Tax the rich?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Treasury have nothing to gain? Nothing at all, let me think that through...

Well they have the same basic concern as individuals...employment. But as an organisation their existence and future is based on impartiality and truth.

JP

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Well they have the same basic concern as individuals...employment. But as an organisation their existence and future is based on impartiality and truth.

JP

Have you ever worked in the Public Service, dealing with and briefing Senior (I mean really Senior) Public Servants? The inner workings and thinking, Yes Minister is tame compared to what really goes on. These people are the ultimate political animals, they watch ministers come and go, they eat Governments as pleasure snacks. Machiavelli wouldn't stand a chance. Impartiality and truth is like a magician's slight of hand trick.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by xxx000

I forgot to include in my list of savings: absolutely no govt funding of non govt. (for cheap that includes religious) schools

So ....... the private schools (Catholic schools etc) have funding removed.

The 10,000's of families that send their kids to these schools find out that the fees have to rise quite substantially.

10,000's of families then send their kids to public schools

Public schools implode.

Good in theory (like most things said on these pages) but there is always a consequence.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

So ....... the private schools (Catholic schools etc) have funding removed.

The 10,000's of families that send their kids to these schools find out that the fees have to rise quite substantially.

10,000's of families then send their kids to public schools

Public schools implode.

Good in theory (like most things said on these pages) but there is always a consequence.

Amen to that!!!

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Have you ever worked in the Public Service, dealing with and briefing Senior (I mean really Senior) Public Servants? The inner workings and thinking, Yes Minister is tame compared to what really goes on. These people are the ultimate political animals, they watch ministers come and go, they eat Governments as pleasure snacks. Machiavelli wouldn't stand a chance. Impartiality and truth is like a magician's slight of hand trick.

No doubt you are right regarding their position! But in Machiavellian terms what do they have to gain from skewing the books when they already control everything. Their is no agenda needed when your at the top of the tree. They are the hereditary Prince! with no challenger.
The government and to a greater extent Lobbyists, on the other hand, engage in 'politics' rather than 'control' and engage in means and ends actions to push an agenda.

JP

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

So ....... the private schools (Catholic schools etc) have funding removed.

The 10,000's of families that send their kids to these schools find out that the fees have to rise quite substantially.

10,000's of families then send their kids to public schools

Public schools implode.

Good in theory (like most things said on these pages) but there is always a consequence.

People choose to send there kids to private schools they should pay full price they dont have to why should we subside there choice to send there kids there isnt that the whole point of this thread that everyone has been banging on about. You choose to have kids why should we pay for them you choose to send them there why should we pay for that ect. The biggest problem with any of this is people only give two ***** about something that affects them if it doesn't they could care less what happens just like the big row over the debt tax or raising retirement age and thats the biggest problem with democracy in general selfishness is rewarded aswell as greed.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

No doubt you are right regarding their position! But in Machiavellian terms what do they have to gain from skewing the books when they already control everything. Their is no agenda needed when your at the top of the tree. They are the hereditary Prince! with no challenger.
The government and to a greater extent Lobbyists, on the other hand, engage in 'politics' rather than 'control' and engage in means and ends actions to push an agenda.

JP

Money = Control
More Money = More Control
More More Money = More More Control

Right now we have an inquiry into Pink Batts, an unmitigated disaster with several people dead. A junior player i.e a consultant with zero authority will take the fall for this - just watch.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

People choose to send there kids to private schools they should pay full price they dont have to why should we subside there choice to send there kids there isnt that the whole point of this thread that everyone has been banging on about. You choose to have kids why should we pay for them you choose to send them there why should we pay for that ect. The biggest problem with any of this is people only give two ***** about something that affects them if it doesn't they could care less what happens just like the big row over the debt tax or raising retirement age and thats the biggest problem with democracy in general selfishness is rewarded aswell as greed.

Read the quote you quoted?

Way to long to explain the reasons why who gets what ...... but as it is so easy just to have a "Don't give them money .... " (not just in this context either) point of view, you need to seriously look at the reasons why it is done and if it isn't done, what are the consequences.

In this case, simply, the government puts forward a small amount of money per student to attend a private school. By doing this, it takes the pressure of the public system so it can operate as best as it can.

We could not afford (monetary and socially) to have private schools closed because they could not afford to operate the amount of kids forced into the public sector.

