snobs.

I bet you just don't want to get their germs on your kids .....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

I would prefer to go to my school over yours"

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:

John's admitted school in the public system packed with wogs in NSW in his opinion is as good as my private school in the UK which has Prime Ministers in its alumni and Royalty attendees.

and in your highly edumacated opinion, those two comments say the same thing?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
idiot

.

So for the record you are stating your schooling IS WORSE than mine.


Yet you would prefer that?

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Sorry, I was actually trying to assume you had SOME logic in your thinking.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:18pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:55pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:45pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education. Hi Torpedo, I agree, it really annoys me when any politician stands on their soap box & makes some pronouncement about say a new $ zillion scheme. With what money? They make promises with money they will borrow - money we don't have. It's like some drunken loser standing outside a pub promising everyone a drink - when they have no money. Tony & JuLiar do it at least once per week. well, it's typical for left wingers. I just don't understand why so many people buy it today, don't we all already know some history? It's like stepping on the rake over and over and over

Hi Torpedo,
It's more than just left wingers like that Swan & JuLiar.

Be prepared for a whole swathe of Tony promises this year for the election.

Taxes should be spent on education for Australia's children.

Every child in Australia should receive the same funding.

Then private schools should be able to charge fees on top of that funding.

Therefore parents are seeing their tax money go to their children and also paying more to ensure their child gets a head start over the public kids.

At the end of the day, life is a competition and you get ahead at the expense of others.
That's how it is.

I should not spend taxes - see it go to other kids - then not have my children see any of it because they are privately educated.

Nope.
Fortunately thats not how it works anyway.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:03pm:

So for the record you are stating your schooling IS WORSE than mine. Yet you would prefer that? :D  :D  :D  :D  :D Sorry, I was actually trying to assume you had SOME logic in your thinking.

I haven't made any comment about what school is better or worse ... to do so I would need to attend your school before being able to make a valid comparison ....

what i said was I prefer my school because it wasn't full of d1ckheads like you ..... what part of that do you struggle to understand exactly?

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:58pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:55pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:50pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:46pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:44pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:34pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: You said it THOSE WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE  ... I've no problem with those chosing to pay more doing so ... it's your money, go for it. ... I have a problem with my tax dollars going toward you chosing to send your kids to private .... why should they? . because if you don't then many of those private schools will raise their fees to the roof and the kids will be forced to go to public school in the area they live in! Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing! It doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing .... why don't you use your argument for the kids who's parents cannot afford private education? Are not their kids forced to school in the area they live? Should some have priority over others? That's why they have public schools, for those parents who just can't afford it. And that's right, those parents really struggle, should everyone else also struggle? the govt. shouldn't support any sort of class differentiation when it comes to kids ... all kids deserve the same treatment .... govt. has to provide an education system, if you say it isn't good enough for your kids and you want a fancier one, you pay for it,. Why should I? You go tell it to those kids who don't know how to differentiate, kids with behavioral problems, kids from junkie families, etc. And I will see government taking the action on it. pfft. laughable. Do you really think parents would comply, kids would comply? You will never get it right if you continue provide support only for this kind of learning facilities. Australian population will degrade faster than is already predicted. Ohh, so you think you deserve better than them because they come from a lower socioeconomic background or have other issues? The govt. does take action on it , my sister is a teacher in the public system and she specialises on problem kids, and with great results, the govt. could do more if it wasn't subsidising tennis courts and swimming pools for stuck up snobs. I bet you just don't want to get their germs on your kids .....

what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots? If they have no control over their lives (which is mostly the case), why should I yield? I worked hard, I study, I try to stay on top of things, yes, I don't want to mix in with those who choose to drink and smoke, and turn their and their kid's lives into pigs lifestyle...
Let's just take back the money which was spent on useless crap in the last 5 years and return to Australian education instead. That'll be fair.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:06pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:18pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:55pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:45pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:50pm: ...duty to provide free education for everyone ... anything above and beyond that (ie. fuinding private schools) is an extravagence we cannot afford. They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education. Hi Torpedo, I agree, it really annoys me when any politician stands on their soap box & makes some pronouncement about say a new $ zillion scheme. With what money? They make promises with money they will borrow - money we don't have. It's like some drunken loser standing outside a pub promising everyone a drink - when they have no money. Tony & JuLiar do it at least once per week. well, it's typical for left wingers. I just don't understand why so many people buy it today, don't we all already know some history? It's like stepping on the rake over and over and over Hi Torpedo, It's more than just left wingers like that Swan & JuLiar. Be prepared for a whole swathe of Tony promises this year for the election.

