The Libs just borrowed another 1.2 BILLION dollars

[SpacePete]

Addicted to debt. From the Australian Office of Financial Management: http://aofm.gov.au/outright-tender/tender-865/#results

 

[JulieW]

That would be the fiscal responsibility they were on about no doubt.

 

[Shaddam IV]

It's to make the interest payments on the Gillard/Rudd/Swan deficit.

 

[SpacePete]

It's to make the interest payments on the Gillard/Rudd/Swan deficit.

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

 

[JulieW]

why is there private school support I thought they charged fees.

 

[SpacePete]

why is there private school support I thought they charged fees.

Religion?

Private schools can also be divided into two groups. Religion-based systems of education are operated by the Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic denominations as well as a number of other church or parachurch-based low-fee schools. By far the most numerous are Catholic schools, which are run by diocese-based educational institutions within the Catholic Church called the Catholic Education/Schools Offices,[2] although some more prestigious Catholic schools are independent. The rest are known as independent schools, which are largely Protestant grammar schools. There are also a few Jewish and Islamic schools, and a growing number of independent Montessori and Waldorf schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_and_private_education_in_Australia#Private

 

[SpacePete]

Australia should ... stop funding private schools

Australia is one of the very few countries in the OECD that publicly funds private schools. More than 40% of Australian secondary children now attend private schools - either so-called independent or religious schools. Australia has one of the most privatised school systems in the OECD.

Prior to 1972 no private schools received any government funding whatsoever in this country. While most OECD countries have a private school system, very few of them receive public funding. Think about England, the home of the elite private school, and the exclusive private schools in the USA: not one cent of taxpayer's money goes into their budgets.

So where is our (public) education money going?

New figures from the Productivity Commission show that government funding increases between 2008-09 and 2012-13 massively favoured private schools over public schools.

Funding for private schools in Victoria, for example, increased by 18.5% per student, or eight times that of public schools. Across Australia, the dollar increase for private schools was nearly five times that for public schools. The average increase for private schools was A$1,181 per student compared to only A$247 for public schools.

But don't private schools save public money? We all pay taxes!

The private school lobby often makes this spurious claim alongside the claim that those who choose private schools already pay taxes so should receive at least a contribution from their taxes to pay for that education choice.

Independent Schools Victoria claims that sending a child to a private school is actually a saving to the taxpayer of A$5000 per student.

This is akin to the Automobile Chamber of Commerce suggesting the use of private cars not only saves public money on public transport but actually wanting their members to receive a subsidy on the purchase of their new Mercedes or BMW.

https://theconversation.com/austral...s-lead-and-stop-funding-private-schools-33310

 

[SpacePete]

We also had a debt ceiling, but Abbott removed it so they could borrow without limits.

With the support of the Australian Greens, the Abbott Government repealed the debt ceiling over the opposition of the Australian Labor Party.

The debt ceiling was contained in s.5 of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911,[25] until its repeal in December 2013.

 

[systematic]

why is there private school support I thought they charged fees.

A form of covert wealth transfer from the working and middle class ...

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Australia should ... stop funding private schools

Australia is one of the very few countries in the OECD that publicly funds private schools. More than 40% of Australian secondary children now attend private schools - either so-called independent or religious schools. Australia has one of the most privatised school systems in the OECD.

Prior to 1972 no private schools received any government funding whatsoever in this country. While most OECD countries have a private school system, very few of them receive public funding. Think about England, the home of the elite private school, and the exclusive private schools in the USA: not one cent of taxpayer's money goes into their budgets.

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.

So where is our (public) education money going?

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.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

That would be the fiscal responsibility they were on about no doubt.

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

 

[systematic]

Ahhh ... send the kids to private school ... awww ... daddy's little tax shelters ...

 

[James]

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) ?

 

[errol43]

It's to make the interest payments on the Gillard/Rudd/Swan deficit.

What interest rate does the government pay on its borrowings?

Regards Errol 43

 

[errol43]

Australia should ... stop funding private schools

Australia is one of the very few countries in the OECD that publicly funds private schools. More than 40% of Australian secondary children now attend private schools - either so-called independent or religious schools. Australia has one of the most privatised school systems in the OECD.

Prior to 1972 no private schools received any government funding whatsoever in this country. While most OECD countries have a private school system, very few of them receive public funding. Think about England, the home of the elite private school, and the exclusive private schools in the USA: not one cent of taxpayer's money goes into their budgets.

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.

So where is our (public) education money going?

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.

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

 

[SpacePete]

So where is our (public) education money going?

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.

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?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

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

Do you have a choice? If not I guess the same logic doesn't apply.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

So where is our (public) education money going?

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.

Make it a tax deduction then if it is so easily justifiable.

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

 

[col0016]

Australia should ... stop funding private schools

Australia is one of the very few countries in the OECD that publicly funds private schools. More than 40% of Australian secondary children now attend private schools - either so-called independent or religious schools. Australia has one of the most privatised school systems in the OECD.

Prior to 1972 no private schools received any government funding whatsoever in this country. While most OECD countries have a private school system, very few of them receive public funding. Think about England, the home of the elite private school, and the exclusive private schools in the USA: not one cent of taxpayer's money goes into their budgets.

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.

So where is our (public) education money going?

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.

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.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

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?