In other words ..... us taxpayers .... you, me and everyone else ..... could not pay for a massive influx into the public system. I can just imagine the outcry when schools are 1500 plus students with a ratio of 40 to 1.

It is the governments job to balance the amount that can go to private (and parents pay dearly for it as well) and those that can fit into our public system

By the way ..... I do not have the figures here with me ...... but the cost for taxpayers is LESS per child in the private sector than the cost per child in the public sector .... by quite a bit too.

........ and by the way, no I never went to private and no, neither did my son. Very happy with the public system and would hate it to be destroyed by huge numbers and a system that couldn't cope with that. Let the government help those that can have a user pay schooling system and stay out of the public sector.

It has absolutely nothing about greed, selfishness or democracy in general ..... it is about keeping a balance.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

People choose to send there kids to private schools they should pay full price they dont have to why should we subside there choice to send there kids there isnt that the whole point of this thread that everyone has been banging on about. You choose to have kids why should we pay for them you choose to send them there why should we pay for that ect. The biggest problem with any of this is people only give two ***** about something that affects them if it doesn't they could care less what happens just like the big row over the debt tax or raising retirement age and thats the biggest problem with democracy in general selfishness is rewarded aswell as greed.

I think you may have it the wrong way around. I pay near enough to $16,000 p.a. per child to send them to private school. I'm not sure how much of a subsidy we're getting, do you have any actual numbers?

From my point of view education is expensive, it is just that the public system is heavily discounted (subsidized) by the State Government.

So I think it is false economy to think the private schools are getting it easy. Of course all the many thousands of families could pull the plug on private schooling and overburden an already struggling state system, is that the solution?

[BHDOGS]

So im paying tax to send richer peoples kids to private schools that i could never afford to send them to seems fair. As for the subsidy its about 8500 dollars a student in private schools. Nothing better then abit of old fashioned class warfare in action.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

So im paying tax to send richer peoples kids to private schools that i could never afford to send them to seems fair. As for the subsidy its about 8500 dollars a student in private schools. Nothing better then abit of old fashioned class warfare in action.

Where did you find that figure? I had them a while back but cannot find them to clarify. Is that $8,500 per year for a child in primary or secondary? And do you have the figure per child it costs in the public sector? Not just the day to day figure but the whole, building, maintenance, wages etc figure?

You are paying a subsidy to keep the public system better. Those that can afford it and want to use the private system DO pay for it (refer above).

In very simple terms, you and me are paying to keep a huge number that can afford to pay for education out of the public system. That way ........ the COST of sending your kids to a public school is CHEAPER. For that I am happy to pay my very small amount for this. A user pays system is as fair as it can be

It has nothing to do with class warfare.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Money = Control
More Money = More Control
More More Money = More More Control

Text book Machiavelli. But you missed my point. With power comes the opportunity to influence others to suit an agenda. I don't see how the Treasury is engaged in influence to support agenda. Their role is one of advice and reporting and I cant see why they would skew a fact to suit the government of the day, which by your reckoning are a less powerful player. And likely to be replaced after a term or two so Treasury wouldn't want to be playing favorites if they were less in control.
Are you mixing up MYEFO or PEFO reports? which one is a matter of fact one is an agenda-ised prediction

JP

[BHDOGS]

were paying so wealthier people can afford to send there kids to fancy schools because it saves me money even tho my kids will never go there? id rather pay more money for an all public equal school system that was for everyone regardless of wealth. Not everything is about money sometimes a principal is worth more but then again the gov has no principals does it.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by bhdogs

were paying so wealthier people can afford to send there kids to fancy schools because it saves me money even tho my kids will never go there? Id rather pay more money for an all public equal school system that was for everyone regardless of wealth. Not everything is about money sometimes a principal is worth more but then again the gov has no principals does it.

um ..... Ok.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

sometimes a principal is worth more but then again the gov has no principals does it.

The issue of taxpayer funding of private schools has been around for a long time, Its not just this Coalition government, it has been supported by all creeds of Government suggesting a mostly Bipartisan agreement that support for Private schools saves the economy money...Its not a principal but an economic rationale.

JP

[Auslandau]

Found the figure. Knew it was somewhere I had read a while back ......

Yes BHDOGS. Your figure was correct but you forgot to mention that compared to $8500 in tax figures to send a child to private school, it actually costs $15,000 to send a child to public school

Here is some easy reading .......