Yeah, I just don't know... and at the back there is Green mess. Geez

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:10pm:

what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots

nothing, that is your choice and I would even commend you for it, it sounds like a wise choice  ...just don't expect tax payers to pay for it.

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:12pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:10pm: what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots nothing, that is your choice and I would even commend you for it, it sounds like a wise choice  ...just don't expect tax payers to pay for it.

that's odd, you expect taxpayers to pay for junkies instead? Those who choose to ruin their own lives. that's fair  :D

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:12pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:10pm: what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots nothing, that is your choice and I would even commend you for it, it sounds like a wise choice  ...just don't expect tax payers to pay for it. that's odd, you expect taxpayers to pay for junkies instead? Those who choose to ruin their own lives. that's fair  :D

no ... i expect the govt. to provide the same standards to all the kids, if you want higher standards than those provided by the govt, it is up to you to pay  .... ... if they decide to do drugs that is up to them, and as you should pay for your choices, they will pay for theirs. Or perhaps you think the govt. should subsidies their heroin?

By the way, if you think ther are no drugs in private schools I would sugest you need to wake up to the truth. There are junkies everywhere.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:12pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:10pm: what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots nothing, that is your choice and I would even commend you for it, it sounds like a wise choice  ...just don't expect tax payers to pay for it. that's odd, you expect taxpayers to pay for junkies instead? Those who choose to ruin their own lives. that's fair  :D

how so?

Kid at my school got kicked out for dealing heroin.

His dad - a Conservative MP - donated to the new gym we had and hey presto there he is next term.
No drugs this time though.

That's how we roll.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

Kid at my school got kicked out for dealing heroin. His dad - a Conservative MP - donated to the new gym we had and hey presto there he is next term. No drugs this time though. That's how we roll.

Dear Andrei,
stop spreading malicious gossip on the internet.

forgiven

namaste

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

Kid at my school got kicked out for dealing heroin. His dad - a Conservative MP - donated to the new gym we had and hey presto there he is next term. No drugs this time though. That's how we roll.

thanks for proving my point.

See Torpedo, at least in a public school, your kids know who the junkies are ... if you teach them and  raise them right they should make the right choices ...

.

Bobby - the "schoolkid" would now be about 32 or 33.

Pretty sure I am not going to get him kicked out now.

WA will not vote for an increase in GST, not while we are getting so little of it back.

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:28pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: Kid at my school got kicked out for dealing heroin. His dad - a Conservative MP - donated to the new gym we had and hey presto there he is next term. No drugs this time though. That's how we roll. thanks for proving my point. See Torpedo, at least in a public school, your kids know who the junkies are ... if you teach them and  raise them right they should make the right choices ...

You don't think we didn't know who were the dealers?

I could have got any type of drug I wanted - Heroin, Special K, Ecstasy, Cocaine, you name it.

We were rich kids, thats how it works.

Hence my point - public and private. Don't differentiate.
Every kid gets the same.

miketrees wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

WA will not vote for an increase in GST, not while we are getting so little of it back.

when mining boom is over and WA becomes dependant on the eastern states again, it will jump when told too just as it did in the past.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:28pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: Kid at my school got kicked out for dealing heroin. His dad - a Conservative MP - donated to the new gym we had and hey presto there he is next term. No drugs this time though. That's how we roll. thanks for proving my point. See Torpedo, at least in a public school, your kids know who the junkies are ... if you teach them and  raise them right they should make the right choices ... You don't think we didn't know who were the dealers? I could have got any type of drug I wanted - Heroin, Special K, Ecstasy, Cocaine, you name it. We were rich kids, thats how it works. Hence my point - public and private. Don't differentiate. Every kid gets the same.

Explain it to Torpedo ... she seems to think there are no drugs in private schools ..... that was her whole argument for funding private schools ...

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:19pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:15pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:12pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:10pm: what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots nothing, that is your choice and I would even commend you for it, it sounds like a wise choice  ...just don't expect tax payers to pay for it. that's odd, you expect taxpayers to pay for junkies instead? Those who choose to ruin their own lives. that's fair  :D no ... i expect the govt. to provide the same standards to all the kids, if you want higher standards than those provided by the govt, it is up to you to pay  .... ... if they decide to do drugs that is up to them, and as you should pay for your choices, they will pay for theirs. Or perhaps you think the govt. should subsidies their heroin? By the way, if you think ther are no drugs in private schools I would sugest you need to wake up to the truth. There are junkies everywhere.

