Current Affairs and Politics

Hockeynomics 101 - The Whiny Welfare Western World

Reply
Page 1 of 2
  Tools
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
911
Hockeynomics 101 - The Whiny Welfare Western World
So Hockey thinks that westerners have to great a sense of entitlement.

I won't disagree with him there....

He thinks welfare is to great in our society.

Yet he also -
Opposes means testing the health insurance rebate
Has a policy of subsidising nannies
Has a very generous maternity leave policy
Worked for a government that introduced the baby bonus



http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...418-1x7zs.html
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
I bet the fat fucker would oppose removing negative gearing and the skewed private school funding model .
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
Portal +

Work that motherf#$ker

Portal's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 1,018
Posts
6,507
What a fucking clown, and this guy will be the next treasurer....

This country is going to the dogs
Kid A +

Private Language

Kid A's Avatar
Joined
Apr '07
Times thanked
< 275
Posts
5,000
Slightly unrelated-

Does anyone here have much knowledge of egalitarian theories of justice. If so, what do you think of a UBI for Australia?
SUSPENDED IN GAFFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HKtU-w6Bho
CheelWinston +

not a cop

CheelWinston's Avatar
Joined
May '01
Times thanked
< 2,021
Posts
13,578
I have read the following enlightening articles about Joe Numbers Man Hockey today

http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com.au/20...di-arabia.html

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...419-1x8lq.html
Listen to your friend Cheely Zane
He is a cool guy...
YossarianIsSane +

Registered User

YossarianIsSane's Avatar
Joined
Nov '05
Times thanked
< 182
Posts
1,404
Fuck yeah, asian model here we come. Exponentially wider gap between rich and poor, yeah! Support and assistance for the lower classes? Nah, fuck it.

Being upper-middle class and white, so awesome! Hi 5 Joe!

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_e_de View Post

It's the same as going out on a busy street and looking at the people around you, most of them are fgts.

B_e_de +

It's more fun if you just follow the script

B_e_de's Avatar
Joined
Apr '05
Times thanked
< 7,331
Posts
18,340
What flagrant fucking false advertising. Fuck this thread.
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
So he says we have too much National Debt and compares us to the Norway and Sweden with their low National Debt, then goes on to complain about Australia becoming a welfare state?

Right after lauding the financial management of the worlds two largest welfare states?

This after Downer joined Huawei's board.

Fucking filthy pinko Liberal commies.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
dAvoZ +

Registered Boozer

dAvoZ's Avatar
Joined
Aug '04
Times thanked
< 30
Posts
5,579
i agree with the sentiment of a smaller government. there is an attitude in australia that the government owes people a certain lifestyle.

middle class welfare can go. shit like baby bonus and subsidy x,y,z can probably go.
give us lower taxes and fuck off out of our lives as much as possible please.

the problem is hockey and abbott have been preaching and proposing more of this crap, and then turn around and say this.
Bracko +

Bracko's Avatar
Joined
Apr '02
Times thanked
< 2,205
Posts
39,933

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618 View Post

I bet the fat fucker would oppose removing negative gearing and the skewed private school funding model .

negative gearing I agree with.

but private school funding I don't. if private school funding stopped the public system would be crippled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan View Post

well done sofu, perhaps your most offensive post yet!

big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 16,159
Posts
50,543

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko View Post

negative gearing I agree with.

but private school funding I don't. if private school funding stopped the public system would be crippled.

Logical fallacy - public schools aren;t funded at the federal level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

EeeeeeeJ +

Registered User

Joined
May '10
Times thanked
< 19
Posts
330
In case you missed Barnaby Joyce's perspective on welfare today.

Quote:

the original baby bonus, which was paid as a lump sum, was a ridiculous policy that caused immense damage. Sending $5000, in a lump sum, to a household experiencing problems, such as alcohol or drug addiction, was not a solution but a disaster.

Last week, I visited areas where these social problems are quite apparent by the green cans adorned with two initials on the front lawns of indigenous housing in one of our most remote areas. No doubt the same problems exists in the non-indigenous areas of some of our urban centres.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opin...418-1x7fh.html

The idea of abolishing welfare for the poor, as advanced in 2007 but not implemented before the change in government, is alive and well.
dAvoZ +

Registered Boozer

dAvoZ's Avatar
Joined
Aug '04
Times thanked
< 30
Posts
5,579

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie View Post

Logical fallacy - public schools aren;t funded at the federal level.

he said private schools.
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 16,159
Posts
50,543

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ View Post

he said private schools.

