TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Budget 2004: Your feedback
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

I hate kids!

quote:

Originally posted by sezzy The moral of the story - STOP MAKING BABIES!

= stop having unprotected sex dumbasses.

quote:

Originally posted by Chookie I hate kids!

damn straight!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Beemer Surprised nobody has mentioned Labor's response to the Budget yet...... Imo, it's full of the very thing that's worried me about Labor since Latham took over - lots of promises to appeal to the average or lower class vote, but no actual economic policy to explain how they intend to fund those promises.....scarey stuff if u ask me

You expect them to come up with a highly detailed response to a 5000 page document in two days? Seems like you've got a higher opinion of them than I do....

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister You expect them to come up with a highly detailed response to a 5000 page document in two days? Seems like you've got a higher opinion of them than I do....

i expect them to have a fair idea of their economic policies by now, and of how to fund their ideas, yes!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Chookie I hate kids!

Far out, whats with the kiddie hate. We can't all be Micheal Jacksons, but cmon, why do you hate kids. I thought you liked me

About the schools.

I went to a Public Primary School, and it was great, I had awsome teachers, awsome school.
I look back at the same school now . . it's putrid. Teachers are rubbish, so much more trouble, and a hell of a lot less kids (like 50% loss since I was there)
If you ask me it's not only because of funding, but because of attitudes these days.
Now I go to a Private School, since year 7 . . . and I am so fucking happy I do! I talk to kids from other public highs in our area, and hear stuff, and they are just shocking. Sure smart kids are still gonna do well no matter where they are, but for those who need to be pushed, or need more help, and anything else, public schools jsut don't seem to cut it.
I think this is one of the reasons that public education is loosing so many kids too. It seems these days that there are so many more kids going to private schools, and you can understand why. It just seems so much better.

We had a meeting with out Deputy Principal-Curriculum yesterday, to our year 12 group. He is aiming this year to have 40% of year 12 over 90 in the UAI! 40% You just wont find public schools that can do anything like that (not including selective highs).

I don't mind my tax money going to Private kids more than Public kids, because every kid should get the same amount. Plus going to a private school, i think the schools deserve it, as they put in so much extra time and effort for us. It really does show, and does make a difference.




In reply to you Alli . . yes where is Labour's money going to come from?? I guess they'll just rack up huge foreign debt again, and leave the next liberal government to pay it off again. Labour seem to have a tendancy of getting into financial troubles (ala Whitlam, Keating)

quote:

Originally posted by eRRaTiK = stop having unprotected sex dumbasses.

Exactly. People should have to pass something to become parents. People need to be prepared and have the right assets to raise a child = stable income, safe home etc.

It's when people dont that the child's welfare gets put back on to society = we all pay for it.

Sorry if its sounds harsh, I'm pretty anti-baby anyway which doesn't help Don't want no evil money-sucking, ungrateful, demanding things hanging around. You cant just put them outside when you get sick of them like an animal... well you could, but yeah. Anyway. I not making none of those.

In regards to schooling - I went to 2 public schools and loved both. Guess it depends alot on the area and teachers you get.

The Liberal are right to give tax cuts to just higher earners.

You gotta realise if you look at the whole spectrum of the current system, the bottom end is 'relatively' fair. However, at the top end, it's newly half your earnings!

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter The increase of HECS is dependent on the uni's own decision, and funds will go into the uni to provide better facilities, resources etc.

So wait... i pay now so ppl in the future will have better access n facilities than me?

Umm hello.. see why we are pissed off?

So lets so see, i pay heaps of HECS now, then later in life if i do happen to get an $80K job, i will be taxed a shitload... hmm great.. makes me love education even more...

Sorta like my old private high school, we payed shitloads in fees only for then to be used for the YEARS after im gone, i drive past the school on my way to work and im constantly reminded where my $$$ has gone.