Well, the government is providing equal benefits, except private schools have additional fees, and most of the time it's worthwhile, so those parents who can prefer to send them private, should be able to pay extra and send private, and the government is doing the right thing (for once) providing equal support for both organisations. Those parents who can't afford, don't want to, whether in principle, or whether they are happy where they are, can go into public school.
By the way, if you think that every private school is posh and luxury you are delusional. There are many that don't have the facilities, but better teaching approach, better social environment, and only because of this, and no other privileges, parents sacrifice their finances.
Most parents save on groceries and holidays, and other luxuries, just so their kids are happy where they are.
So if you stop the private, the teachers would most likely retrain for a new profession. And all we'll see is more useless idiots taking more places in those public schools teaching our kids.

Andrei.Hicks wrote Today at 10:21pm:

Quote:

Kid at my school got kicked out for dealing heroin. His dad - a Conservative MP - donated to the new gym we had and hey presto there he is next term. No drugs this time though. That's how we roll.

Bobby

Quote:

Dear Andrei, stop spreading malicious gossip on the internet. forgiven namaste

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:29pm:

Bobby - the "schoolkid" would now be about 32 or 33. Pretty sure I am not going to get him kicked out now.

Dear Andrei,
you are still spreading malicious gossip  -
for what reason - I do not know.

What surprises me is that your post is anti-conservative.

Have you now gone to the left side?

master Light did say that changes were upon us

in love and light

namaste

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:19pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:15pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:12pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:10pm: what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots nothing, that is your choice and I would even commend you for it, it sounds like a wise choice  ...just don't expect tax payers to pay for it. that's odd, you expect taxpayers to pay for junkies instead? Those who choose to ruin their own lives. that's fair  :D no ... i expect the govt. to provide the same standards to all the kids, if you want higher standards than those provided by the govt, it is up to you to pay  .... ... if they decide to do drugs that is up to them, and as you should pay for your choices, they will pay for theirs. Or perhaps you think the govt. should subsidies their heroin? By the way, if you think ther are no drugs in private schools I would sugest you need to wake up to the truth. There are junkies everywhere. Well, the government is providing equal benefits, except private schools have additional fees, and most of the time it's worthwhile, so those parents who can prefer to send them private, should be able to pay extra and send private, and the government is doing the right thing (for once) providing equal support for both organisations. Those parents who can't afford, don't want to, whether in principle, or whether they are happy where they are, can go into public school. By the way, if you think that every private school is posh and luxury you are delusional. There are many that don't have the facilities, but better teaching approach, better social environment, and only because of this, and no other privileges, parents sacrifice their finances. Most parents save on groceries and holidays, and other luxuries, just so their kids are happy where they are. So if you stop the private, the teachers would most likely retrain for a new profession. And all we'll see is more useless idiots taking more places in those public schools teaching our kids.

It;s called sacrifice ... and I commend you for sacrificing for your kids ,..... just don't expect me to sacrifice for YOUR kids.
I've never said stop the private, I simply said that if you want it, you pay for it ... you really think if govt. pulls funding private education stops? we are one of the few countries to subsidies private education and yet it exists in many other countries.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:56pm:

Have you now gone to the left side?

Geez I hope not, he'll make the left look bad.

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:19pm:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:15pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:12pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:10pm: what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots nothing, that is your choice and I would even commend you for it, it sounds like a wise choice  ...just don't expect tax payers to pay for it. that's odd, you expect taxpayers to pay for junkies instead? Those who choose to ruin their own lives. that's fair  :D how so?

how so what? how so they turn their lives upside down? Lets see. They drink and they bludge, they sit on the couch and winge, they hate all "rich", yet they don't know how to earn a cent, because it just comes to them anyway, they don't believe you work, they think you just an asshole who doesn't deserve it, and they watch telly, and footy, and choose not to learn, because ythey get the same money driving a truck anyway.
Or how so does the taxpayers support them? let's see. We pay enormous bills stripped from our hard earned wages, and then we hear that apparently our kids don't deserve private schooling  >:(

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:34pm:

See Torpedo, at least in a public school, your kids know who the junkies are ... if you teach them and  raise them right they should make the right choices ...

you are just a troll, end of story.
and for your information, I grew up in public school, I know the hardship of, so I think I can compare. Most kids from my class ended up in jail, on drugs, thieves, losers. The violence was unbearable, some kids committed suicide for being bullied too much.
Not every child is strong to resist ignorance and force, and it does happen a lot in public schools.
And the teachers, hm.. they really couldn't care less, you get what you pay for, teachers are no different to any other humans, if they don't get the pay, they don't work.
So if you want good public system, in the end you need to pay more money in wages to teachers and updated facilities, than what we contribute now for private schools.

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:56pm: Have you now gone to the left side? Geez I hope not, he'll make the left look bad.

Looks that way!

Andrei is now a lefty!

