MedVision ad

Who supports the Green's initiative to abolish university fees? (2 Viewers)

S4Saustralia

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
84
Location
Sydney, Nsw
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
  • cost taxpayers $23 billion over four years
  • A similar scheme existed in the 1970's under the Whitlam government, but was abolished by the Hawke government in 1989 and replaced with HECS (now HELP)
  • Greens support all citizens receiving a free education, and the nullification of existing fees.
  • Scheme would cost $15.4bn in its first year, of which, $12.9bn used to forgive existing debts.
  • Scheme cost $2.5bn/year in the subsequent years
  • Government subsidies of $432 million will be removed from private schools and given to a national equity funding program to help poorer schools.
link

IMHO: Probably not the smartest idea. HECS/HELP are already pretty good...Do university students who have found an occupation due to their degrees, really need more money?

Opinions?
 

LoveHateSchool

Retired Sept '14
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
5,136
Location
The Fires of Mordor
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2016
I never understood why private schools were subsidized in the first place. They should not give money to private schools and at least use that to help poorer people into university.
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
geez whizz I wonder how they'll fund it oh I know through more taxes!! genius! two birds with one stone! students4greenz 4eva and eva!
 

erespall

Pirate Lord.. Arrr
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
217
Location
Western Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
more spending...... sigh

maybe it might affect competitiveness in schools seeing as how there would be no fee's to pay for and entry would be dependant on academic performance and not be influenced by financing factors?

just a thought, anyway i don't like the greens lol
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,897
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
so let's take money from the productive mining companies (ie the people who enable us to have a standard of living remotely as good as we do today) and give it to kids to get useless arts degrees


gee, I'm not sure if this is a good idea
 

S4Saustralia

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
84
Location
Sydney, Nsw
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
so let's take money from the productive mining companies (ie the people who enable us to have a standard of living remotely as good as we do today) and give it to kids to get useless arts degrees


gee, I'm not sure if this is a good idea
granted that perhaps spending on university students is unnecessary...but you cant truly believe that the mining companies contribute to our society?

The mining CEOs are billionaires...they actually make so much money its been labeled 'super profits'...The image below shows how much money these corporations make, against their tax.



The mining companies do very little to contribute to Australian society, in fact their low taxation is counter-productive to australia's well being, as reported by the Daily Telegraph:

Economic modelling by the Treasury as well as independent modelling by KPMG have found that the mining tax would see the average worker gain about $450 a year, due to the flow-on results of cuts in company tax and tax breaks for small businesses. The overall cost of food would drop by 0.9%, clothing and footwear by 1.3%, housing by 1.1%, transportation by 1.7% and communication by 1.4%. The inflation rate would drop by 1.1% which would, in turn, ease the pressure on interest rates and finally, Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) would rise by 0.7%.
* Source: Mining New Depths of Political Bastardy (Daily Telegraph)

I really dont understand how anyone can assume that increased taxation of the major mining companies would hurt Australia. We should follow the Nordic countries and issue tax as a means to achieve social objectives, such as redistribution of income, reduction in alcohol and tobacco consumption, and as a disincentive against certain behaviors.
 

deterministic

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
423
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Given their size, they provide employment for a lot of people. That has to benefit society more than super taxes do (also, more people earning income -> more income tax). If they were taxed more, who do you think will really lose out? Do you honestly think that CEO are willing to let go of profits? They will cut people from the workforce, which will increase unemployment and really hurt Australia.
 

kaz1

et tu
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
6,960
Location
Vespucci Beach
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
Uni Grad
2018
As a non-tax paying uni student, I see no disadvantage for me.

also there might be net surplus for the economy as there is more skilled workers
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
granted that perhaps spending on university students is unnecessary...but you cant truly believe that the mining companies contribute to our society?