Instead of being a drain on taxpayers' funds, private school parents pay taxes for a public school system they don't use plus school fees. The fact that 34.9 per cent of students around Australia are enrolled in Catholic and independent schools saves state, territory and Commonwealth governments billions of dollars every year.
The savings to the taxpayer represent the additional cost to government if the private school sector closed and students had to be enrolled in state schools.
As noted in the just released Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services 2014, while governments invest on average $15,768 per government school student in terms of recurrent costs, the figure for private school students is only $8546. The reality is that even though Catholic and independent schools enrol 34.9 per cent of state and territory students, such schools receive only 22.4 per cent of what state and Commonwealth governments spend on education in terms of recurrent costs.
Instead of private schools ''draining government schools of much needed public resources'', as argued by Luke Mansillo in The Guardian, the fact that such schools exist frees up funds that governments can then redirect to their own schools.
It should also be remembered that education is a public good and every child, regardless of the type of school attended, deserves government support. School choice is supported by the Gonski review of school funding.
When attacking funding to Catholic and independent schools critics are guilty of perpetuating a number of other myths in addition to the furphy that private schools are overfunded and a drain on the taxpayer ...................

PS: Thanks to an anonymous member for pointing me to the article
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/why...#ixzz312H5APKx

[karj]

Originally Posted by cheap

I think you may have it the wrong way around. I pay near enough to $16,000 p.a. per child to send them to private school. I'm not sure how much of a subsidy we're getting, do you have any actual numbers?

From my point of view education is expensive, it is just that the public system is heavily discounted (subsidized) by the State Government.

So I think it is false economy to think the private schools are getting it easy. Of course all the many thousands of families could pull the plug on private schooling and overburden an already struggling state system, is that the solution?

According to NewsCorp on Jan 28 of this year, the Productivity Commission report indicates:

• government money makes up only 57 per cent of the total income private schools raise each year, with the rest coming from fees and other fund-raising efforts.

So if you are paying $16,000 per year per child in school fees, in order to maintain the schools current income with no government funding, your school fees would need to increase by $21,209 per year per child and you would be paying a total of $37,209 per year per child in school fees.

Although not interested in getting into a debate about public/private school funding (and I'm certainly not an advocate for removing government subsidy to private schools), I will say that 57% is a pretty heavy subsidy for a private institution and it seems that the sentiments you have expressed regarding government subsidy of private industry and entitlements is inconsistent with your position on what you personally receive in terms of subsidised private school funding.

And that leads me to this point... It tends to be the case that the only entitlements people think are a waste and not necessary are the entitlements they don't personally need, or aren't claiming/receiving.

[gtfpv]

Dont forget that people who pay fees to send thier kids to private schools are also paying tax to send other peoples kids to public schools

[cheap]

Originally Posted by karj

According to NewsCorp on Jan 28 of this year, the Productivity Commission report indicates:

• government money makes up only 57 per cent of the total income private schools raise each year, with the rest coming from fees and other fund-raising efforts.

So if you are paying $16,000 per year per child in school fees, in order to maintain the schools current income with no government funding, your school fees would need to increase by $21,209 per year per child and you would be paying a total of $37,209 per year per child in school fees.

Although not interested in getting into a debate about public/private school funding (and I'm certainly not an advocate for removing government subsidy to private schools), I will say that 57% is a pretty heavy subsidy for a private institution and it seems that the sentiments you have expressed regarding government subsidy of private industry and entitlements is inconsistent with your position on what you personally receive in terms of subsidised private school funding.

And that leads me to this point... It tends to be the case that the only entitlements people think are a waste and not necessary are the entitlements they don't personally need, or aren't claiming/receiving.

That sort of indicates that State school parents receive a huge subsidy, doesn't it?

[xxx000]

The flawed and absurd argument that private schools save the govt money.
If the taxpayer subsidies were removed do you really think all or even most private schools would close?
Of course they wouldn't, they'd adjust what they do. One major private school recently advertised for a Rowing Director, perhaps they'd drop that position and maybe pull back of the army of ground staff too. There's lots of fat to trim at these schools I've been to many of them and seen it.