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

They can not afford: $1000 give aways, Insulation,  Set top boxes, Solar panels... Asylums!!!  A little help to those who choose to send their kids to private schooling (for whatever reason that may be, however, mostly because public schools are horrible socially and academically) is nothing in comparison to all the above. After all, public schools will only benefit from this, as it will only put more pressure on this already dumb enough public education.

Hey, not all public schools are that bad. You just have to find a good one. As for a bad social environment, that is itself a form of education. I experienced bullying myself and I got through it and learnt something from it. You grow through adversity. 8-)


Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:15pm:

are you saying that those who choose to go to different school, (be it because they live in a demographically undesired area, or low academic standards) should not really have that choice? So if they can't afford to move to StIves - is just a tough luck?

I think this is why the Gonski reforms will be so important. If they fix up the public schools, you might not need to send your kids to a private school.


Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:15pm:

Do you really think that all the people who send their kids to private schools are rich? Do you really think that all people who pay for private schooling are just showing off? Most people that I know struggle to pay bills, many private (particularly religious) schools sometimes even discount, or in some circumstances waive the fees completely until family recovers financially, when reasonable enough explanation provided.

They're struggling because they chose to put their kids through a private education. It's not a matter of being rich. I understand that not everyone who does it is rich. If you want to go through the tough financial road of paying for an expensive education, it's not something I would encourage because I think there's an alternative. You see, you have a choice. You don't have to choose that path. It's like when you go to a car dealership and the salesperson pressures you to buy. I didn't get a private education and yet I still went to study at university.

I don't think the government should be putting emphasis on something that isn't the only option. It sends the wrong message. A lot of people have a strong desire to put their kids through a private education and they won't accept anything less. These people think a private education is a basic necessity and I do not agree with them. Private education is not the bare minimum. Public education is. I do not want to be reinforcing a way of thinking that I think is wrong. The idea therefore is to make it harder for people to get a private education so that people will think about that choice carefully.

The fact is folks - the GST will rise to 15%.
You've had evidence of this from both sides of politics on one TV show:

Amanda Vanstone from the Libbos
& Graham Richardson from Labor.

This was their way of letting us all know so it won't be too much of a surprise. 

There is nothing much we can do about it.

.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:15pm:

And you decided to keep your kids in Public (either because you don't have the problems with location, or either because you preferred to save money rather than spending it on kids education, or whether you just can't afford an extra dollar for private education), but still get the 30% taxpayer's support?

It's not me. I don't have kids yet. :( I'm looking back at my parents' approach to my education.


Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

Again, not a single parent I personally know, who send their kids to non-public schools is rich, all take loans to pay for education. Why? because they want their kids to have future... omG

It's a tough financial road to go through and I just don't think it's the only way to give your kids a good education. The alternative is a kind of "intensive home-schooling" outside of school hours, where you do your own teaching. I am sure there are educational shops out there that sell books with exercises in them to teach you maths and literacy. .............. Well, that was around 18 years ago, it's software, not books now. :D .................. Get your kids to stop watching those cartoons. Make them spend hours reading and doing maths problems. It doesn't matter if they get sleepy. You don't allow them to do anything else until the work is done. Who knows? They might be faking it. That's what my parents did. I hated it, but that was my education. My parents forced me to learn.

I think the shop where they bought the exercise books was Dominie and apparently it's still in business.

https://www.dominie.com.au/

If the kids become resistant, you might offer lollies or pocket money as motivation, but not too much. My parents only paid me two dollars for five hours of doing maths problems, reading and studying phonics/phonetics (or whatever it was) at home. It was like working in a sweat-shop. You could also get the older kids to teach the younger kids so you don't have to deal with them all at once. Also, don't forget to work on your kids' handwriting. Sloppy and messy handwriting is not acceptable. >:(

When they become teenagers, don't allow them to have boyfriends or girlfriends. No sex or dating. Keep their social life at a minimum. No partying. This is the price you have to pay for success and if it's not financially crippling debt (from private education), it's their social life that has to suffer. Teach your kids not to follow bad examples from bad friends. My dad would constantly remind me of what he considered "low class people," despite the fact that we weren't rich. You have to enforce your standards on your kids. Life may become dull, boring or not worth living, but you have to focus on the goal. That's the reward at the end.