I am aware of this.

Federal subsidy of some of the richest schools in the country has done nothing to increase their rates of scholarships to disadvantaged students nor to lower fees since they were introduced by the Howard government.

The best results still tend to be dominated by the public selective schools, so where is the net benefit exactly? How is giving money to Kings or Geelong Grammar stopping the crippling of the public school system?

If someone can show me the breakdown on a dollar for dollar basis that subsidy of private schools provides a greater net benefit to the public system than that same amount of money being spent in the public system, then I'll gladly say I'm wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

budoo +

Registered User

Joined
May '04
Times thanked
< 258
Posts
1,946
And now for some facts:
http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/201...ian-safety-net

If you can't be arsed reading:
- Australia's social expenditure as a proportion of GDP is one of the lowest out of all OECD countries
- it is also up there with the most efficient due to the prevalence of payments means testing
- As such, there isn't too much we can cut from social expenditure unless you want to start digging into health and pensions. Good luck selling that one
dAvoZ +

Registered Boozer

dAvoZ's Avatar
Joined
Aug '04
Times thanked
< 30
Posts
5,579

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie View Post

I am aware of this.

Federal subsidy of some of the richest schools in the country has done nothing to increase their rates of scholarships to disadvantaged students nor to lower fees since they were introduced by the Howard government.

The best results still tend to be dominated by the public selective schools, so where is the net benefit exactly? How is giving money to Kings or Geelong Grammar stopping the crippling of the public school system?

If someone can show me the breakdown on a dollar for dollar basis that subsidy of private schools provides a greater net benefit to the public system than that same amount of money being spent in the public system, then I'll gladly say I'm wrong.

are you arguing against private funding altogether or about 10 of the richest private schools in the country?
SpaceMonkey +

FOREVER DOLAN

SpaceMonkey's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 6,488
Posts
34,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ View Post

are you arguing against private funding altogether or about 10 of the richest private schools in the country?

For argument's sake lets say all of them. Though maybe consider the Catholic system separately as I realise things work a bit differently there than in other private schools.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle View Post

not liking yoda is like knocking back a root when presented nude in a YD change room

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21 View Post

^mmmm all this talk of meat is getting me excited.

Portal +

Work that motherf#$ker

Portal's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 1,018
Posts
6,507

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko View Post

negative gearing I agree with.

but private school funding I don't. if private school funding stopped the public system would be crippled.

how so?
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424
prob the same, but flawed, logic as the private vs public health care argument.

oh noes, private schools don't get govt funding anymore, the term fees went up from $10,000 to $11,000. what ever shall we do? take a 2 week overseas holiday instead of 4 weeks this year or send the kids to the public system and cripple it??
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431
Like him or not (and I don’t). This is precisely what politicians should be doing. Leading policy debate on important and controversial issues. I can’t fault him on that.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
911

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

Like him or not (and I don’t). This is precisely what politicians should be doing. Leading policy debate on important and controversial issues. I can’t fault him on that.

No doubt.

I also agree with his point to an extent. Especially in regards to middle class welfare.

The criticism comes in because his party's policies don't practice what he preaches.
claude glass +

Registered User

claude glass's Avatar
Joined
Jun '10
Times thanked
< 760
Posts
4,157

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

Like him or not (and I don’t). This is precisely what politicians should be doing. Leading policy debate on important and controversial issues. I can’t fault him on that.

Oh come on trist! How about leadership based on integrity? as evinced here they implement middle class welfare, oppose means tested welfare, and then he criticises welfare. i think the coalition is the exempler of the entitlement mindset
trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass View Post

Oh come on trist! How about leadership based on integrity? as evinced here they implement middle class welfare, oppose means tested welfare, and then he criticises welfare. i think the coalition is the exempler of the entitlement mindset

So what? Perhaps Hockey disagreed with those policies and had to toe the line at the time? You criticise politicians that try to micromanage the media cycle to make themselves a small target to protect their power. Hockey knew he would get attacked on this from Labor and Greens but also from elements in his own party, and laid down an ideological argument anyway. He did the same when Conroy was trying to bring in his NSDAP style internet filter and the Liberal Party didn’t have the courage to strongly publically oppose it. I just wish more competent politicians than Hockey had his political stones.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy View Post

Yet he also -
Has a very generous maternity leave policy



http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...418-1x7zs.html

If you think this is welfare, you haven't been paying enough attention.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
CheelWinston +

not a cop

CheelWinston's Avatar
Joined
May '01
Times thanked
< 2,021
Posts
13,578

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

If you think this is welfare, you haven't been paying enough attention.

