Dose

The Budget

111 posts in this topic

Colin Barnett was on the radio maybe 3montgs back saying wa will receive only 20percent of the gst raised back within 3years.

So they will never sign up to raising say another 5bn in gst revenue on their population to only receive 1bn into their states revenue for it.

As crappy a tax as it is, They would be better off raising payroll tax, at least they would then get all the revenue raised.

 

or scrap stamp duty and payroll tax and implement a land tax instead ... but unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/graduates-could-pay-up-to-120000-in-debt-hecs-architect-warns-20140514-zrctv.html

 

University degrees will cost up to three times as much under a deregulated fee system, leaving graduates with $120,000-plus debts, according to the architect of the HECS student loan scheme.

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey - in other words that is the same cost to international students (for local students).

 

Compare that to Norway where a relative is currently completing a Masters degree for nothing! (as a foreigner)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey - in other words that is the same cost to international students (for local students).

 

Compare that to Norway where a relative is currently completing a Masters degree for nothing! (as a foreigner)

I don't understand why foreigners don't pay. I must admit that that if I was a Norwegian, I'd be p!ssed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were a country going through demographic change and wanted to ensure you had lots of the best and brightest of the young people available in the world it would make sense to entice them over rather than trying to breed your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were a country going through demographic change and wanted to ensure you had lots of the best and brightest of the young people available in the world it would make sense to entice them over rather than trying to breed your own.

By foreigners I understand to be non-residents, in which case the answer is definite no if I was a Norwegian tax payer. Australia has a better policy where, as I understand, full fee paying foreign students that complete their degree get preferential treatment when they apply for permanent residency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey - in other words that is the same cost to international students (for local students).

 

Compare that to Norway where a relative is currently completing a Masters degree for nothing! (as a foreigner)

 

The Libs seem to like the US system where 40% or something like that of GDP goes to healthcare and education.

 

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, one major party is finanically illiterate, the other is morally clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Libs seem to like the US system where 40% or something like that of GDP goes to healthcare and education.

 

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, one major party is finanically illiterate, the other is morally clueless.

 

As I understand, student debt is one of the next bubbles that should pop in the US. When lots of students declare themselves bankrupt and possibly also the financial institutions that provide the student loans close doors, then they may have to re-think the whole concept.

 

Having said that, it looks like the US government is going to bail out the financiers (again) by allowing student to refinance their debt with the government:

 

U.S. Senate Democrats offer student debt refinance bill

How The $1.2 Trillion College Debt Crisis Is Crippling Students, Parents And The Economy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/graduates-could-pay-up-to-120000-in-debt-hecs-architect-warns-20140514-zrctv.html

 

University degrees will cost up to three times as much under a deregulated fee system, leaving graduates with $120,000-plus debts, according to the architect of the HECS student loan scheme.

With indexation now being up to 6% those graduates that only end up earning an average wage will never pay it back at the current repayment rates. School teachers, nurses etc are unlikely to ever pay the hecs loan back - well perhaps when they are 69.9, the day before they retire. 

 

At first I thought they'd left the work experience kid in charge of this policy. 

 

But then I remember back to my thoughts on hecs in my fist year of uni (the first year it was introduced) - I thought this hecs thing just means I'm going to pay higher taxes for the rest of my life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one major party is finanically illiterate, the other is morally clueless.

It would be hard to pick which one is either. 

 

Vote 1 - Clive Palmer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By foreigners I understand to be non-residents, in which case the answer is definite no if I was a Norwegian tax payer. Australia has a better policy where, as I understand, full fee paying foreign students that complete their degree get preferential treatment when they apply for permanent residency.

I guess it depends on the focus. I think Aus and Norway have roughly the same "wealth per person" (vague memory, I think Norway was a bit higher but both in the top 10). They are both usually in the top 5 countries for standard of living, quality of life and so on. Digging up resources is a major factor for both.

 

One argument in favour of "free for students" might go:

 

Lots of resources, tax the crap out of it, use some of that to get the smart young uns from overseas as one part of preparing for less workers in future

-or-

Lots of resources, tax it less, let houses be worth lots and lots, have nothing leftover and cut education / health spending

 

Simplistic I know but I think there is a quite different mindset between the countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simplistic I know but I think there is a quite different mindset between the countries.

 

You mean their unit of economic measure is not the middie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean their unit of economic measure is not the middie?

Horns Of Mead!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on the focus. I think Aus and Norway have roughly the same "wealth per person" (vague memory, I think Norway was a bit higher but both in the top 10). They are both usually in the top 5 countries for standard of living, quality of life and so on. Digging up resources is a major factor for both.

 

One argument in favour of "free for students" might go:

 

Lots of resources, tax the crap out of it, use some of that to get the smart young uns from overseas as one part of preparing for less workers in future

-or-

Lots of resources, tax it less, let houses be worth lots and lots, have nothing leftover and cut education / health spending

 

Simplistic I know but I think there is a quite different mindset between the countries.