Sure others gave before me, but what about the people who actually pay? Will i have access to uni years after im gone ? I think not, i might be escorted out of the premises which i will end up paying more $$$ than a new car perhapz....

Its all a mofo trainwreck mix if you ask moi!

quote:

The increase of HECS is dependent on the uni's own decision

every university is going to raise their fees, hell, who wouldnt? The government passed that law of a 25% increase so they could save themselves a few billion, and spend it elsewhere, like propping up bloody independent (private) high schools.

quote:

However, at the top end, it's newly half your earnings!

this is also the case for people in the 40K - 50K range too, they get taxed something shocking, but no tax breaks for them...


On another topic, the money-for-kids program, is nothing more than a goverments crap attmept at our ever ageing population... fawk a one off payment, why dont you make it easier for working parents to stay home with their kids in the first few years.. 3K will last 6 months tops...

public schools these days have to cater to a lowest common denominator. top performers have to look after themselves, or more commonly just get bored and lose interest. i thought the debate over increased funding to private schools was really funny. Private schools get a lot less funding per student than public schools, but whenever it goes up there's huge uproar. It is, and should be, just like our tax system, kind of reversed (cos this time the gov is giving out money in stead of taking it). More you can afford the less assistance you get, but doesn't mean you should get nothing at all.
as for uni funding, it has to come from somewhere. More and more people want to go to uni. Try asking your parents, and they'll tell you it used to be a much higher selection of students who went on to study. How to pay for all this extra education? Full-fee paying o/s students subsidise the local students, but student politicians whinge about their places being taken up. Cannot have it both ways.
the worst thing i find after all this complaining is those same student politicians take 7 years to finish their 3 year arts degrees cos they spend so much time talking themselves up.

quote:

Originally posted by P'cisT You gotta realise if you look at the whole spectrum of the current system, the bottom end is 'relatively' fair. However, at the top end, it's newly half your earnings!

Remember, you only get taxed through each bracket, so it's only the stuff OVER $80K where you're getting hammered.

quote:

Originally posted by matt_a He is aiming this year to have 40% of year 12 over 90 in the UAI! 40% You just wont find public schools that can do anything like that (not including selective highs).

Not true .. I went to Sefton HS (which is a half-selective public school), about 65% of my grade were over 90%...

quote:

Originally posted by matt_a I guess they'll just rack up huge foreign debt again, and leave the next liberal government to pay it off again. Labour seem to have a tendancy of getting into financial troubles (ala Whitlam, Keating)

Disagree with this too, I think Keating did more for our economy globally than Howard has ever done. Floating the currency, deregulating the banks, actually pushing us towards Asian markets, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister Not true .. I went to Sefton HS (which is a half-selective public school), about 65% of my grade were over 90%...

TSK TSK

I'm sure in the good old days Webby, Public Highs were good. As I said my public primary was fkn mad, now its shithouse. The downfall the Public system has taken has only occured over the last 10 or so years. And as I said, not including selective highs. How can you compare slective highs like James Ruse etc. They are practically private. I bet they get a shitload more funding than regular Public Schools. Probably well deserved to as the kids that are there most of em wanna be there! They are not just at school because they have to be kinda thing.

quote:

Originally posted by matt_a TSK TSK I'm sure in the good old days Webby, Public Highs were good. As I said my public primary was fkn mad, now its shithouse. The downfall the Public system has taken has only occured over the last 10 or so years. And as I said, not including selective highs. How can you compare slective highs like James Ruse etc. They are practically private. I bet they get a shitload more funding than regular Public Schools. Probably well deserved to as the kids that are there most of em wanna be there! They are not just at school because they have to be kinda thing.

Hey I'm not that old, I was Class of 98

As I said, the comparison is valid as Sefton was only half selective. Not withstanding the fact that we were in a disadvantaged area (right in the centre of Bankstown), but the local kids who needed additional funding didn't get it because the selective kids from out of the area would get such high marks and push the school out of the "qualifying for disadvantaged funding" zone...