I don't see why rich women should be paid more for doing the same job (being a mother) as poor women

re: political stones, Trist, what about Turnbull's comments? (See the Turnbull thread)
Listen to your friend Cheely Zane
He is a cool guy...
trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston View Post

I don't see why rich women should be paid more for doing the same job (being a mother) as poor women

re: political stones, Trist, what about Turnbull's comments? (See the Turnbull thread)

That’s a red herring. Paid maternity leave policy is about two things, primarily increasing workforce participation and secondly encouraging (working) women to have babies. Both are interelated and both are good short and long term public policy in the 21st century for advanced economies. Anyone that argues against it either wants women back in the kitchen full-time or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

I’m not commenting on Abbott’s scheme specifically, rather the concept of paid maternity leave more generally having nothing to do with welfare.

As for Turnbull, yeah I think most in the Liberal Party would quietly agree with him that the last few years of the Howard Government were a wasted opportunity, particularly for the creation of another sovereign wealth fund. Not sure why he brought it up though, but I like the honesty and courage.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron

Last edited by trist: 20-Apr-12 at 11:01am

CheelWinston +

not a cop

CheelWinston's Avatar
Joined
May '01
Times thanked
< 2,021
Posts
13,578

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

I’m not commenting on Abbott’s scheme specifically

oh ok then.

I assumed the original post was commenting on Abbott's generous scheme specifically.



yes, there are obviously economic reasons for paid maternity leave and the general idea of it isn't really 'welfare'
Listen to your friend Cheely Zane
He is a cool guy...
horst +

Registered User

horst's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 438
Posts
5,500

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

That’s a red herring. Paid maternity leave policy is about two things, primarily increasing workforce participation and secondly encouraging (working) women to have babies. Both are interelated and both are good short and long term public policy in the 21st century for advanced economies. Anyone that argues against it either wants women back in the kitchen full-time or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

I’m not commenting on Abbott’s scheme specifically, rather the concept of paid maternity leave more generally having nothing to do with welfare.

As for Turnbull, yeah I think most in the Liberal Party would quietly agree with him that the last few years of the Howard Government were a wasted opportunity, particularly for the creation of another sovereign wealth fund. Not sure why he brought it up though, but I like the honesty and courage.

hang on hang on, wouldn't it be better,economically, if these working women in fact kept working and not have children?
Or are you arguing that working women produce children of better quality and utility than women who don't work?
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,718
Posts
12,350

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

So what? Perhaps Hockey disagreed with those policies and had to toe the line at the time? You criticise politicians that try to micromanage the media cycle to make themselves a small target to protect their power. Hockey knew he would get attacked on this from Labor and Greens but also from elements in his own party, and laid down an ideological argument anyway. He did the same when Conroy was trying to bring in his NSDAP style internet filter and the Liberal Party didn’t have the courage to strongly publically oppose it. I just wish more competent politicians than Hockey had his political stones.

His speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs was mostly aimed at Europe and America (just from skimming it), which is all well and good (and makes sense when European countries like France and Greece have been kidding themselves about things like retirement age and pensions etcetera for a long time now) but then Hockey went on Lateline and basically wouldn't say what entitlements the Coalition would cut in Australia: in fact he doubled down on supporting opposition to means-testing the Private Health rebate, which suggests to me that the Coalition is going to make no attempt at cutting back on the state's generosity to the middle to upper-middle (and higher) classes if they were to regain office.

He and the Coalition are a bunch of fucking hypocrites on this issue.

edit: Hockey Speech.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
Davomaxi +

No. Money Down!

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 1,084
Posts
7,417
Lol Hockey, Abott and co are well aware they can spout any non-sensical crap they want and they'll still win the next election in a canter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst View Post

hang on hang on, wouldn't it be better, economically, if these working women in fact kept working and not have children?

No. Women either become childless career women (not good in the long term), or drop out of the workforce completely for many years (not good in the short or long term).

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst View Post

Or are you arguing that working women produce children of better quality and utility than women who don't work?