 

Norway has the biggest 'Future Fund' in the world relative to their population. They have wisely stashed away earnings from presumably their oil royalties to cater for their future needs, unlike Australia where Howard blew a lot the resources boom royalties on middle class welfare. Then Krudd & Goose p1ssed away the surplus on overpriced school constructions and home insulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is kind of what I am saying. One country planned for the future, one not so much. It seems possible to me that the one with a track record of planning might still be doing it and might have a populace accustomed to delayed gratification.

 

I agree that the immediate response of "foreign students study for free? not on my tax money!" would be the response of many in Australia but I am not sure it is the best response to the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is kind of what I am saying. One country planned for the future, one not so much. It seems possible to me that the one with a track record of planning might still be doing it and might have a populace accustomed to delayed gratification.

 

I agree that the immediate response of "foreign students study for free? not on my tax money!" would be the response of many in Australia but I am not sure it is the best response to the idea.

 

You're assuming that most foreign students that study for free in Norway, will stay in the country and work there most of their life, repaying the investment from the tax payers. I'd like to see some long term stats to confirm it before I change my mind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again the mindset is different, Norwegians have been really proud of the fact that they do stuff different to the rest of the world, they even have a long word for it. Might not quite rank up there with "we were the real vikings" but it is still a pretty strong national identity (no EU, we will save our oil money, prison system etc). Given that Denmark and Sweden now charge for their universities I am betting every Norwegian is feeling just another bit of happiness at being "more scandinavian" than the old rivals.

 

Cynically of course you only have to look at the vast number of Swedes working in Norway to know that Norway is going down a similar path to the US where foreigners do the crappy jobs, students are a good pool of labour for those jobs (from memory a student visa gets you 20 hrs of work a week). That keeps inflation down and inflation looks like it might be starting to be an issue for Norway (by behaviour rather than inflation figures).

 

In the interests of an argument that might seem rational to an Australian, name one Norwegian university. Not many people can and Norwegians are petrified of what happens when the oil runs out. If they can gain prestige for their education system that is at least one more little thing that might help. Everyone else seems to be changing their systems into "pay for a degree" or "everyone passes" as far as hearsay goes for me. Building a prestigious education system when everyone else is bastardising theirs seems a reasonable play to me.

 

And of course a hell of a lot of education is not really increased in costing by a few extra students.

 

I guess the best counter argument is looking at what we are doing with our education system and ask if that is a better plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again the mindset is different, Norwegians have been really proud of the fact that they do stuff different to the rest of the world, they even have a long word for it. Might not quite rank up there with "we were the real vikings" but it is still a pretty strong national identity (no EU, we will save our oil money, prison system etc). Given that Denmark and Sweden now charge for their universities I am betting every Norwegian is feeling just another bit of happiness at being "more scandinavian" than the old rivals.

 

Cynically of course you only have to look at the vast number of Swedes working in Norway to know that Norway is going down a similar path to the US where foreigners do the crappy jobs, students are a good pool of labour for those jobs (from memory a student visa gets you 20 hrs of work a week). That keeps inflation down and inflation looks like it might be starting to be an issue for Norway (by behaviour rather than inflation figures).

 

In the interests of an argument that might seem rational to an Australian, name one Norwegian university. Not many people can and Norwegians are petrified of what happens when the oil runs out. If they can gain prestige for their education system that is at least one more little thing that might help. Everyone else seems to be changing their systems into "pay for a degree" or "everyone passes" as far as hearsay goes for me. Building a prestigious education system when everyone else is bastardising theirs seems a reasonable play to me.

 

And of course a hell of a lot of education is not really increased in costing by a few extra students.

 

I guess the best counter argument is looking at what we are doing with our education system and ask if that is a better plan.

 

I certainly don't agree that Australia can pay for free education when it is trying to get its budget in the black. However, the de-regulation of fees they plan to introduce will likely re-create the US experience which to me is sheer madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maths, physics and plenty of other courses don't need layers of fancy-pants administrators and bereaucrats ordering all sorts of gee-whiz multimedia horse**** gadgets for the lecturer to be able to teach. Fancy sports facilities are surplus to requirements too.

 

A competent lecturer, a lecture room and a chalkboard is all you need. How much can it cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lying must be in politicians DNA. Even after they leave parliament they continue to lie. Howard is quoted in today's paper as saying family tax benefits are not welfare - they are tax breaks. WTF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lying must be in politicians DNA. Even after they leave parliament they continue to lie. Howard is quoted in today's paper as saying family tax benefits are not welfare - they are tax breaks. WTF!

 and the 2% deficit levy is all not a tax!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maths, physics and plenty of other courses don't need layers of fancy-pants administrators and bereaucrats ordering all sorts of gee-whiz multimedia horse**** gadgets for the lecturer to be able to teach.

 

I'll ask my relative and their partner. They're doing similar types of courses as above, Masters in Neuroscience and PhD in Physics. You get laughed at if you say you've been to uni and only have an undergraduate degree!

Edited by Mr Medved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Hockeys argument for "allowing" big old fees for universities is so that we get a uni into the top twenty in the world.

 

The logic appears to be:

 

"We want a uni in the top 20 because we don't have one and education is our 4th largest export"

"If we charge more it seems more prestigious right?"