If you're not going to send them to private schools, you have to become your kids' worst enemy. They will hate you for it, but it will be for their own good. You have to be like Sarah Connor. My mother reminded me of her. :D

A dot was added because the page wouldn't flip.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

how so what? how so they turn their lives upside down? Lets see. They drink and they bludge, they sit on the couch and winge, they hate all "rich", yet they don't know how to earn a cent, because it just comes to them anyway, they don't believe you work, they think you just an asshole who doesn't deserve it, and they watch telly, and footy, and choose not to learn, because ythey get the same money driving a truck anyway. Or how so does the taxpayers support them? let's see. We pay enormous bills stripped from our hard earned wages, and then we hear that apparently our kids don't deserve private schooling  >:(

Well, I can see why you want a private education for your kids. You want to get away from the scum in our society, but like I said, not all public schools are that bad. There's scum for sure, but not all of our public schools are full of them.


Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:

and for your information, I grew up in public school, I know the hardship of, so I think I can compare. Most kids from my class ended up in jail, on drugs, thieves, losers. The violence was unbearable, some kids committed suicide for being bullied too much. Not every child is strong to resist ignorance and force, and it does happen a lot in public schools.

Hey, Torpedo. I'm sorry to hear that. The public school I went to was in the top 10% of my state when ranked against both public and private. There was still bullying in my school and even people who smoked, but not bad enough to ruin your life for good. You wouldn't commit suicide over it or turn into a thief, drug addict or bum. It was just annoying -- for most people at least. I think what you experienced was the worst case scenario (I hope). I was probably one of the worst treated people there. Strangely enough, the bullying didn't affect me until years later (after finishing my university studies, would you believe) because I was studying too hard to really care. It was only because of a few recent setbacks that those memories resurfaced. I started thinking about the embarrassing situations I got into and that was when the pain struck. I thought I was over it, but apparently they had simply been hidden away at the back of my mind as blocked memories. Pop went the weasel!


Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:

And the teachers, hm.. they really couldn't care less, you get what you pay for, teachers are no different to any other humans, if they don't get the pay, they don't work. So if you want good public system, in the end you need to pay more money in wages to teachers and updated facilities, than what we contribute now for private schools.

I think this is why public education needs more funding and they should shift it away from private schools. It would be better for you if you could get the rich taxpayer to pay for your kid's education, instead of you sending them to a private school and burdening yourself with crippling debt.

This web site gives you a ranking of public and private schools. It may help you choose between public and private.

http://bettereducation.com.au/SchoolRanking.aspx

Oh no not the public/private school thing again. I went to some public schools and some private schools. There wasnt that much of a difference really. Except for 1 public high school i went to in Sydney for a couple months. It was bad - nobody cared about education and well - glad i didnt have to stay there. Most of the ppl i met there went on to become drug addicts and criminals and dead ppl. Perhaps its the school torpedo was talking about.

Funding for private schools should be from the pockets of ppl that can afford it though not the government. Its just more wealthfare. If public schools had more money the bad schools like that one could be fixed up.

SOB

Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees,

dingo2 wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 5:27am:

Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees,

No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 6:00am:

dingo2 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:27am: Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees, No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools. SOB

Spot,
Private schools are a form of apartheid -
instead of skin color people are separated according to how wealthy their families are.
It encourages class warfare & denies the poor the best possible chance in life -
where they will be entrenched in poverty.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:19pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:15pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:12pm: Torpedo wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:10pm: what's wrong with me having to choose not to be around junkies or idiots nothing, that is your choice and I would even commend you for it, it sounds like a wise choice  ...just don't expect tax payers to pay for it. that's odd, you expect taxpayers to pay for junkies instead? Those who choose to ruin their own lives. that's fair  :D how so? how so what? how so they turn their lives upside down? Lets see. They drink and they bludge, they sit on the couch and winge, they hate all "rich", yet they don't know how to earn a cent, because it just comes to them anyway, they don't believe you work, they think you just an asshole who doesn't deserve it, and they watch telly, and footy, and choose not to learn, because ythey get the same money driving a truck anyway. Or how so does the taxpayers support them? let's see. We pay enormous bills stripped from our hard earned wages, and then we hear that apparently our kids don't deserve private schooling  >:(

Is this about some ex? You seem to be on a bit of a persoanl vendetta ....

you still haven't explained how you came to the conclusion that I expect taxpayers to pay for junkies ..... ????

dingo2 wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 5:27am:

Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees,

In Mother England it is - but not here. Public means public.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:34pm: See Torpedo, at least in a public school, your kids know who the junkies are ... if you teach them and  raise them right they should make the right choices ... you are just a troll, end of story. and for your information, I grew up in public school, I know the hardship of, so I think I can compare. Most kids from my class ended up in jail, on drugs, thieves, losers. The violence was unbearable, some kids committed suicide for being bullied too much. Not every child is strong to resist ignorance and force, and it does happen a lot in public schools. And the teachers, hm.. they really couldn't care less, you get what you pay for, teachers are no different to any other humans, if they don't get the pay, they don't work. So if you want good public system, in the end you need to pay more money in wages to teachers and updated facilities, than what we contribute now for private schools.