No. In case you haven’t realised, modern societies like Australia have fundamentally changed in the space of a generation. Where once most women didn’t work at all after they had their first child, most now do work either full or part-time. There is no reversing this. Public policy must therefore positively respond to this change, pity Australia has been 20 years behind the curve.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
SpaceMonkey +

FOREVER DOLAN

SpaceMonkey's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 6,488
Posts
34,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst View Post

hang on hang on, wouldn't it be better,economically, if these working women in fact kept working and not have children?

below replacement birthrates aren't good for the economy long-term is the main thrust of trist's point I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst View Post

Or are you arguing that working women produce children of better quality and utility than women who don't work?

I hate to say it, but these days that is probably largely true. Its probably not a great thing to have the birth rate concentrated at the lowest end of the socio-economic spectrum. /nazi

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle View Post

not liking yoda is like knocking back a root when presented nude in a YD change room

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21 View Post

^mmmm all this talk of meat is getting me excited.

trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

His speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs was mostly aimed at Europe and America (just from skimming it), which is all well and good (and makes sense when European countries like France and Greece have been kidding themselves about things like retirement age and pensions etcetera for a long time now) but then Hockey went on Lateline and basically wouldn't say what entitlements the Coalition would cut in Australia: in fact he doubled down on supporting opposition to means-testing the Private Health rebate, which suggests to me that the Coalition is going to make no attempt at cutting back on the state's generosity to the middle to upper-middle (and higher) classes if they were to regain office.

He and the Coalition are a bunch of fucking hypocrites on this issue.

edit: Hockey Speech.

Yeah I know it was mainly aimed at Europe, but so what? He is making an ideological argument on a controversial issue (albeit rather poorly…but hey that’s Joe!). This is what politicians should freaking do.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post

I hate to say it, but these days that is probably largely true. Its probably not a great thing to have the birth rate concentrated at the lowest end of the socio-economic spectrum. /nazi

Or the highest end of the socio-economic spectrum. Women’s workforce participation is lowest at the extremes, thus freeing them up to have far higher birth rates than the vast middle classes that work for a living.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,718
Posts
12,350

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

Yeah I know it was mainly aimed at Europe, but so what? He is making an ideological argument on a controversial issue (albeit rather poorly…but hey that’s Joe!). This is what politicians should freaking do.

I have no problem with him making the point, it certainly has some validity, but then he basically backtracked later on Lateline, negating everything he'd just spoken about. Which says to me that in an Australian context, an Abbott Government with Hockey as Treasurer, will do nothing substantial about entitlements (which must mean Middle Class welfare reform) and will stick to hitting those they can electorally get away with.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

That’s a red herring. Paid maternity leave policy is about two things, primarily increasing workforce participation and secondly encouraging (working) women to have babies. Both are interelated and both are good short and long term public policy in the 21st century for advanced economies. Anyone that argues against it either wants women back in the kitchen full-time or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the paid maternity leave based on your regular earnings ie: if you are an investment banker earning $200k and you drop out of the workforce to have a baby, you get a higher rate of paid maternity leave than a woman earning $50k??. If that is the case, then cheelwinston makes a very good point. Now that both women are doing exactly the same job (ie: raising a baby), why should one of them get more than the other? If you use the argument that rich women living a lavish lifestyle won't leave their highly paid job for peanuts, thus you have to dangle a bigger carrot in front of them to encourage them, then tough shit. They should either suck it up and get what everyone else does, or they can choose not to leave the workforce if they are that selfish they cannot give up their expensive lifestyle for 1 or 2 yrs.

Paid maternity leave is a good policy, but giving more money to more wealthy women IS middle/upper class welfare.

If that isn't the case then forget everything I just said, because then I agree with you 100%.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
SpaceMonkey +

FOREVER DOLAN

SpaceMonkey's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 6,488
Posts
34,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

Or the highest end of the socio-economic spectrum. Women’s workforce participation is lowest at the extremes, thus freeing them up to have far higher birth rates than the vast middle classes that work for a living.

Well I don't think trophy wives popping out extra rugrats is a bad thing in itself (they have the means to provide for them at least) but I agree it's the lack of birthrate in the middle/working classes thats the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle View Post

not liking yoda is like knocking back a root when presented nude in a YD change room

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21 View Post

^mmmm all this talk of meat is getting me excited.

SpaceMonkey +

FOREVER DOLAN

SpaceMonkey's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 6,488
Posts
34,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post


Paid maternity leave is a good policy, but giving more money to more wealthy women IS middle/upper class welfare.

If that isn't the case then forget everything I just said, because then I agree with you 100%.

