Addicted to debt. From the Australian Office of Financial Management: http://aofm.gov.au/outright-tender/tender-865/#results
It is because the government refuses to take ownership of the budget and pay down debt, and now just keeps borrowing more with the same tired excuse year after years "oh, its Labor's fault" Not that interest payments aren't huge however, but check this out for context: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...nge-to-be-left-for-later-20150703-gi4rg9.html
The fact that most OECD countries don't fund private schooling is irrelevant and does not justify any move to cease funding. To argue along those lines is just circular reasoning eg: Australia should stop public funding of private schools The Federal governments of the UK and US do not fund private schools Therefore Australia should stop public funding of private schools Edit to add: it is relevant but only from the point of view that it is a model that could be adopted or rejected. It is not of itself a logical argument, it is just the situation that exists in other countries. It's not public money, it belongs to the taxpayer and some of those taxpayers send their children to private schools by choice, so they have a justifiable claim to receiving some of their money back.
Which makes a mockery of the fearmongering surrounding "The Budget from Hell". It was always going to happen. http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-747845.html#p747845
It's startling to see $3.345 billion being applied for, with only $1.2 billion on offer. Such confidence that goverment bonds are safe and a good deal ! They're dreaming if they think 2.75% is a good yield. Have they even considered risk all the way to 2027 (anything could happen) ?
Does the same logic apply to defence. I don't want any of my tax money going to buy a lemon F35 that can only carry 2 bombs. Regards Errol 43
Make it a tax deduction then if it is so easily justifiable. And as the article pointed out, where is my taxpayer subsidy to buy a Mercedes so I can save the public money by not using public transport?
I haven't got a problem with discussing this, my problem is that the opponents of private school funding operate from a position of dishonesty in that they can't justify their position. The options from my position are: 1. Scrap private school funding, but firstly come up with some logical justification for it, not based upon logical fallacies such as OECD countries do it or we don't give tax concessions for using a Mercedes or Tesla^. 2. Scrap all funding of schools both private and public, and reduce our tax bill proportionally. 3. Rebate to the users of the private system the unused portion of their tax $ used to fund government schools and rebate to the users of the public system the unused portion of their tax $ used to fund private schools. The parents can then decide what they'll do with the extra cash.* ^ Actually Tesla owners do get tax concessions whilst Mercedes drivers get slugged extra tax. Furthermore, I get a tax concession for using private medical cover, by your their logic it should also apply to private schools then. :/ * Far cheaper just to adopt "2" My position overall is that the State should not be involved in the business of being an education provider because it ends up controlling the curriculum which can favour special interest groups helping to brainwash students and is an inefficient use of scarce resources. Edited
It's bad enough that the government funds public schools. There is absolutley no reason they should fund "private" schools as well. The analogy with cars and public transport is a good one.
So transport policies justify educational policies now? There's only one issue at stake - who gets to benefit when money has been forcibly taken from an individual and redistributed?