Don't get upset with me because your fantasy has been shot to pieces .... you don't like the truth so you resort to name calling ... thats OK, you get used to people burying their heads in the sand on this forum

by the way, teachers generally earn less in the private sector than they do in the public ... although there is no reason to let facts get in the way of a good rant

dingo2 wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 5:27am:

Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees,

In Mother England it might be. But here public means public.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 7:44am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 6:00am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:27am: Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees, No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools. SOB Spot, Private schools are a form of apartheid - instead of skin color people are separated according to how wealthy their families are. It encourages class warfare & denies the poor the best possible chance in life - where they will be entrenched in poverty.

That's life. Those that have money join the clubs that lower paid workers cannot. They drive the exotic cars that others cannot afford.
It's what comes with living in a free country!!

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 7:44am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 6:00am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:27am: Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees, No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools. SOB Spot, Private schools are a form of apartheid - instead of skin color people are separated according to how wealthy their families are. It encourages class warfare & denies the poor the best possible chance in life - where they will be entrenched in poverty.

That's life. Those that have money join the clubs that lower paid workers cannot. They drive the exotic cars that others cannot afford.
It's what comes with living in a free country!!

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 7:44am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 6:00am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:27am: Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees, No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools. SOB Spot, Private schools are a form of apartheid - instead of skin color people are separated according to how wealthy their families are. It encourages class warfare & denies the poor the best possible chance in life - where they will be entrenched in poverty.

That's life. Those that have money join the clubs that lower paid workers cannot. They drive the exotic cars that others cannot afford.
It's what comes with living in a free country!!

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

Sorry, All you ellitist Bastards have to go with a little less, (maybe get rid of the second mobile phone) For the Good of the Country, including Liberal and Labor party supporters, just like the rest of us effected by this economic recession that got worse since the GFC. Don't give us 15% GST tax to those of us not wasting the countrys money.

the ones wasting money are you layabout welfare-dependant slugs. the rest of us actually contribute to the country. you just TAKE from it and complain about wanting more.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:42am: The vast majority of them are low fee schools which are COMPLETELY UNVIABLE without govt funding. remove that funding and the vast majority of those kids are back in public schools at 30% more funding per head than currently. Have a look at this article. http://www.theage.com.au/data-point/private-fees-mount-as-education-costs-soar-20130124-2d8c4.html I downloaded the data and put it in a spreadsheet: http://i35.tinypic.com/6z93k1.png Just what exactly do you mean by "low fees?" Private school fees on average are 5 to 8 times higher than public school ones. See the data shown in the above web page. They don't seem "low" to me at all so it looks like you're being a little dishonest here. A "vast majority" of private schools cannot be charging "low fees" if on average their fees are 5 to 8 times higher than public schools, because as you know the mean/average of anything reflects the "vast majority" of whatever you're measuring. This is a feeble attempt to understate the value of private school fees. longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 9:42am: If you dont want to pay for my kids schooling (at a 30% discount) then I see no reason why I should pay for yours. I should not be responsible or liable for the costs of giving your kids a more expensive education. The taxes I pay should only go to public schools. You had a choice between cheaper goods and services but chose something more expensive anyway. I will not support a kind of education I never needed myself. I will only pay for your kids' schooling if it's the same kind of education I received. I have no desire to have my taxes going to an "optional" form of education.

hey drongo... public schools don't have tuition fees. the term 'low fee' is one relative to private schools. try and keep on the same page as everyone else, okay?

Sorry, but for some reason my comments have repeated themselves.

damien wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

Sorry, but for some reason my comments have repeated themselves.

I thought maybe you stuttered !!!!

;D ;D ;D

Sorry about repeated comments. They don't post and then they repeat!!

damien wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

Sorry, but for some reason my comments have repeated themselves.

dont worry damien  its the same with most of them....havent you noticed some repeat the same thing all the time... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

damien wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 7:44am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 6:00am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:27am: Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees, No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools. SOB Spot, Private schools are a form of apartheid - instead of skin color people are separated according to how wealthy their families are. It encourages class warfare & denies the poor the best possible chance in life - where they will be entrenched in poverty. That's life. Those that have money join the clubs that lower paid workers cannot. They drive the exotic cars that others cannot afford. It's what comes with living in a free country!!

