Are our Politicians out of touch??? (2 Viewers)

[Calculon]

I'm personally undecided on primary/secondary education, my posts in this thread were an attempt to draw out a logical justification for the subsidised case.

EDIT: I'll also dissect addymac's post later tonight when I have time.

 

[FuckLiberals]

Yea I agree with you on education addy, I don't want to be seen as having a 100% privatisation view of education... my only points have been that I don't think private education is this big advantaging tool of the rich elite that people make it out to be.

Apart from the fact they get more money than public schools?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Apart from the fact they get more money than public schools?

From all government sources? No. Private schools get more money than public schools due to the contributions of the parents.

If you took away all government contributions to private schools, then many would close down, creating more burden on the public sector to make up for the percentage of money they were saving from private school students - we saw this when they stopped funding catholic schools.

Fact is, private schools mean that the government has more money to spend on public schools.

But even with all this money, does this really put them at much of an advantage that they wouldn't have going to a public school w/ rich parents? I'm going out on a limb and saying that whatever advantage is gained by kids with rich parents that go to private schools is roughly the same as kids with rich parents that go to public schools.

 

[FuckLiberals]

From all government sources? No. Private schools get more money than public schools due to the contributions of the parents.

If you took away all government contributions to private schools, then many would close down, creating more burden on the public sector to make up for the percentage of money they were saving from private school students - we saw this when they stopped funding catholic schools.

Fact is, private schools mean that the government has more money to spend on public schools.

But even with all this money, does this really put them at much of an advantage that they wouldn't have going to a public school w/ rich parents? I'm going out on a limb and saying that whatever advantage is gained by kids with rich parents that go to private schools is roughly the same as kids with rich parents that go to public schools.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2115

The state system, with 68 per cent of the students, receives 76 per cent of the funding – hardly a dramatic margin. Yet the state system is obliged to bear the expense of providing education in a large number of far-flung locations and of educating all students who require education, not just those low-maintenance students who are able to pass through a selection process. It would be surprising if the extra government funding received by the state system covers more than a fraction of this additional cost.

Nice one, NTB.

 

[loquasagacious]

You support the mandatory subjugation of certain persons that they be forced to perform certain actions which they may or may not wish to perform?

In this case yes, to a certain extent (note this is an issue I'm not 100% on, I do however have a certain soft spot for it).

I judge the benefit to exceed the cost, clearly though you rate the infringement of personal/civil liberties as having an infinite cost hence nothing can justify it (economics can rationalise both sides of this lol ) - or can it? What is your limit? At what point does the benefit of infringing someones rights exceed the cost?

I point to the succesful national serice examples of swiss and israel particularly, however an important point needs to be made that I regard as reducing the benefit of national service and thus makes me somewhat loathe to suggest it (the MB, MC gap having either narrowed considerably or reversed because of it).

The point being that unlike Israel Australia does not exist under a state of seige were there a clear and present danger to Australia eg were we at war, or constantly facing the immenant danger of war then national service looks far more attractive. However we are not so the arguments that I can fall back on are:

Preparedness in case of war (unlikely as it may be),
Promotes social cohesion,
Creates a more effective emergency/disaster response force,
Engenders a better public response to emergency/disaster eg discipline not panic.
Teaches uselful skills that may translate across to the workforce,
Improves health/fitness levels (reducing load on health system).
Less morally scrupulously it enables Australians to compete in the international mercenary market.

The costs are:
Two years of lost income for conscripts (eg oppurtunity cost),
Somewhat intangible cost of infringed liberties,
Cost of paying conscripts,
Cost of restructuring the defence force,
Cost of equiping recruits,
Two years of lost taxes from conscripts,
Reduces the 18-22 labor force available to employers.

Clearly this is not a clear cut issue, and I recognise that it is increasingly unlikely (as memory of WWII fades and literally dies), furthermore I can't think of too many places which have democratically voted for national service in times of war let alone peace. However I have a soft spot for it and if I woke up tomorrow as benevolent dictator tomorrow it would be on the cards.

Summary: National Service in peace time has very close MC and MB (possibly even MC>MB) and it is highly unlikely to ever get off the ground democratically and/or in peace time. But I still like the potential it has.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The state system, with 68 per cent of the students, receives 76 per cent of the funding – hardly a dramatic margin.

Is that state funding, federal funding, or total funding (including parent contributions) ?

I've done it before in the other thread, there's a table which lists state/federal combined funding and public students get more money from the government by a fair margin (30% or so I believe). See there's alot of people that want to manipulate the statistics, so they might just quote the federal funding, which is skewed towards private schools... or they might just quote the state funding, which is skewed towards public schools... or they might quote total funding (including parental contributions) which is skewed towards private schools... or some of the more honest people, may quote total government funding (all that we really care about), which is skewed towards public schools.