The mining CEOs are billionaires...they actually make so much money its been labeled 'super profits'...The image below shows how much money these corporations make, against their tax.
Economics 101:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_taxes_and_subsidies_on_price




In simple words for simpletons like you: taxation increases the price of a good which in effect decreases its supply/demand and therefore economic activity. If mining companies were taxed more, guess what they would do to stay profitable? that's right, they'd fire their workers baby. How would an increased tax rate for mining companies affect China, who buys up most of our minerals? Well they would either 1. take their business elsewhere, to countries like Canada and Brazil for instance; or 2. increase the prices of their exports to reflect the rise in cost. Hey, guess where most of our imports come from? That's right, China baby. Regardless of how you look at it, we lose. Either China will stop buying our shit(or not buy as much), annihilating some or even all of the expected gain from the raised tax; or they will increase the prices of their exports, which we will have to bear since over 90% of the goods we buy are made in China. Did your precious economic model take this into account? But that would make it an actual economic model! That entails telling people the truth! No, we can't have that! Really the only tax that is distortion free is the land value tax. Simple economics is how "anyone (with half a brain) can assume that increased taxation of the major mining companies would hurt Australia". Taxation is like masturbation, while it gives instant gratification, in the end you're only fucking yourself.

Saying minining companies contribute little to Australian society is as idiotic as saying that arts degrees are useless(I'm looking at you SylvesterBr). You wanna guess why Australia did not experience the full effects of the global financial crisis? Great idea, let's chop off the hand that feeds us and throw it to the wolves.

We should follow the Nordic countries and issue tax as a means to achieve social objectives, such as redistribution of income, reduction in alcohol and tobacco consumption, and as a disincentive against certain behaviors.
What makes you think that you can impose your particular worldview on the rest of society? What gives you the right to determine what "certain behaviors" are and are not permissible in our society? Who are you to decide what these "social objectives" may be? Justify philosophically kthx.
 

john may lives

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
7
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
granted that perhaps spending on university students is unnecessary...but you cant truly believe that the mining companies contribute to our society?

The mining CEOs are billionaires...they actually make so much money its been labeled 'super profits'...The image below shows how much money these corporations make, against their tax.



The mining companies do very little to contribute to Australian society, in fact their low taxation is counter-productive to australia's well being, as reported by the Daily Telegraph:


* Source: Mining New Depths of Political Bastardy (Daily Telegraph)

I really dont understand how anyone can assume that increased taxation of the major mining companies would hurt Australia. We should follow the Nordic countries and issue tax as a means to achieve social objectives, such as redistribution of income, reduction in alcohol and tobacco consumption, and as a disincentive against certain behaviors.
your opinions don't count, you support socialism
 

S4Saustralia

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
84
Location
Sydney, Nsw
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
In simple words for simpletons like you:
This is unnecessary. Even if I wrote something ignorant or wrong...you shouldn't belittle someone for their opinion.

taxation increases the price of a good which in effect decreases its supply/demand and therefore economic activity. If mining companies were taxed more, guess what they would do to stay profitable? that's right, they'd fire their workers baby. How would an increased tax rate for mining companies affect China, who buys up most of our minerals? Well they would either 1. take their business elsewhere, to countries like Canada and Brazil for instance; or 2. increase the prices of their exports to reflect the rise in cost. Hey, guess where most of our imports come from? That's right, China baby. Regardless of how you look at it, we lose. Either China will stop buying our shit(or not buy as much), annihilating some or even all of the expected gain from the raised tax; or they will increase the prices of their exports, which we will have to bear since over 90% of the goods we buy are made in China. Did your precious economic model take this into account? But that would make it an actual economic model! That entails telling people the truth! No, we can't have that! Really the only tax that is distortion free is the land value tax. Simple economics is how "anyone (with half a brain) can assume that increased taxation of the major mining companies would hurt Australia". Taxation is like masturbation, while it gives instant gratification, in the end you're only fucking yourself.

If we look at look at the employment % of the mining industry, its really not a lot.



(it's around 1.3% of jobs in Australia).

Theres a unit of measurement known as the Accessible Economic Demonstrated Resources (AEDR), basically the AEDR measures the amount of stuff in the ground we can actually use under current law in Australia. Laws based on various environmental restrictions, the minerals sitting underneath land owned by the the Dept of Defence or other restrictions based on govt policies.