There are some good public high schools but they are all in wealthy areas.

How is Latham going to fund his initiatives? Well he can spend money on services that the Liberals spend on tax cuts. If they did not have the tax cut or the family benefits in this budget there would have been billions and billions for education, health etc

Its not like we are running deficits at the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Romp There are some good public high schools but they are all in wealthy areas. How is Latham going to fund his initiatives? Well he can spend money on services that the Liberals spend on tax cuts. If they did not have the tax cut or the family benefits in this budget there would have been billions and billions for education, health etc Its not like we are running deficits at the moment.

Think again buddy....Latham has promised MORE tax cuts than the liberals....so, cutting out the cuts won't be where he gets all this imaginary money from From ABC -

'He told Sydney radio station 2GB the Opposition will offer relief to those who missed out on the Government's tax cuts.

"We're going to extend, we're going to have a bigger commitment to tax relief than what we found in the Budget," he said.

"We want to extend it out to the four out of five families and singles who didn't receive any.

"We want to make it broader, we mightn't be able to cover every single person but we want to make it broader than the current arrangements."

He says Labor is still working on its tax plan and has promised more comprehensive tax cuts than those offered by the Government.'


Anybody wanna offer me a viable source of cash that's gonna fund these lovely labor promises?? Seems Latham can't offer one himself...so maybe u supporters of his can??

Cheers tubby, you said more or less what i tried to say (just in a shitload less words)

As for whoever (sorry, forgot who it was) who said that the extra 25% HECS is going to help later years students, you do have a point i didn't think of if your referring to books in library, computers, builidngs.

However, I am doing Biotechnology (bloody expensive pracs, think gene engineering) and if we had 25% more funding now, I can't tell you how much better our resources for practical sessions would be. It would help a whole heap, and the practical would be more relevant to industry work. Maybe we would have proper equipment, rather than using tissue paper (it happened on Tuesday), nor would we be constantly using DNA which has passed its used by date, maybe for once we would have a PCR that would work properly

But wait...only people who enrol for 1st year after next year have the extra 25% added on, so people in uni now are not affected.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister Hey I'm not that old, I was Class of 98

that's pre-historic mate

quote:

Originally posted by eRRaTiK that's pre-historic mate

Quiet you

'things' seem to be getter bigger......hmmmmmm

Get ready for the essay! :D

Hi everyone, been away for a few days and my perogative not to rejoin the debate till id read up on the budget have led me not to reply till now. But well im back and im going to put down my views and some facts. Enjoy!

Firstly, The increase in family benefits. This is one of the major points in the budget - it is the thing that the govt is basing its re-election on more then anything else, and as such the extra funding going into the scheme is very enticing to families in all tax brackets. The extra 40,000 child care placements in after school care and 4000 day care placements are both very welcome things but in truth dont even scratch the surface of what is needed! This will not even meet 1/3 of the currnet unmet demand nor will it affect those areas were it is most needed (ie areas that are deemed unprofitable by private institutions - private institutions are the ones recieving this funding.). The reforms to the Family Tax Benefit A and B, will go some way to repairing the debacle that those 2 schemes have become, and will address to a certain extent the current system which actively discourages mothers from returning to the work force (currently mothers returning to the workforce lose both the benefits that they would have recieved staying at home caring for the children and get taxed at a higher rate, thus being a major financial disadvantage to return to work after a child.) The increase to these schemes replace the Howard Govt's FAILED baby bonus scheme which was proven to be a complete and utter right off!