"that makes sense, oh wow, that's cool actually because then we don't need to support education for the next 3 years, that's good I want to give a bit of cash to breeders and investment property owners"

 

I am not a huge follower of how university prestige is worked out but I have a suspicion that it is going to largely be based on "what cool sh*t did your alumni do" as opposed to "what crony based jobs did your alumni get". I think the crony thing kicks in after the prestige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Budget 2014: Top ten reasons why you have to work until you're 70

 

 

If you were born after 1965, you would have expected to qualify for the pension at the age of 67. But now the Abbott government wants you to work until you're 70. Why? Let me count down the reasons.

(10) 70-year-old owners of multi-million-dollar homes are entitled to the full pension if they play their cards right. 69-year-olds who never had a chance to become home owners should have dealt themselves a better hand. Excluding the home from the assets test costs roughly $1 billion per year.

(9) Property investors are entitled to claim negative-gearing losses against their wages or salaries although the losses are not work-related, while you are not entitled to claim the cost of getting to work although it is work-related. Neither are you entitled to claim any part your rental expenses against your wage or salary, although rents are higher where work is available than where it isn't. And if you somehow manage to buy a home to live in, you are not entitled to claim the margin by which the mortgage interest exceeds the rental value. That's because investors are entitled to be able to service bigger mortgages than you, so that they can outbid you for the home you want to buy, so that you can rent it instead. Investors must not be obliged to build new homes in order to claim this entitlement, because if they didn't buy established homes for you to rent, those homes would vanish into thin air and you'd be left on the street!! In the long term, the negative-gearing entitlement costs about $2 billionper year in forgone revenue.

(B) Multinational companies operating in Australia are entitled to avoid several billion dollars in income tax per year, by shifting profits to foreign tax havens using elaborate transfer-pricing schemes such as the Double Irish Dutch Sandwich. You are not entitled to do the same with your wage or salary. More fundamentally, the multinationals are entitled to the perpetuation of a tax system that relies primarily on income tax, because they can avoid income tax but you can't.

(7) Too-big-to-fail banks are entitled to an implicit promise of a taxpayer-funded bailout, but are not obliged to compensate the taxpayers. Such compensation could reasonably raise $3 billion per year.

(6) New parents who were paid up to $100,000/year are entitled to be paid the same if they stay home for six months, even if that's more than you get paid to work. The cost of recognizing this genuineentitlement — over and above the old policy of paying new mothers the minimum wage for 18 weeks — is at least $3 billion per year.

(5) High-wealth individuals are entitled to split their income among family members through discretionary trusts, thus avoiding at least 3 billion per year in tax. You are not entitled to do the same with your wage or salary.

(4) Big polluters, far from being obliged to pay $8 billion per year as a tax on pollution, are entitled to pollute without penalty, and are entitled to be paid for any “direct action” by which they kindly reduce their pollution. (Bless their hearts.)

(3) Mining companies are entitled to an exemption from the fuel excise that you have to pay (and which is about to be indexed to inflation), because they don't use the roads that you use. Never mind that fuel excise is paid to the Feds while roads are a State responsibility. Never mind that you also pay rego on your car. This fuel-excise concession costs at least $2 billion per year in forgone revenue. Mining companies, other than those seeking oil and gas, are further entitled to dig up our dirt without paying a Resource Rent Tax on their above-normal profits. A serious RRT would raise of the order $7 billion per year, making a total of something like $9 billion per year in forgone revenue from mining. (Now we get to the big stuff...)

(2) People with assets are entitled to a lower tax rate on their unearned capital gains than you pay on your hard-earned wages. In particular, they are entitled to tax-free capital gains on their principal residences, so that they can more easily outbid you when you're trying to buy your first home. Even if a capital gain on real estate is caused by a desirable infrastructure project funded by your taxes, the property owner is still entitled to it, and is entitled to charge you more rent for it. These entitlementscost about $34 billion per year in forgone revenue. (And the winner is...)

(1) People on higher incomes than yours are entitled to retire younger than you can, with the help of bigger tax breaks for their superannuation. Tax concessions for super cost nearly $49 billion per year and are about to become more expensive than the age pension. Never mind that compulsory super was supposed to reduce expenditure on the pension: it hasn't done so, and never will as long as retirees can take their super as a lump sum, spend it on their homes or on consumption, and then cry poor and claim the pension. Even so, tax concessions for super are needed to encourage people to save for their retirement. Never mind that they'll do it anyway because it's compulsory. But if you run a struggling small business, you are not entitled to be paid for collecting GST and personal income tax, because that's compulsory.

To cover the cost of all these entitlements, the age pension would need to be abolished more than twice over!  Think yourself lucky that the government only wants to lift the age of eligibility. You young people need to lower your expectations. Doing without that 50-inch plasma TV will pay a week's rent. Doing without that smartphone or tablet or computer that you need to find your next tenancy and your next casual job will pay another week's rent. So grow up, pay your rent, pay your taxes, and get over this ridiculous notion that you're “entitled” to get somewhere just because you're working your butt off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now