They'd survive no doubt, fees might rise a bit, costs would no doubt be reduced but there'd be no wholesale closures and switching to the public system. That notion is one of several myths perpetuated by groups such as the Independent Schools Association to justify their hands being out for public money.
I asked a private school mum recently if my kids could use the heated pool at her kids private school since we helped pay for it. She nearly choked as she realised it was true and then said 'I'm sure they'd let them'
How generous of her........lol

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

Dont forget that people who pay fees to send thier kids to private schools are also paying tax to send other peoples kids to public schools

I don't know that Kerry Packer paid very much personal income tax while we subsidised James going to Cranbrook.

[karj]

Originally Posted by cheap

That sort of indicates that State school parents receive a huge subsidy, doesn't it?

Larger government subsidy than private schools? Simple answer is yes.

According to Productivity Commission, Governments spent an average of $5.45 million per public school and $3.8 million per private school.

As that $3.8 million per private school is 57% of their total income, it means that the average private school income is about $6.67 million (after we factor in fees, etc), which is obviously $1.22 million more than the average public school.

After those bare facts are laid out... the debate tends to get murky, because school funding is essentially an ideological debate. Personally, having received a mixed public and private education and being an advocate for choice in education, I can see merit in arguments from both sides.

Going off-track from the original topic a little bit, I know that conservatives (including yourself) tend to hold up the rorting of the BER as a policy failure, but I'm just wondering if you have actually been out to your local schools to see the impact that policy had on re-vitalising infrastructure (particularly in low-socioeconomic state schools, where infrastructure was particularly poor)? The BER is certainly not a policy above criticism, but the net benefit outweighs the rorting in my opinion (I couldn't say the same about the home insulation mess though).

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The issue of taxpayer funding of private schools has been around for a long time, Its not just this Coalition government, it has been supported by all creeds of Government suggesting a mostly Bipartisan agreement that support for Private schools saves the economy money...Its not a principal but an economic rationale.

JP

you mean principle.

No it doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that these schools and the groups associated with them have too much power and it's easier to leave them alone than risk the electoral backlash
Conservative parties have long been proponents of non government schools. This may be due in part to a high % of their MP's having attended such schools plus the influence of religions on voters and MP's alike.
The fear of voter backlash from Gonski stupidly led the ALP to reassure private school parents that 'no school will be worse off under Gonski'.
I just wish my and your tax $ didn't have to subsidise multi million dollar ($37m) wellness centres at such schools (PLC) while even 'cheap', in an albeit brief moment of reality, acknowledged the state school system is struggling.
Real change to school funding is what's needed and i just hope that one side of politics puts religion and big business aside while considering the fixes needed.

[cheap]

There are many State schools with very good facilities on par with private school, and this was the case before BER. Someone calculated the real cost of private schooling to be $37,000 per child, so what is the real cost to send a kid to an equivalent public school?

And what does a parent sending their child to a state school pay?

I'm directly paying a sizable amount of money for schooling but aren't my taxes also going to assist many state schools?

I'm kind of getting the feeling that I'm being done over in this system and there are people paying a lot less than me for education, but somehow my decision to contribute to my child's schooling is costing them money?

If every private school parent decided to enter the state system, what would happen?

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by cheap

There are many State schools with very good facilities on par with private school, and this was the case before BER. Someone calculated the real cost of private schooling to be $37,000 per child, so what is the real cost to send a kid to an equivalent public school?

And what does a parent sending their child to a state school pay?

I'm directly paying a sizable amount of money for schooling but aren't my taxes also going to assist many state schools?

I'm kind of getting the feeling that I'm being done over in this system and there are people paying a lot less than me for education, but somehow my decision to contribute to my child's schooling is costing them money?

If every private school parent decided to enter the state system, what would happen?

Don't know if you actually read all the posts but your hypothetical question has already been answered above.
Can you point me in the direction of a single govt school with any of the following brand new facilities:
$37 million wellness centre
or top notch heated pool
or grand piano in the foyer
or its own purpose built dedicated playing fields with grandstands worth conservatively $20 million?

These are all at private schools within a 5 km radius of my home yet the only newish infrastructure at any such public school is limited to BER work. We can't even get air conditioning for stinking hot dilapidated old classrooms and when enrolments increase due to the quality of the staff we have yet more demountables plonked on the school oval further restricting play space.
Are you saying that public school parents don't contribute to their child's education because they are in the public system? You appear to be and it's a very offensive and divisive claim that seems to reinforce the us vs them concept

[karj]

Originally Posted by cheap

There are many State schools with very good facilities on par with private school, and this was the case before BER. Someone calculated the real cost of private schooling to be $37,000 per child, so what is the real cost to send a kid to an equivalent public school?

