The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Means testing education support > Comments

Means testing education support : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 7/6/2017

There are thousands of extremely well off parents who send their children to government schools. It's not fine that these parents receive the same taxpayer-funded support as poor parents.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
personally I would get rid of the public system. It would save billions and lift the standards of education by a long way.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 7 June 2017 11:05:52 AM

This is what I call a delusional concept. The main reason is that it does not save anyone any money.

Someone has to pay for the education, in many third world countries the only people who are educated are wealthy, whilst the poor remain illiterate.

A public education is much cheaper for everyone when compared to the costs of a private education in Australia.

Getting rid a public system, may save the government money, but then it is unlikely they will reduce taxation, so then parents would have to pay more directly to educate their children. So it transfers the costs on to the parent/s.

Which in the end costs them more money.
Posted by Wolly B, Wednesday, 7 June 2017 12:31:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Leyonhjelm has this one totally wrong. When education is compulsory it is a government requirement to provide it. At the same time, anyone who thinks state education is free has not put any one through school recently.

If we are going to pay for any kids to be educated, we should be paying exactly the same amount for each kid to be educated. Funding each child, & letting the parents chose the school is the only fair way to fund education. It would also hobble the radical far left teachers union, so worth doing just for that result alone.

I am sick to death of hearing more about the disadvantaged receiving even another source of funding. Welfare should be just one payment, with no cheap housing or rent assistance over & above that payment. School funding should be the same. We give payments per kid, & that should be it.

Alan the very worst model for education is one with any sort of regional difference. It is one government service that should be national, with all state input removed.

With the mobile workforce we have today, we need every school teaching the same stuff in every subject every month at a minimum, every week would be even better. Too many kids have their education ruined when the parents move interstate, & the kid cops a very different curriculum.

I have always had a bit of a mental block about electricity formula. We moved just 250 miles to a different town, but the science class in second year had finished electricity. I missed the basic grounding, & have to look up formula which would otherwise be in my memory forever.

We must try to minimise education disruption to the kids of mobile parents as much as possible.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 7 June 2017 4:50:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
S means tested endowment as the only government contribution to education per se, wouldn't result in higher taxes or higher education costs?

Just require all schools to compete for both funding and student numbers? And where published results coupled to benched marked results! Allow the parents alone to decide, which of their competing for the education dollar, district's school to send their kids to?

And where impoverished families, would not need to have their kids miss out on the fundamentals.

If this essentially now wasted, make work money, was redirected first hand and just once? Solely at unmet need, we could revisit fee free, means tested, tertiary education?

And if the same reasoned logic applied to a means tested public health system, we'd actually get the seriously squandered budget back to surplus?

And as part of reform, local government ought to be officially recognized so that work they do via state funding, could be directly funded?

This would change little except the amount of recoverable waste built into our publicly funded anything!

And that waste no more evident than the 70 plus annual billions, we fork out just for the privilege of a middle tier of fee charging middlemen merely masquerading as competent uncorrupted government?

And that 70 billion is what we pay before a single service or social amenity is rolled out!

Nothing they do now couldn't be done as well or better, with the same money that already now passes through their fee and administration charging hands, as direct funding that simply bypasses them and their unproductive money wasting fiscal demands!

Imagine what nation building projects we could embark on if we the people used our power to dismantle these ancient anachronisms and liberate 70 billion per as far better nation building funds!

Truly, with one exception, we are the most over-governed people on the planet, and without question paying the (through the neck) taxman for this ball and chain, albatross of a triplex, convenient, blame shifting, buck passing government (by the people ha, ha) model!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 7 June 2017 5:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Hasbeen, if a single entity raises all the tax, then that same entity should also directly fund a needs based means tested system! And where he who pays the piper calls the tune!

This would require all schools to adhere to a best practise benchmarked system!

Particularly when and where fully informed/enabled parents directed their education endowment or fees!

Education needs to put the student and their needs at the centre!

A single curriculum connected to regional autonomy, would give us a much bigger bang for our buck, as would digitising subjects, so that lessons could be revisited online, when and where mobile work requirements meant kids can and are left behind!

And nowhere more important than in foundational fundamentals!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 7 June 2017 5:46:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Aidan.....*Dismissing people as uneducable is bad policy.*

No it's not! It's pragmatic, and would save huge swaths of badly wasted tax dollars, currently funnelled into the black hole of stupid!

Keeping in mind, the top jobs in this country are reserved for students with attendance history at prestigious schools. Top schools, top jobs; bottom schools crap job, or more truly, no job!
Even the Catholic Church has been sprung engineering its education system to accommodate this evolution.

I say, from the pragmatists view such as my own, since the education system discriminates against the poor, (70% of Australians roughly), be honest then, and only support the minority of the educable with resources enough to improve on the tax payer hand out!

The balance of crappy jobs which are retail and odd assortments of other, requiring little to no education to perform, need not be furnished with over educated morons!
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 7 June 2017 6:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, if we were honest and not driven by ideology of any type, Government funding for schooling children should stop at year six.
Throwing tax payer funds at the uneducable is bad policy.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 7 June 2017 8:38:21 AM

Firstly you are way way off the mark and you have the wrong end of the stick.

If you wish to become better informed you would choose to read:

The Remarkable Model Of The Commonwealth Bank Of Australia by Ellen Brown,

Australians did not pay tax until WWII when a ONE OFF tax law came to to raise tax to pay for WWII but as we know and should have known at the time, the tax stayed.

Where did the Australian govt get money from to pay for public infrastructure before the introduction of the WWII tax?

Sections 90, 91, 92 and 93 of the Australian Commonwalth Constitution provides the means for the Australian govt to extract money out of the
"Common-Wealth" of Australia.

“In 1937 an Australian Royal Commission investigated Finance and banking. In his summing up the Chairman Sir Mellis Napier of the Royal Commission stated:

“That the commonwealth bank (reserve) can make money available to governments or to others on such terms as it chooses even by way of a loan without interest or even without requiring either interest or repayment of principal.”

From: Banks Lie - Chris Fields (NSW)
Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Wednesday, 7 June 2017 7:47:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy