Private vs. Public Schools! (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

The amount of money that someone or their family has is not relevant to what type of person they are or character they display. That view (if it wasn't trolling, which many people have) is just... Retarded.

If someone's going to be a cunt, it doesn't matter where they're schooled - they'll still be a cunt. It's their ~destiny~.

^public school student

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

... And? Doesn't change what I said.

 

[theycallmebob]

aren't christian schools and catholic schools essentially the same thing?

No way. I've been to both, in my experience Christians schools are way too christian, and everyone there are snobby rich christians, and heaps strict

The catholic school i went to wasn't much better than a public school in terms of what goes on.

 

[Lolsmith]

No way. I've been to both, in my experience Christians schools are way too christian, and everyone there are snobby rich christians, and heaps strict

The catholic school i went to wasn't much better than a public school in terms of what goes on.

fuck

 

[theycallmebob]

fuck

wat

 

[funkshen]

what about homeschooling

 

[theycallmebob]

I was homeschooled. That's why I'm a social retard

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

To that whole debate on inequality being good as it promotes innovation/growth. I agree to an extent, but the vast majority of rich people probably inherited that fortune as opposed to worked hard for it. As a result they probably won't have to work as hard/leech of the hard work of others.

This is why i support progressive income taxes (evening out the playing field) to a certain extent but am absolutely disgusted at the large capital gains taxes (where people are being taxed harshly for their own innovation/intelligence).

No way. I've been to both, in my experience Christians schools are way too christian, and everyone there are snobby rich christians, and heaps strict

The catholic school i went to wasn't much better than a public school in terms of what goes on.

Sample size: 2.

 

[theycallmebob]

Sample size: 2.

What?

 

[katie tully]

To that whole debate on inequality being good as it promotes innovation/growth. I agree to an extent, but the vast majority of rich people probably inherited that fortune as opposed to worked hard for it. As a result they probably won't have to work as hard/leech of the hard work of others.

This is why i support progressive income taxes (evening out the playing field) to a certain extent but am absolutely disgusted at the large capital gains taxes (where people are being taxed harshly for their own innovation/intelligence).



Sample size: 2.

either you dont know what vast majority means
or you are confused about what constitutes wealth in relation to education ($2 million isnt going to make much difference compared to $200k) or you are just an idiot and are making things up

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

What?

Was just being hyperbolic. You can't judge and distinguish between "christian" and "catholic" schools when most of their religious education is similar.

The reason why you found those individual schools as they were was most likely due to factors other than their religion.

 

[theycallmebob]

Was just being hyperbolic. You can't judge and distinguish between "christian" and "catholic" schools when most of their religious education is similar.

The reason why you found those individual schools as they were was most likely due to factors other than their religion.

That is probably true, however there is a very distinct difference between catholic and christian schools.

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

either you dont know what vast majority means
or you are confused about what constitutes wealth in relation to education ($2 million isnt going to make much difference compared to $200k) or you are just an idiot and are making things up

All i'm saying is

Inheritance is inheritance, regardless of how much or little it is. It's not really providing any real incentives if they are already rich.

And 200k would still be considered quite affluent...

 

[SylviaB]

To that whole debate on inequality being good as it promotes innovation/growth. I agree to an extent, but the vast majority of rich people probably inherited that fortune as opposed to worked hard for it. As a result they probably won't have to work as hard/leech of the hard work of others.

The top 20% work longer hours on average than everyone else. This idea of entire classes of people just living off of family wealth is a pure fabrication.

This is why i support progressive income taxes (evening out the playing field) to a certain extent but am absolutely disgusted at the large capital gains taxes (where people are being taxed harshly for their own innovation/intelligence).

Why should people be punished for earning money? Why not punish consumption?

Sample size: 2.

yeah okay mr "probably" this speculation and "probably" that speculation

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

The top 20% work longer hours on average than everyone else. This idea of entire classes of people just living off of family wealth is a pure fabrication.

And is that to say that many low income earners don't work as hard either?

It's easier to make money once you already have some. But anyway we can't argue this without generalising a large demographic of people.

Why should people be punished for earning money? Why not punish consumption?

Wheither you agree or disagree i believe in there being some sort of benchmark for allowing equality. Though i guess that's a matter of values so we can't argue there at all.
Also we do tax consumption.

yeah okay mr "probably" this speculation and "probably" that speculation

I think i talked about this before. I joke around too. Just like basically the whole of page 20 was.

 

[SylviaB]

And is that to say that many low income earners don't work as hard either?

Most rich people work long hours, which is why its stupid to claim that a significant portion of them are just "leeches", at least in the sense you're claiming.

It's easier to make money once you already have some.

So? An economy isn't about things being "fair", its about producing goods and services people want. Rich people are smarter so its better that they keep and spend their money than it is for poor people/the state to recieve/spend it instead.

But anyway we can't argue this without generalising a large demographic of people.

your whole post was a generalisation of a large demographic of people

Wheither you agree or disagree i believe in there being some sort of benchmark for allowing equality. Though i guess that's a matter of values so we can't argue there at all.

SO you think that australia should be poorer if it means greater "equality"?

Also we do tax consumption.

Only slightly. I'm talking about making it the prime source of revenue, and greatly minimising/eliminating income taxes. And low income earners could claim most of their tax back ifyou want to cry and hurting the poor.

 

[SunnyScience]

Nether the less?

Typo sorry

*Never the less

 

[funkshen]

two legs good, four legs bad

 

[Lentern]

The idea of a socialized education system is significantly different to socialized healthcare, roads, housing etc in that it is specifically exclusively talking about children who have little if any control over it. As I said its not about giving them an equal lifestyle but about giving them an equal opportunity. I'm in the majority of my left wing comrades I don't advocate free tertiary education, I think by the time you're seventeen you're ready to start taking these matters into your own hands. And I get that you can't micromanage every aspect of the child's upbringing to give them a equal opportunity but making education a level playing field is feasible and it would make tremendous inroads towards that.

 

[katie tully]

i agree, we should close all selective schools
not class segregation either, kids aiming for 40 atars in with kids aiming for 99.95
all doing the same classes