And what does a parent sending their child to a state school pay?

I'm directly paying a sizable amount of money for schooling but aren't my taxes also going to assist many state schools?

I'm kind of getting the feeling that I'm being done over in this system and there are people paying a lot less than me for education, but somehow my decision to contribute to my child's schooling is costing them money?

If every private school parent decided to enter the state system, what would happen?

I didn't actually calculate that at all. What I calculated was that if government funding was ripped from the school you send your kids to, and the school wanted to maintain the same income, they would have to charge you $37,000 per child in fees instead of $16,000 per child (based on the 57% total income for private schools is government funded figure from the Productivity Commission report).

This should not be interpreted as "the real" cost of private schooling; it's just what it would cost you in your specific situation.

[superyob]

Interesting educational debate, but aren't we deciding whether to tax the rich or not?

[tweeked]

Every school should be paid a base rate by GOVCO to cover the basic cost of infrustructure and then a rate per child to cover extra costs by volume. It should be the same regardless of Public or private.

If then a private school gives parents extra facilities but they pay out of their own pocket - good luck to them. But to say that Private schools should get no Government funding is ridiculous and unfair, but it is also unfair if they want more (as they get)

Problem is most Pollies still have their old school ties and like to be treated as heroes by their pompous stuck up schools - and they dont want to lose that so we will be stuck with private schools getting more than their fair share.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Every school should be paid a base rate by GOVCO to cover the basic cost of infrustructure and then a rate per child to cover extra costs by volume. It should be the same regardless of Public or private.

If then a private school gives parents extra facilities but they pay out of their own pocket - good luck to them. But to say that Private schools should get no Government funding is ridiculous and unfair, but it is also unfair if they want more (as they get)

Problem is most Pollies still have their old school ties and like to be treated as heroes by their pompous stuck up schools - and they dont want to lose that so we will be stuck with private schools getting more than their fair share.

Why should any govt state or federal subsidise what is in most cases a highly profitable business that duplicates what it provides ?
Sorry but it's like me saying pay 57% of my hire car tab because I don't want to use govt buses or trains.
Like I said previously they will survive w/out govt funding, the bs argument that they'll all close and students will move to the public system is garbage and logical reasoning will tell you that.

There are lots of things all of us 'pay for' via taxation but don't use or begrudge others having but for some reason we are happy to let the divide get worse re education.

Cheap can you please name some of the public schools which you claim have similar facilities and resources to the private system?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Don't know if you actually read all the posts but your hypothetical question has already been answered above.
Can you point me in the direction of a single govt school with any of the following brand new facilities:
$37 million wellness centre
or top notch heated pool
or grand piano in the foyer
or its own purpose built dedicated playing fields with grandstands worth conservatively $20 million?

These are all at private schools within a 5 km radius of my home yet the only newish infrastructure at any such public school is limited to BER work. We can't even get air conditioning for stinking hot dilapidated old classrooms and when enrolments increase due to the quality of the staff we have yet more demountables plonked on the school oval further restricting play space.
Are you saying that public school parents don't contribute to their child's education because they are in the public system? You appear to be and it's a very offensive and divisive claim that seems to reinforce the us vs them concept

And all those gold plated items were paid for how? I can also show you state schools with 1st class facilities pools (not sure if they're heated), pianos and other musical equipment, over the top auditoriums, top notch IT facilities, fantastic tennis courts, cricket pitch/soccer field/athletic track and so on. What does that prove except that that things aren't equal across the realm. Since you want examples try Indooroopilly state school, Milton state school, Bardon state school and finally the over the top Toowong state school aka Queensland Smart Academy.

Interestingly those $34,000 figures could be total bull dust, I'm doing more research so will keep my powder dry.

As for offence, there wasn't any implied, likewise I hope you realise there is no black and white. Claims that sending kids to private school is taking money away from state school kids are IMO questionable. Each month I read my wife's teachers union propaganda, how unfair the private school system and that Gonski with fix "everything". Quite frankly we're over the obvious divisive vile from the teachers union and we do what we think is best for our family. Not surprising the same union forgets to mention that people using the private system are also contributing to the overall education system. People would be surprised at the number of state school teachers who send their kids to private schools. Finally we're not like Kerry Packer so drop the inflammatory character associations.