But is it in our country's interest that talented students in public schools
end up with a poor education?

damien wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 7:44am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 6:00am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:27am: Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees, No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools. SOB Spot, Private schools are a form of apartheid - instead of skin color people are separated according to how wealthy their families are. It encourages class warfare & denies the poor the best possible chance in life - where they will be entrenched in poverty. That's life. Those that have money join the clubs that lower paid workers cannot. They drive the exotic cars that others cannot afford. It's what comes with living in a free country!!

why are people surprised that some are rich and some are less well-off? its the history of the world and wont change.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:13am:

damien wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:36am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 7:44am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 6:00am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:27am: Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees, No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools. SOB Spot, Private schools are a form of apartheid - instead of skin color people are separated according to how wealthy their families are. It encourages class warfare & denies the poor the best possible chance in life - where they will be entrenched in poverty. That's life. Those that have money join the clubs that lower paid workers cannot. They drive the exotic cars that others cannot afford. It's what comes with living in a free country!! But is it in our country's interest that talented students in public schools end up with a poor education?

its a question of choice. you want a free education then you can have it. If you want a better one then you have to pay for it. The govt is happier with kids in private schools because they pay less.  everyone wins - except the whining losers that go on TV to complain that their local public school requires them to pay $25 for stationery and they 'cant afford it'. but they can afford cars, phones, holidays, tobacco and alcohol etc...

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:13am:

damien wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:36am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 7:44am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 6:00am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:27am: Back to the discussion on schools. I hate that word public school, A public school is a private school or a pay for you education one. with yearly fees, No public isnt private. Public is supposed to be funded by the government hence fees are way lower than private. The government though is funding private schools as well. Wealthfare. This wealthfare is the cause for the fees being so high on public schools. SOB Spot, Private schools are a form of apartheid - instead of skin color people are separated according to how wealthy their families are. It encourages class warfare & denies the poor the best possible chance in life - where they will be entrenched in poverty. That's life. Those that have money join the clubs that lower paid workers cannot. They drive the exotic cars that others cannot afford. It's what comes with living in a free country!! But is it in our country's interest that talented students in public schools end up with a poor education?

How so? Are you saying that they can only get an education in the private sector?

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 1:04am:

They're struggling because they chose to put their kids through a private education. It's not a matter of being rich. I understand that not everyone who does it is rich. If you want to go through the tough financial road of paying for an expensive education, it's not something I would encourage because I think there's an alternative. You see, you have a choice.

No, sometimes people just don't have that choice, so they'd rather move to a different school instead of continue putting up with what they have. What do you think would be more affordable, choosing private school or buying a house in a better area?
Not all private schools are equivalent to The Kings or St Josephs, some small schools are quite reasonable and yet provide better standards than average public school. Catholic schools are one example. I am not saying all private schools are amazing, I am just saying that if you were unfortunate enough to end up in the wrong place, and can't afford to move, you should be able to at least have a choice of a different school, not only the one in your area. BTW, Even Muslims prefer to send their kids to Catholic schools instead of public, if they can.
What would happen if these schools raise their fees to the overestimated level? that's right, the parents will be forced to take their kids out. Is this a good thing? Of  course it's not.
And if you think that by flooding public schools with more funding you would get better results you are also wrong, all it will be is you will get more strikes in the future demanding more funding.
The funding that is provided today is really more than enough for teachers to shut up and do their work, yet, I have a friend who's child has behavioural problems, the public school demanded her to go through all kinds of tests, she cooperated, she ended up quitting her job. How does school participate? heh, they call her everytime they can't deal with the small child, after all the trouble she went through, after all the tests she had to do, they've received the funding, but are they doing anything different? Not much!
Here is your more funding for public schools.
Not saying we shouldn't fund public schools, but people are people, it's like how I told you about large organisations, they don't work, they only get paid. It's instilled in Australians. You'd have to change the attitude first before you pile them up with unnecessary funds.
Private schools, on the other hand, realise how hard it is for parents to get around with payments, so they do all they can to make sure that at least the expected standards are there, and they, not you, teach your kid.

Torpedo wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

so they do all they can to make sure that at least the expected standards are there, and they, not you, teach your kid

So your problem is that you don't want to have to teach your kids? You want to outsource that? Fine ... you pay for it.

The politics of envy I believe.

"If I didn't get it why should anybody else?"

We have heard this from working class kids since time began.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 1:25am:

It's a tough financial road to go through and I just don't think it's the only way to give your kids a good education. The alternative is a kind of "intensive home-schooling" outside of school hours, where you do your own teaching. I am sure there are educational shops out there that sell books with exercises in them to teach you maths and literacy. .............. Well, that was around 18 years ago, it's software, not books now. :D .................. Get your kids to stop watching those cartoons. Make them spend hours reading and doing maths problems. It doesn't matter if they get sleepy. You don't allow them to do anything else until the work is done. Who knows? They might be faking it. That's what my parents did. I hated it, but that was my education. My parents forced me to learn.