This budget is aimed at encouraging people to have children which is in one sense financially responsible seeing as in 10 years time there will be a huge number of australians retired and not working, so i suppose in thinking to the future, the more children, the more future workers, better for the economy. Financially sound thinking. Socially VERY IRRESPONSIBLE! Talk to any person earning $100,000+ and ask them what they think would be the most expensive asset they could have and they will say children. People who make large amounts of money have less kids then those who have very little money. The reason kids cost a lot of money! As such most people on high incomes live by the SINK or DINK philosophies (Single Income No Kids, Dual Income No Kids) until they are well into their thirties. Encouraging children therefore wilL merely encourage those on lower incomes to have more kids (because of the small financial incentives) and thus creating an underclass of poor families with lots of kids, the social costs of that im sure you can all guess. But even assuming that this situation doesnt occur, is increasing the number of kids really that big a gain? Its a delayed resource coming through 20 years from now, a resource that will cost a lot to educate to a standard where it is earning enough to help support the rest of the nation, and then what happens in 65 years time when the next generation baby boomers hit retirement age? Its just perpetuating a problem with a 65 year cycle time!

secondly, tax cuts. This is the issue i have the most problem with. The primary reason for the movements in the tax thresholds is to counter bracket creep (according to Peter Costello anyway), but if that were truly the case then all tax brackets would have moved. The fact of the matter is that if we use purely the ABS's figures for the increase in peoples incomes over the last 10 years, the tax free threshold would have moved from its current $6000 mark up to $13500. Now ive noticed a lot of people on here saying that our tax rates are too high anyway being nearly 50% at the highest rate, and i agree its high but we have a progressive tax system which means that you dont pay 50% of ALL your income in tax...

Example 1 - lets assume you earn $100,000 and make absolutely no deductions on your taxable income (if there is a single person in Aus who does this they must have an IQ less then that of a glass of water! ).
You pay no tax on the first $6000, you then pay 17% for the next $15600 ($2652), then 30% for the next $30400 ($9120), then 42% for the next $10500 ($4410), then 47% for the remaining $37500 ($17625) meaning you pay in actuality $33807 or 33.8%. Now thats not really that high is it? With the new scheme however you will save $2195.00. You now pay only $31612 or 31.6%. Wow big saving...
Example 2 - a person on $40 000 currently pays $8712 tax (20.4%), with the new scheme they'll still pay $8712. Huge saving huh?

Personally id like to see the $14.7 billion spent on increasing the tax free threshold for EVERYONE rather then just those on highest incomes! A simple $1000-2500 increase in the tax free threshold would benefit everybody in australia especially those on the lowest incomes and would still give a tax cut to those on the highest incomes - our $100,000 example would still recieve a tax cut of $170-425 a year, whilst our $40,000 example would save the same. Or if the government pushed back all the brackets by the $1000-2500 then a saving of $470-1175 would apply for our $100,000 example whilst a saving of $300-750 and i think everyone would agree the system would be far more equitable. I also dont believe the cost would be much greater then the current proposed changes, however i dont have access to the govts data so i cant be 100% sure of that!

Thirdly, The increase in superranuation contribution - BIG THUMBS UP!! nuff said...

fourthly, the increase in defense and intelligence spending. Im giving this a cautious thumbs up. Apart from the addition of 2 extra RAAF AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning & Control) Aircraft, there doesnt appear to be much of an increase in expenditure on actual military projects. This i think is a good thing because the defense force white paper released 2 years ago outlined all the expenditures for the future and how they were to be payed for, so im glad that there is no EXTRA money going to some of these projects because the white paper outlined quite effectively what was needed for a well balanced Aus military force, additional spending is just wastage in my opinion. Oh and just to let you know those 2 extra AEW&C's are damn good planes - when we have all 6, aus will possess probably the worlds best early warning fleet especially when combiined with the Jindabyne Over-the-horizon Radar Network (JORN) that we have across northern Aus! Also someone mentioned the collins class submarines as being an example of wasted money. I would just like to correct that person - the collins class subs are actually (now that theyve been modified, unfortunatley at great expense due to the MONUMENTAL cockup of the american electronics contractor and the fuck up of the aus defense dept to NOT write certain clauses into the contract) a world class subamrine.