As for the increased need for further funding due to having to look after people with disabilities etc, I would be interested to actually hear all the statistics on that. The article you cited simply makes the claim without supporting it.

edit: I actually didn't notice it, but doesn't that article conflict with what you say?

Apart from the fact they get more money than public schools?

The state system, with 68 per cent of the students, receives 76 per cent of the funding – hardly a dramatic margin.

I'm assuming you mean government money?

 

[loquasagacious]

From all government sources? No. Private schools get more money than public schools due to the contributions of the parents.

If you took away all government contributions to private schools, then many would close down, creating more burden on the public sector to make up for the percentage of money they were saving from private school students - we saw this when they stopped funding catholic schools.

Fact is, private schools mean that the government has more money to spend on public schools.

But even with all this money, does this really put them at much of an advantage that they wouldn't have going to a public school w/ rich parents? I'm going out on a limb and saying that whatever advantage is gained by kids with rich parents that go to private schools is roughly the same as kids with rich parents that go to public schools.

The funding of private schools by the government reflects that the parents of these students still pay taxes..... however it looks bad when Kings gets a new pool or the like so perhaps we should give private school parents a tax rebate and strip private schools of funding.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well they'd probably still get the pool cuz all that would happen is that kings would increase their costs to parents. It's a problematic approach i think.

 

[Calculon]

The funding of private schools by the government reflects that the parents of these students still pay taxes..... however it looks bad when Kings gets a new pool or the like so perhaps we should give private school parents a tax rebate and strip private schools of funding.

How bout we rebate the taxes of those who choose not to have children too? It gets a bit ridiculous, so we imo need a full voucher system so private school parents don't end up paying for their kid's education several times over.

 

[loquasagacious]

The idea is that they still get their pool but are less prone to being lambasted by the telegraph for it.....

Though the tele would launch a broadside at the concept of a tax break for rich people who send their kids to private schools, so perhaps we should give everyone a tax break and charge a specific education fee direct to parents, and now we're looking at a 'corporatised' public education system....

Basically I am torn, I like both a public and a private system for different reasons....

How bout we rebate the taxes of those who choose not to have children too? It gets a bit ridiculous, so we imo need a full voucher system so private school parents don't end up paying for their kid's education several times over.

Perhaps we should drastically cut back on all taxes and only tax for say defence, police, etc eg the bare minimum and the rest be user-pays .....

 

[sam04u]

I agree with alot the loquascious said;

I agree, that everyone from the age of 18-22 should serve a minimum of about 12 months in the army/navy or airforce. "Whether", it be as a communications expert; Doctor; Engineer; etc.

I agree, that government funded "public" education should be continued; to give people equal oppurtunities in life.

HOWEVER;
I disagree, that private health should full replace public health.
Perhaps a means test would be more "economically efficient". Since those of higher socio-economic status; would have added benefits such as tax cuts and better medical treatment... under a slightly changed system.

But the problem with what you're saying loq; is a major issue in the U.S at the moment. NOTHING is worse then being turned away from a hospital when you're dieing because you don't have some form of insurance... basically you're left to die... It's not worth the.. slight economic benefits... human life is more important....
Medicare is one of australias greatest political assets...

I also agree with your educational model.
It seems as though "primary" school kids don't experience half as much... as they should... but recently... it seems though they are taking it to extremes.

My little sister in year 3; is expected to produce a 3D solar system model; with 6 facts (all written by her) about the solar system; and also present it to her class & answer questions.

(I think that's a little extreme... it seems as though now they're sacrificing ancient history and irrigation and such... for science.... which isn't a negative thing... its just unproperly thoughout. A kid in her class now, will know more about astronomy then they do about the past of human civilisation... but wait a minute.. ideas of the universe are constantly evolving... tommorow it could be proven that the universe is in a 4d model which would explain the extra mass they call "grey matter" and would have matter flying across the points of tangents which would accumulate much of the mass... blahblahblah...)

So they know less and less about more and more...


Your model seemed quite efficient...

But how can you ensure they actually learnt it?
What happens if a student didn't?
blahblahblah rant...

 

[davin]

But the problem with what you're saying loq; is a major issue in the U.S at the moment. NOTHING is worse then being turned away from a hospital when you're dieing because you don't have some form of insurance... basically you're left to die... It's not worth the.. slight economic benefits... human life is more important....
Medicare is one of australias greatest political assets...

considering that in the U.S. an emergency room can not turn someone away, and there are gov't plans for low income families, i'm not sure where the heck you're getting your views of american health care

 

[loquasagacious]

Probably from ER.....