Do you seriously think I don't try this? I choose private school not because I choose not to participate in my children's life, I still go through homework, make sure they read 20 min a day, etc. And our school isn't that expensive and fancy, it's just they have good friends from nice families (not rich and snobby!), their teachers are more caring than the one at public school we had, and they perform better too, because they are happier and more contented, they weren't doing as well in the public school, not because they are not intelligent, but they are more sensitive in nature, and get easily confused when distracted, by the time they learn how to deal with d*heads it will be too late. So, yes, we had to move them out of public school, mind you not the worst one, not something like I had.
Good on you that you managed to resist the stress, but not all kids are capable, you should realise it.

John Smith wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 11:08am: so they do all they can to make sure that at least the expected standards are there, and they, not you, teach your kid John, talking to you is like beating the head against a brick wall, I pass. sorry So your problem is that you don't want to have to teach your kids? You want to outsource that? Fine ... you pay for it.

John Smith wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

Torpedo wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 11:08am: so they do all they can to make sure that at least the expected standards are there, and they, not you, teach your kid John, talking to you is like beating the head against a brick wall, I pass. sorry So your problem is that you don't want to have to teach your kids? You want to outsource that? Fine ... you pay for it.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:43am:

dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 6:15pm: Sorry, All you ellitist Bastards have to go with a little less, (maybe get rid of the second mobile phone) For the Good of the Country, including Liberal and Labor party supporters, just like the rest of us effected by this economic recession that got worse since the GFC. Don't give us 15% GST tax to those of us not wasting the countrys money. the ones wasting money are you layabout welfare-dependant slugs. the rest of us actually contribute to the country. you just TAKE from it and complain about wanting more.

Hi Longweekend,
what would you like to do with these so called welfare-dependent slugs?

in anticipation

Bobby

Torpedo wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 11:16am: Torpedo wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 11:08am: so they do all they can to make sure that at least the expected standards are there, and they, not you, teach your kid John, talking to you is like beating the head against a brick wall, I pass. sorry So your problem is that you don't want to have to teach your kids? You want to outsource that? Fine ... you pay for it.

my wife says the same thing.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:43am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 6:15pm: Sorry, All you ellitist Bastards have to go with a little less, (maybe get rid of the second mobile phone) For the Good of the Country, including Liberal and Labor party supporters, just like the rest of us effected by this economic recession that got worse since the GFC. Don't give us 15% GST tax to those of us not wasting the countrys money. the ones wasting money are you layabout welfare-dependant slugs. the rest of us actually contribute to the country. you just TAKE from it and complain about wanting more. Hi Longweekend, what would you like to do with these so called welfare-dependent slugs? in anticipation Bobby

death penalty comes to mind.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 5:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:43am: dingo2 wrote on Apr 24th, 2013 at 6:15pm: Sorry, All you ellitist Bastards have to go with a little less, (maybe get rid of the second mobile phone) For the Good of the Country, including Liberal and Labor party supporters, just like the rest of us effected by this economic recession that got worse since the GFC. Don't give us 15% GST tax to those of us not wasting the countrys money. the ones wasting money are you layabout welfare-dependant slugs. the rest of us actually contribute to the country. you just TAKE from it and complain about wanting more. Hi Longweekend, what would you like to do with these so called welfare-dependent slugs? in anticipation Bobby death penalty comes to mind.

Dear Longweekend,
you continue to promulgate Nazi ideology.

You have been forgiven for this yesterday.
see link:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356646946/135

Do you have a copy of Mein Kampf on your bedroom table
along with all your Margaret Thatcher books?

forgiven again

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

You have been forgiven for this yesterday. see link: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356646946/135

You have been promoting this thread a lot lately. I have ignored it until now.

What is wrong with you? You have been keeping that thing going for 4 months. Most of it doesn't even have any discussion, it is just you writing stupid "forgiven" posts. Longweekend isn't even replying to it, yet you are still keeping it going. You're a sick stalker. That thread is just weird. Grow up.

Quantum wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 6:15pm: You have been forgiven for this yesterday. see link: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356646946/135 You have been promoting this thread a lot lately. I have ignored it until now. What is wrong with you? You have been keeping that thing going for 4 months. Most of it doesn't even have any discussion, it is just you writing stupid "forgiven" posts. Longweekend isn't even replying to it, yet you are still keeping it going. You're a sick stalker. That thread is just weird. Grow up.

Go jump in the lake - you pizza delivery boy.

Quantum wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:28pm:

You have been keeping that thing going for 4 months

this thread was started 3 days ago !!!!!