Paid maternity leave at a capped level would seem to make the most sense. I agree that I don't really see the need to pay anyone above the going rate to have kids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle View Post

not liking yoda is like knocking back a root when presented nude in a YD change room

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21 View Post

^mmmm all this talk of meat is getting me excited.

Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko View Post

negative gearing I agree with.

but private school funding I don't. if private school funding stopped the public system would be crippled.

lulz.

Supporters of private schools will try to claim that according to the Productivity Commission public schools receive $14,380 per student, and private schools receive $7,427 per student saving the government $8.3 billion in 2009/10.

But that report was slammed as fudging facts as The Productivity Commission for some strange reason decided to not include capital grants in their calculations. Which type of school gets the vast majority of capital grants? Private schools.

---------------------------------

If we include capital grants we find that Public schools, on average, each received $438,106 (combined federal and state/territory funding), Catholic schools got $510,263 (116% funding per school) and Independent schools $567,514 (129% funding per school).

So knowing the amount of funding per school, how many students on average do the schools have?

71% of schools (6705) are public with 65% (and dropping each year) of the students (2,315,253). 18% are Catholic (1710) with 20% of students (701,000). 11% are Independent (1020) with about 15% of students (525,666).

So that's an average student per school of:

Public: 345
Catholic: 409 (118% of public school sizes with 116% of public school funding per school)
Independent: 515 (149% of public school sizes with 129% of public funding per school)

So on average private schools get slightly less government funding per student but its nowhere near on the scale the pro-private school mob claim.

Part of the disparity is because large numbers of public school students are switching to independent schools each year (and a smaller amount are switching to Catholic schools) and funding is trailing behind this trend. In 2001 public schools accounted for 69% of all students.

Sauce

-------------------

TLDR; Private schools don't save the tax payer much, certainly not the $8.3b pro-private school mob are claiming. Removing private schools wouldn't cripple the education system as you claim.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.

Last edited by Griggle: 20-Apr-12 at 01:09pm

trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the paid maternity leave based on your regular earnings ie: if you are an investment banker earning $200k and you drop out of the workforce to have a baby, you get a higher rate of paid maternity leave than a woman earning $50k??. If that is the case, then cheelwinston makes a very good point. Now that both women are doing exactly the same job (ie: raising a baby), why should one of them get more than the other? If you use the argument that rich women living a lavish lifestyle won't leave their highly paid job for peanuts, thus you have to dangle a bigger carrot in front of them to encourage them, then tough shit. They should either suck it up and get what everyone else does, or they can choose not to leave the workforce if they are that selfish they cannot give up their expensive lifestyle for 1 or 2 yrs.

Paid maternity leave is a good policy, but giving more money to more wealthy women IS middle/upper class welfare.

If that isn't the case then forget everything I just said, because then I agree with you 100%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post

Paid maternity leave at a capped level would seem to make the most sense. I agree that I don't really see the need to pay anyone above the going rate to have kids.

I think you have to remember that the primary goal of paid maternity leave schemes is increasing workforce participation for child bearing age women. That means that it has to be linked to personal circumstances and not a one size fits all approach. If you have the “going rate” at $50,000 for example for 6 months, then you are paying more to women that earn less than this, and are discouraging women who earn more. Unfortunately it must be tied to personal income to properly achieve the intended goal. However, there should be a cap in my view at around $100,000 (or perhaps a little less). This would cover the income for 6 months of the overwhelming majority of women of child bearing age.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
SpaceMonkey +

FOREVER DOLAN

SpaceMonkey's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 6,488
Posts
34,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

I think you have to remember that the primary goal of paid maternity leave schemes is increasing workforce participation for child bearing age women. That means that it has to be linked to personal circumstances and not a one size fits all approach. If you have the “going rate” at $50,000 for example for 6 months, then you are paying more to women that earn less than this, and are discouraging women who earn more. Unfortunately it must be tied to personal income to properly achieve the intended goal. However, there should be a cap in my view at around $100,000 (or perhaps a little less). This would cover the income for 6 months of the overwhelming majority of women of child bearing age.

Thats why I said capped rate, not flat rate. I agree that you don't want it at the point where you're actually incentivising women on low incomes to leave work and start popping kids out, but I don;t think we should be matching six-figure salaries either. I'd favour a policy that matched 100% of incomes up to a certain level (say 50k) then paid a reduced percentage up to a cap of 80-100k.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle View Post

not liking yoda is like knocking back a root when presented nude in a YD change room

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21 View Post

^mmmm all this talk of meat is getting me excited.

horst +

Registered User

horst's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 438
Posts
5,500

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist View Post

I think you have to remember that the primary goal of paid maternity leave schemes is increasing workforce participation for child bearing age women.

