J S Mill

"But none of this really goes to the real point of my question - do we allow Unis to impose global fees for services not globally used and, if so, to whom else do we allow this power?"

Where has your mind been throughout this protracted thread? You have ben given numerous examples. Some more you ask?

Try golf clubs that charge wickedly high membership fees. Most members don't play golf and many don't have time to hang about the clubrooms. (I was going to use the example of the Melbourne Club but you might think I was being party political.)

Try schools which childless people pay compulsory taxes to support (these days whether the schools are private or public).

Try municipal rates which fund libraries whether you can read or not. Or the defence forces whether the nation's in danger or not. Or SBS and the ABC whether you watch them or not. Or ambulances whether you intend to have an emergency or not. Etc etc etc.

You're flogging a dead horse, my friend. Under our social compact we expect taxes to be paid by everyone (except those wealthy enough to pay top accountants to make sure they don't). And we expect that governments will spend those taxes on a full range of services for the common good whether the services are used by everyone or not. That's the way it works in a democracy.

J S Mills: "You see - I can think of society."

Great. So when you think of it from societies point of view instead of your own, does "I am opposed to paying for that which I do not receive" sound as reasonable as when you wrote it?

J S Mills: "It sounds like you are claiming to speak for everyone."

Well, I think "It sounds like you are trying to characterise everyone" would be more accurate. But yes, I am claiming that everyone has concerns they will put ahead of those of "J S Mills". In I don't think "I am opposed to paying for that which I do not receive" will wash with the bulk of taxpayers, ie those who haven't gone to Uni and yet are paying 80% of your Uni expenses.

J S Mills: "According to the President of the Institute of Engineers ..."

Yeah well, my figures were hearsay - as are yours. A better indication can be got by comparing unemployment rates at http://svc071.wic016v.server-web.com/gradsonline/ The lowest are the Medical related degrees, followed by Engineers. That would indicate we aren't exactly flooded with them.

J S Mills: "But none of this really goes to the real point of my question - do we allow Unis to impose global fees for services not globally used and, if so, to whom else do we allow this power?"

I am with Spikey here. You have been answered over and over again. To most of us it is a meaningless question. Who cares who has the power? When it comes to fees for things not globally used, the ATO already collects them now - what is the difference between them and the Uni doing the collecting? Perversely, until Howard changed the rules they were both controlled by people you elected. Now the Uni gets to unilaterally decide what services their students need.

The two relevant questions are: do we get better bang for the buck by diverting some funds from tuition into helping students find their way, and if so what is the most efficient way to provide it.

Spikey,

So you admit that compulsory student unionism is effectively a tax.

No wonder Labor loves it.

Shadow Minister,

"So you admit that compulsory student unionism is effectively a tax. No wonder Labor loves it."

Putting false words into people's mouths in order to disparage them discloses more about you than it does about me - or about the issue.

Please try again. It's no wonder the soubriquet is so fitting: you'll never make it into the real Ministry.

JS Mill Have a close read of the last two lines of Stuart's last post:

The two relevant questions are: do we get better bang for the buck by diverting some funds from tuition into helping students find their way, and if so what is the most efficient way to provide it.

Then have a look at what the real JS Mill had to say about the connection between justice and utility. (Utilitarianism section v) you will find that even he would be totally confused how you could use his name to advance propositions that run counter to his arguments. You may also need to look at his discussion of Society and the Individual. "as soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others society has a jurisdiction over it." Union fees could be voluntarily were it not for the fact that those who do not pay the full amount prejudicially affect the interests of others and that therefore society - in this case the university, has a jurisdiction over it.

So have another read of Mill or if that is unpalatable use a different handle - the poor man has written enough nonsense without being lumbered with yours as well.

Spikey,

You said:

"do we allow Unis to impose global fees for services not globally used

Try schools which childless people pay compulsory taxes to support

Try municipal rates which fund libraries whether you can read or not.

Under our social compact we expect taxes to be paid by everyone"

Which of these are falsely quoting you? I don't even have to read between the lines.

What would you like to call it? an involuntary contribution? a compulsory donation? an enforced gratuity?

Quack Quack I think. I couldn't say it better.

Spikey is suitable, as you bristle when you find your pants around your ankles