 

[yy]

Perhaps we should drastically cut back on all taxes and only tax for say defence, police, etc eg the bare minimum and the rest be user-pays .....

actually, that exactly what i think should happen, and i'm not joking.

 

[Calculon]

Perhaps we should drastically cut back on all taxes and only tax for say defence, police, etc eg the bare minimum and the rest be user-pays .....

That's exactly what we should do!

 

[loquasagacious]

But what is essential?

Defence, police are a given but what of education, health, infrastructure, fire and ambulance services, welfare?

Personally I rate defence, police, ambulance, fire brigades and very limited welfare as essential.

As far as phasing in such a system I would suggest that it would need to be a gradual process and would force us into the red in the short term eg whilst it is fair to say strip us Gen-Ys of the possibility of a pension in the future as we havn't payed taxes to justify one and we have time to prepare for not having one it is a somewhat different proposition to strip current pensioners of their benefits.

 

[sam04u]

Well, Loq...

Think about what you are saying... politics isn't a game... if you take something out from somewhere you need to analyse the effects.

The way you think is ridiculous... it discriminates against a whole class of people. Some people are genuinely dependant on these things... and without them they will likely fail... and drift into a never ending spiral of poverty. (Which has serious effects on the population; including crime; riots etc, etc.)

So the benefits from reducing funding into such government organisations will lead to an effect somewhere else; ruining the country and some other aspect.. of the economy.. for the sake of a few with higher incomes. (basically we get a structure where the top 5-8% control 90% of the currency)
Making teachers, doctors, and others poorer.. and shifting these people into the lower-middle class... economically... which in turn is detrimental.

I'm not arguing with what you're saying for the sake of difference of opinion. But you aren't taking into account the effects...

Eg;
Chemist 1: Lets stop buying gold for our experiments it costs too much!
Chemist 2: What should we do then?
Chemist 1: We'll screw over the people at the gold mines by making our own gold by nuclear bombardment!
Chemist 2: You're a genius!
Chemist 1: Right! I Am!

Cost of buying gold "x";
Cost of producing gold "10x";

Same sort of thing...

 

[FuckLiberals]

But what is essential?

Defence, police are a given but what of education, health, infrastructure, fire and ambulance services, welfare?

Personally I rate defence, police, ambulance, fire brigades and very limited welfare as essential.

As far as phasing in such a system I would suggest that it would need to be a gradual process and would force us into the red in the short term eg whilst it is fair to say strip us Gen-Ys of the possibility of a pension in the future as we havn't payed taxes to justify one and we have time to prepare for not having one it is a somewhat different proposition to strip current pensioners of their benefits.

I personally see defence to be of no use at all to Australia.

 

[sam04u]

I don't think its about the defence...

You never know when someone decides to attack australia and conscription comes into australia; i'd rather formal training then a 3 month "crash course" then being thrown somewhere in heavy fire....

Also it adds a sense of patriotism... and hopefully eliminate the increasing feminimity in men....

 

[loquasagacious]

Defence is a non-negotiable aspect of the state. The very Raison d'Etat of the state is the protection of it's citizens and it's territory - if it does not or can not protect its citizens or it's territory then a state has no purpose.

A state's entire purpose is the maintenance of territorial integrity and the lives of its citizens, all other goals are secondary. A state which can not do these things is no state at all.

This proposal would see not a political state occupying the Australian continent but a nation of sorts. The terriitory would be in a state sense unclaimed and empty.

I point out that every country in the world has a standing army, with the one exception of a small central american republic who is guranteed protection by neighbours - in many ways it has become a protectorate/annex of its neighbour and not a true independent and soveriegn state.

Oh and as a Webberian aside: If a state is defined as having the sole control of legitimate coersive force in a given territory, however a state does not have that control (and thus can not prevent others from exercising such control) then is it still a state?

Returning to sam's earlier points what you are messing is the net effect - if people loose welfare then this is a loss yes and if it occured in isolation would undoubtedly push them down the food chain. However in the models we are discussing this would be offset by drastic tax cuts so the net result is actually going to be more money in peoples hip pockets. Les tax on them, less taxes on their goods and services, less on their companies.

Add abit of microeconomics to the mix and we see that a more efficient outcome is achieved in two ways: dead weight loss imposed by the imposition of taxes is reduced and dead weight loss impossed by the giving of welfare/subsidies is reduced.

Its win, win, win.