The rest of the budget in my opinion sounds quite reasonable and is of less importance then these key areas (my opinion once more) though there are a few issues like the funding for aboriginal communities and the environment. But the election deciders are those above.

As for education i dont have the figures on me so im not going to comment on it in depth but i think you will find that if you look at the money spent on private school students (by govts, parents and the schools own funding (from private ventures, etc.)), you will find that it is MUCH greater then that spent on public school students. The evidence of this is fairly easy to find - drive past bankstown high then drive past sydney boys high, you make the decision. Which you would send your kids to if you had the choice! Personally on this topic im very much a communist idealist - i would love to see private schools banned! That way kids from poor families would recieve the same education as those from rich families! There would of course be some discrepencies between various areas (kirribillie kids would undoubtedly recieve beter education then mount druitt) but the system would be FAR more equitable. However, thats just a pipe dream and not going to happen, so lets move right along shall we?

As for the question about where is Latham going to get his funding from. Personally im GLAD that they havent said were its coming from yet. I like the idea that the Labour is thinking about the problem and coming up with the best solution. if an answer to the 5000 page budget document was released within the same week, id be INCREDIBLY SUSS about it! However, i can already see a few areas that the moeny could come from. Reworking the tax system like labour has said they would means they have $14.7 billion to play with. An extra $2.2 billion could be saved by stopping the governments proposed one-off $600 bribe to families that will be paid in july this year. It is very much a bribe and should be touted as such. This is all im going to comment on in this regard because once again i dont have the governments figures, nor am i part of the opposition. I do look forward to hearing their counter proposal though.

And Sel: That increase cant be natural, it cant!!!!!

That is all..... look forward to hearing your responses!

Re: Get ready for the essay! :D

quote:

Originally posted by lethal i think you will find that if you look at the money spent on private school students (by govts, parents and the schools own funding (from private ventures, etc.)), you will find that it is MUCH greater then that spent on public school students.

it's obvious that all up private schoole have more money per student, but they get a lot less/student than publiuc schools. a couple of years ago the government wanted to count schools own fundraising as part of their funding, so anything you raised was deducted from your government funding. Totally discourage effort from the parents and community to support your schools. Similarly, discouraging parents from paying extra for education, all that achieves is to drag everyone down to a low average, it would do nothing to improve general standards.
Anyone here tried going to a macdonalds of an evening in singapore ot hong kong? ever noticed they're full of kids studying? The only thing that will significantly improve our education system is a change of parental standards which they can pass on to the kids. Until then we can all just blame the government, a nice fat target

Re: Re: Get ready for the essay! :D

quote:

Originally posted by tubby it's obvious that all up private schoole have more money per student, but they get a lot less/student than publiuc schools. a couple of years ago the government wanted to count schools own fundraising as part of their funding, so anything you raised was deducted from your government funding. Totally discourage effort from the parents and community to support your schools. Similarly, discouraging parents from paying extra for education, all that achieves is to drag everyone down to a low average, it would do nothing to improve general standards. Anyone here tried going to a macdonalds of an evening in singapore ot hong kong? ever noticed they're full of kids studying? The only thing that will significantly improve our education system is a change of parental standards which they can pass on to the kids. Until then we can all just blame the government, a nice fat target

Werd! It's all in our attitudes. Even talking to some of my older friends who have finished Uni, if you tell them you are reading a book that is even partly educational, you get shot down for being a nerd and "as if you'd read books". I pity these people.
Some people want a good education and some people don't care about it. Or their parents don't care about it. There are heaps of kids in year 12 that do shit all work, and then blame the public education system for their poor marks. Just like our society, no body wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore. Education is there if you want it. It depends on your attitude to it whether you take it in or not.
I also cannot understand all thesr richos that dont want kids for economical reasons. I mean whats the point of their life? Live, get rich, enjoy it for a while, get old and die. Leave nothing. Seems pointless to me. What's their point in life.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.