Whose goal is this?
Paid maternity leave is for women who have a baby who would other wise struggle financially while not working.
Paying a woman $100K for six months to have a baby is terrific and all, but giving that amount of money only to women who are used to getting that much is insane.

Last edited by horst: 20-Apr-12 at 02:00pm

Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
Add the fact that women with higher paying jobs will usually find it easier to work later in their pregnancy (my sister is working at 8.5 months pregnant as a client account manager, she would be out of work at 6 months or sooner if she was a laborer) and with telecommuting can typically get back to work faster too.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst View Post

Whose goal is this?
Paid maternity leave is for women who have a baby who would other wise struggle financially while not working.
Paying a woman $100K for six months to have a baby is terrific and all, but giving that amount of money only to women who are used to getting that much is insane.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
trist +

too many years on ITM

trist's Avatar
Joined
Mar '01
Times thanked
< 280
Posts
8,431

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post

Thats why I said capped rate, not flat rate. I agree that you don't want it at the point where you're actually incentivising women on low incomes to leave work and start popping kids out, but I don;t think we should be matching six-figure salaries either. I'd favour a policy that matched 100% of incomes up to a certain level (say 50k) then paid a reduced percentage up to a cap of 80-100k.

Yeah, no problem really in that. It adds a bit more complexity to it (usually the simpler the better for these types of policies), but not too much.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous B movie. Gil Scott-Heron
EeeeeeeJ +

Registered User

Joined
May '10
Times thanked
< 19
Posts
330

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trist

It adds a bit more complexity to it (usually the simpler the better for these types of policies), but not too much.

So, if you assess each recipient's income before giving them a pension so that the needy get greater payments, that adds complexity, which is bad. If you assess each recipient's income before giving them a pension so that the wealthy get greater payments, that simplifies things, which is good. Is that it?
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,718
Posts
12,350

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post

Thats why I said capped rate, not flat rate. I agree that you don't want it at the point where you're actually incentivising women on low incomes to leave work and start popping kids out, but I don;t think we should be matching six-figure salaries either. I'd favour a policy that matched 100% of incomes up to a certain level (say 50k) then paid a reduced percentage up to a cap of 80-100k.

It should be a higher amount (perhaps the average wage rather than minimum), and maybe for 6-8 months rather than the 4.5 it is currently, but your suggestion is way too unwieldy imo. What Labor has put in place isn't ideal, but it's something that can be built on.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
EeeeeeeJ +

Registered User

Joined
May '10
Times thanked
< 19
Posts
330
If there is a problem with people having babies just to gain welfare payments, the best way to discourage the practice would be an awareness campaign to make it clear that, welfare payments or not, having a baby will leave you "out of pocket".

Welfare payments should be about meeting essential expenses. It's reasonable that non-essential items cost the parents more than they get in welfare benefits. Intentionally discriminating against a child because you think that the mother might be a bludger is not reasonable.

On a slightly different topic, I read some speculation that Hockey might be sending out "feelers" to the Liberal Party machine. The speculation was that he was rightly attacking the middle class welfare that was brought about by Howard after the 2001 election and that Abbott seeks to increase. The speculation ventured further that Abbott had derogated Rudd & Gillard enough that the Liberal Party might be confident enough to oust him and to replace him with someone who could convey more of a vision to voters.
Abziie +

Registered User

Abziie's Avatar
Joined
Jun '06
Times thanked
< 59
Posts
1,400
On the point of middle class women/families not having children, imo there are bigger issues at play and government maternity leave addresses none of it. The transitory nature of employment is probably the biggest issue. There is less security in the employment sector, plus a middle class income is just not enough to sustain a large family.

The interesting thing is that lower fertility rates in the western world are probably partly due to the welfare state. Once upon a time children were an insurance policy.
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,718
Posts
12,350

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie View Post

On the point of middle class women/families not having children, imo there are bigger issues at play and government maternity leave addresses none of it. The transitory nature of employment is probably the biggest issue. There is less security in the employment sector, plus a middle class income is just not enough to sustain a large family.

The interesting thing is that lower fertility rates in the western world are probably partly due to the welfare state. Once upon a time children were an insurance policy.

Stay off the skag mofo.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
Page 1 of 2
Reply

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Posting Rules

+
    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts