Youth Allowance Eligibility (2 Viewers)

[moll.]

I was listening to Triple J news earlier this morning and they were covering the government's proposed changes. The head of the Student Union then chipped in and it would appear that he and his cronies want youth allowance to be available to everyone who is studying, not just those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
My first reaction was that he was a greedy, idiotic wanker who would quite happily bankrupt the state so that students across Australia can spend more on pot, alcohol and mi goreng. My second, third and fourth reactions were similar.
Opinions?

 

[annabackwards]

I completely agree with you.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

shit poll choices moll. not voting because the answers available aren't close to my view.

 

[Bendent]

mi goreng is cheap 45c...also lots of fats..very high cholesterol

 

[emiliieee]

youth allowance is shit.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

END THE FED! b

 

[loquasagacious]

The views expressed are my own and do not represent in any way the opinions/plans of my employer and have not been informed by any data/information which is outside of the public domain.

I have voted no because while I think YA should exist in some form the form which I envisage is so different to it's current form as to be a completely new payment model. But before we jump to my conclusion some background:

• As you would know I am not a massive fan of taxation/welfare (the transfer system) in general. Insofar as it does exist I think that it should be flat not progressive and definitely not regressive.
• Youth Allowance and HECS are extremely regressive forms of welfare because they are recieved by people who will later go on to be the middle and upper classes however are paid for by everyone. The checkout operator at coles is subsidising your university education and lifestyle.
• YA/HECS do help disadvantaged people attend university and bootstrap however they also encourage over-consumption of education. I like the former and don't like the latter.

So for me the challenge is how to have a system which helps the disadvantaged to better themselves but is not regressive and does not encourage over-consumption. My ideas are still in a nascent stage but a rough overview is:

• YA abolished in it's current form
• HECS abolished in it's current form
• A new system called Higher-Education-Loan-Allowance (HELA-cool ) is established
• Universities are free to charge whatever fees they want
• HELA to provide a loan to students. The loan could cover fees (or a proportion thereof) and also pay a living allowance (a max living allowance figure would be set and students could elect to recieve any amount up to the max)
• The interest rate would be available in a similar way to a mortgage (fixed, variable, etc)
• Neither the interest or the principal would be payable until graduation. And the repayment term would be 10 years
• Parents, employers, etc could contract to pay for part of the fees (under whatever arrangement/conditions they want) which would reduce the amount the student would be loaning
• Existing HECS supported students would be grandfathered

The funding itself would work as follows:

• The HELA loans would initially be made by a government run (but corporatised) HELA-Fund,
• Other financial institutions would be free to compete
• The HELA fund would initially be primarily funded by the Government however would seek private investment primarily from institutional investors like pension/super funds.
• The HELA fund could also raise capital by selling bonds
• Over-time the HELA fund would transistion to privatisation

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

loquasagacious it sounds like you want to replace one complex bureaucratic system with another.

I see where you're coming from, because university is so expensive that its hard to imagine how disadvantaged people could afford it these days without some sort of government assistance.

You should take a look at this video:

YouTube - Peter Schiff- Vlog How government programs drive up college tuitions

Basically anything the government does to make tuition more "affordable" actually drives up the cost. That's why it is so expensive now days.

Also, why have a government fund if you foresee private investors willingly financing it and private companies competing? It seems as though you know this will not really happen, and that it will be subsidized by the taxpayer, but you just threw this in to convince yourself it's different to the usual government "solutions."

 

[absorber]

The views expressed are my own and do not represent in any way the opinions/plans of my employer and have not been informed by any data/information which is outside of the public domain.

I have voted no because while I think YA should exist in some form the form which I envisage is so different to it's current form as to be a completely new payment model. But before we jump to my conclusion some background:

• As you would know I am not a massive fan of taxation/welfare (the transfer system) in general. Insofar as it does exist I think that it should be flat not progressive and definitely not regressive.
• Youth Allowance and HECS are extremely regressive forms of welfare because they are recieved by people who will later go on to be the middle and upper classes however are paid for by everyone. The checkout operator at coles is subsidising your university education and lifestyle.
• YA/HECS do help disadvantaged people attend university and bootstrap however they also encourage over-consumption of education. I like the former and don't like the latter.

So for me the challenge is how to have a system which helps the disadvantaged to better themselves but is not regressive and does not encourage over-consumption. My ideas are still in a nascent stage but a rough overview is:

• YA abolished in it's current form
• HECS abolished in it's current form
• A new system called Higher-Education-Loan-Allowance (HELA-cool ) is established
• Universities are free to charge whatever fees they want
• HELA to provide a loan to students. The loan could cover fees (or a proportion thereof) and also pay a living allowance (a max living allowance figure would be set and students could elect to recieve any amount up to the max)
• The interest rate would be available in a similar way to a mortgage (fixed, variable, etc)
• Neither the interest or the principal would be payable until graduation. And the repayment term would be 10 years
• Parents, employers, etc could contract to pay for part of the fees (under whatever arrangement/conditions they want) which would reduce the amount the student would be loaning
• Existing HECS supported students would be grandfathered

The funding itself would work as follows:

• The HELA loans would initially be made by a government run (but corporatised) HELA-Fund,
• Other financial institutions would be free to compete
• The HELA fund would initially be primarily funded by the Government however would seek private investment primarily from institutional investors like pension/super funds.
• The HELA fund could also raise capital by selling bonds
• Over-time the HELA fund would transistion to privatisation

YOU DON'T NEED AN APOSTROPHE, JEEZ.

That system's flawed imo, HECS is in place at special low interest rates to provide incentives to encourage people to pursue tertiary education, which is more a good thing than a bad thing.

Personally I think youth allowance should stay largely as it is; students living on the north shore, such as myself, don't need it- the majority of kids round here go to private schools anyway.

 

[KFunk]

I somewhat agree with you Moll, but your poll choices are poorly constructed. The obvious choice that you have denied is "retain student welfare, but in an altered form" (or similar).

I see (means-tested) student welfare as a valuable way to increase the access of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups to education. There are always different ways to offer money though, e.g. rent assistance, scholarships with restrictions on use (e.g. rent, textbooks, and travel versus alcohol), and of course there are concession fares.

 

[loquasagacious]

loquasagacious it sounds like you want to replace one complex bureaucratic system with another.

I see where you're coming from, because university is so expensive that its hard to imagine how disadvantaged people could afford it these days without some sort of government assistance.

You should take a look at this video:

YouTube - Peter Schiff- Vlog How government programs drive up college tuitions

Basically anything the government does to make tuition more "affordable" actually drives up the cost. That's why it is so expensive now days.

Also, why have a government fund if you foresee private investors willingly financing it and private companies competing? It seems as though you know this will not really happen, and that it will be subsidized by the taxpayer, but you just threw this in to convince yourself it's different to the usual government "solutions."

Fair comment. And I'll watch the video when I get home.

I would look at my model as a kind of 'proof-of-concept'/pilot program because if HECS were abolished tomorrow then I'm not sure if financial institutions would be willing to take the risk of offering student loans. So in the long-term my idea would essentially be a way for the government to transistion out of student welfare.

Also by having graduates repay the full loan amount it isn't really a subsidy or welfare anymore (except for whatever small difference there is between the interest rate charged and the interest rate for a mortgage).

 

[aussie-boy]

Youth Allowance should without qualification be available to ALL students.
Two arguments support this notion:

1.
What does the Government want/what does Australia need for consistent economic growth as all low skilled jobs are replaced by technology or moved offshore?

Answer: An extremely highly skilled workforce.

The only way to achieve this is to put as many people as possible through tertiary education. Without parental support, it is pretty much impossible to go to uni, as a part time job can simply not pay for rent, food, utilities let alone entertainment etc.

At the moment, the Gov has effectively decided that adults cannot be independent beings should they want to study (the exception being if you have poor parents.) I don't think it's fair/reasonable/ethical that I have to constantly leech off my parents for the next 5 or so years because the Government is too stingy to essentially rebate in advance some of the higher tax revenue that my education will provide in 10 or 20 years.

Imagine a family with 4 kids (the Government wants population growth) who live away from any universities. Do you seriously think its feasible for the poor parents to pay for 4 sets of living expenses away from home until these kids turn 25? The proposed changes condemn the future of all rural kids.

2.
The marginal tax revenue that a degree provides far outweighs the cost of youth allowance during the course of the degree.

Consider the age pension, which would never be cut back. The age pension is exactly the same as YA, in reverse if you will. It supports you in a phase of life where you do not have sufficient income - and is guaged as acceptable by society because old people have contributed during their working lives. YA is exactly the same, except the people WILL (not HAVE) contribute.

Forcing parents to support kids during uni is, IMO, the same as forcing kids to support parents in retirement. The only reason the Gov doesn't see it this way is because they are old people who are about to benefit from super tax concessions, huge MP superannuation and other post-retirement allowances.

----

Anyone who reads Ross Gittins will have read the article on youth a few weeks ago.
Youth unemployment is incredibly high; there is a huge shortage of opportunities for youth out of school without education, yet the Government is happy for all this to continue because they know that parents will pick up their bill.

 

[Oliver04]

I usually stay off the political opinions threads but I gotta say:

[*] Youth Allowance and HECS are extremely regressive forms of welfare because they are recieved by people who will later go on to be the middle and upper classes however are paid for by everyone. The checkout operator at coles is subsidising your university education and lifestyle]

This sort of attitude shits me to tears. They might be paying 0.02% of their 30K annual wage to help us but when we come out of these degrees making 100K+ we're taxed half our income. Intelligent people drive the economy, not the other way around.

Uni students get raped financially;
- The time required for most degrees has pretty much doubled leaving us restricted to scummy part time jobs (if they're available) for a good 4+ years
- We get charged the highest insurance premiums (note: a 20 year old male with an old laser)
- the financial demands of the actual courses in terms of books and technology required to access things (you ever tried downloading a PDF file on a 56K modem?)
- If you've moved out and your parents aren't too supportive you're pretty much restricted to a diet of 2-minute noodles.

So despite the fact that we go into jobs that move the cogs of the economy for a good 5 years we're fucked financially - its like society is punishing us for trying.

YA should be introduced for everyone on a sliding scale.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Fair comment. And I'll watch the video when I get home.

I would look at my model as a kind of 'proof-of-concept'/pilot program because if HECS were abolished tomorrow then I'm not sure if financial institutions would be willing to take the risk of offering student loans. So in the long-term my idea would essentially be a way for the government to transistion out of student welfare.

Why create a whole new system when you admit the old system would have to be grandfathered out anyway.

Just phase out the existing system. i.e. each year the % of tuition that the government will loan you decreases.

Also by having graduates repay the full loan amount it isn't really a subsidy or welfare anymore (except for whatever small difference there is between the interest rate charged and the interest rate for a mortgage).

Low interest rates are exactly, 100% equivalent to a subsidy or welfare. It benefits the recipient and costs the taxpayer money.

If the difference would be extremely small compared to the market rate anyway, why involve the government and create an expensive additional layer of bureaucracy?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I usually stay off the political opinions threads but I gotta say:

This sort of attitude shits me to tears. They might be paying 0.02% of their 30K annual wage to help us but when we come out of these degrees making 100K+ we're taxed half our income. Intelligent people drive the economy, not the other way around.

Uni students get raped financially;
- The time required for most degrees has pretty much doubled leaving us restricted to scummy part time jobs (if they're available) for a good 4+ years
- We get charged the highest insurance premiums (note: a 20 year old male with an old laser)
- the financial demands of the actual courses in terms of books and technology required to access things (you ever tried downloading a PDF file on a 56K modem?)
- If you've moved out and your parents aren't too supportive you're pretty much restricted to a diet of 2-minute noodles.

So despite the fact that we go into jobs that move the cogs of the economy for a good 5 years we're fucked financially - its like society is punishing us for trying.

YA should be introduced for everyone on a sliding scale.

The checkout chick thing was just an example. What about people with no degree who are on high incomes who are in fact being taxed to pay for students' education.

What about people doing useless degrees (i.e. arts) or doing poorly in degrees. Many people will not actually become more productive because of their education at all.

Why should taxpayers be forced to support these people?

Those that are productive as a result of their degrees also benefit by lower taxes when they graduate (as a result of cutting welfare).

 

[jb_nc]

shit poll choices moll. not voting because the answers available aren't close to my view.

quoting dis

shit poll options are shit

 

[jb_nc]

lol this thread also reminded me to put jennyfromdabloc on ignore. thanks moll.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

The views expressed are my own and do not represent in any way the opinions/plans of my employer and have not been informed by any data/information which is outside of the public domain.

yep.

because you're just THAT important

 

[Oliver04]

The checkout chick thing was just an example. What about people with no degree who are on high incomes who are in fact being taxed to pay for students' education.

What about people doing useless degrees (i.e. arts) or doing poorly in degrees. Many people will not actually become more productive because of their education at all.

Why should taxpayers be forced to support these people?

Those that are productive as a result of their degrees also benefit by lower taxes when they graduate (as a result of cutting welfare).

What about them? arn't the people who came out as lawyers, doctors, engineers and pharmacists paying for their roads, public transport, military etc etc? a bigger amount of their wage is going towards things like public education, so that argument doesn't wash.

That 'useless degree' point is an entirely different story, but that would involve a shift in the way that society looks at tertiary education.

Higher education pays back tenfold in economic terms, thats just the way it is.

Now, I'm not saying that some Knox boy should receive YA because he's 'reading law', but the whole 'if you're mum and dad make <50K combined then you get YA and if they make anything over that you're fucked' system really isn't working.

 

[David Spade]

Youth Allowance should without qualification be available to ALL students.
Two arguments support this notion:

1.
What does the Government want/what does Australia need for consistent economic growth as all low skilled jobs are replaced by technology or moved offshore?

Answer: An extremely highly skilled workforce.

The only way to achieve this is to put as many people as possible through tertiary education. Without parental support, it is pretty much impossible to go to uni, as a part time job can simply not pay for rent, food, utilities let alone entertainment etc.

At the moment, the Gov has effectively decided that adults cannot be independent beings should they want to study (the exception being if you have poor parents.) I don't think it's fair/reasonable/ethical that I have to constantly leech off my parents for the next 5 or so years because the Government is too stingy to essentially rebate in advance some of the higher tax revenue that my education will provide in 10 or 20 years.

Imagine a family with 4 kids (the Government wants population growth) who live away from any universities. Do you seriously think its feasible for the poor parents to pay for 4 sets of living expenses away from home until these kids turn 25? The proposed changes condemn the future of all rural kids.

2.
The marginal tax revenue that a degree provides far outweighs the cost of youth allowance during the course of the degree.

Consider the age pension, which would never be cut back. The age pension is exactly the same as YA, in reverse if you will. It supports you in a phase of life where you do not have sufficient income - and is guaged as acceptable by society because old people have contributed during their working lives. YA is exactly the same, except the people WILL (not HAVE) contribute.

Forcing parents to support kids during uni is, IMO, the same as forcing kids to support parents in retirement. The only reason the Gov doesn't see it this way is because they are old people who are about to benefit from super tax concessions, huge MP superannuation and other post-retirement allowances.

----

Anyone who reads Ross Gittins will have read the article on youth a few weeks ago.
Youth unemployment is incredibly high; there is a huge shortage of opportunities for youth out of school without education, yet the Government is happy for all this to continue because they know that parents will pick up their bill.

wrong

because it is possible to have the workforce saturated with university gradutes etc

k fed or someone brought it up before