Using the AEDR we can compare the available mineral deposits in Aus compared to other nations. As shown below.



Basically, Aus owns 15% of all known deposits.



This chart shows that Aus is not only a major supplier but also own significant amounts of minerals, which gives us a pretty significant market position.

Now if you view the 2008/2009 profit margin for mining compared to other industries (remembering that mining only employs 1.3% of Australian jobs)



The 11.2% of total industries is the average of all the industries in Australia, so the mining industry takes more than 3x the profit of all other industries by pulling parts of Australia out of the ground.

Theres more information based on mining exploitation if you were to look...Something like the Aus Mining EBITDA (earnings before interest,tax,depreciation and amortisation)/Revenue is 43% while that of mining companies around the world is 30%.

Your claims that china will stop purchasing minerals from Aus is pretty unrealistic. It could have some negative impact on foreign investment in the short term, but its stupid to assume that these nations wont come back for our giant 15% of the world's resources. The only people who would be angered by an increased tax would be the overpaid mining CEOs...But I'd love to read your source to China opting out on Aus resources or increasing their prices as a result.

More importantly, I really think it's important to acknowledge that an increased tax against the mining industry would equal Funding for long term infrastructure projects, education, future proofing Australia, bigger incentives for Research and development. Equally as important, I think we should try to acknowledge why the over-reaction towards the mining tax has occurred. Mining companies do not add value to their product, they literally pull it out of Australian Soil and claim their product to sell around the world. Why shouldn't all Australians get some benefit considering those resources are fetching astronomical prices...and why should the mining industry get such tax breaks?

It's actually pretty interesting to see the control that the media has on the Australian people. We all saw those ridiculous commercials of workers falling over due to the mining tax...however, we can pretty much see that an increased tax rate on the mining industry would affect none besides the corporate giants who are exploiting the Australian people. If anyone has the time, I really recommend reading Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent ...it actually got made into a documentary, but I havent watched it yet...The book itself talks about political control through the media, and I've never read such a book that relates so much today as it did during its publication.

Please excuse spelling and grammar...I'm in a rush.
 

Fake-Name

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
427
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Economics 101:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_taxes_and_subsidies_on_price




In simple words for simpletons like you: taxation increases the price of a good which in effect decreases its supply/demand and therefore economic activity. If mining companies were taxed more, guess what they would do to stay profitable? that's right, they'd fire their workers baby. How would an increased tax rate for mining companies affect China, who buys up most of our minerals? Well they would either 1. take their business elsewhere, to countries like Canada and Brazil for instance; or 2. increase the prices of their exports to reflect the rise in cost. Hey, guess where most of our imports come from? That's right, China baby. Regardless of how you look at it, we lose. Either China will stop buying our shit(or not buy as much), annihilating some or even all of the expected gain from the raised tax; or they will increase the prices of their exports, which we will have to bear since over 90% of the goods we buy are made in China. Did your precious economic model take this into account? But that would make it an actual economic model! That entails telling people the truth! No, we can't have that! Really the only tax that is distortion free is the land value tax. Simple economics is how "anyone (with half a brain) can assume that increased taxation of the major mining companies would hurt Australia". Taxation is like masturbation, while it gives instant gratification, in the end you're only fucking yourself.

Saying minining companies contribute little to Australian society is as idiotic as saying that arts degrees are useless(I'm looking at you SylvesterBr). You wanna guess why Australia did not experience the full effects of the global financial crisis? Great idea, let's chop off the hand that feeds us and throw it to the wolves.


What makes you think that you can impose your particular worldview on the rest of society? What gives you the right to determine what "certain behaviors" are and are not permissible in our society? Who are you to decide what these "social objectives" may be? Justify philosophically kthx.

This is bigoted and ignorant.
Taxing the mining billionaires would not result in job loss as it would not even dent their profits.
Its retarded to think of taxation as negative or Socialist (as implied in your first response). I doubt anyone (in Australia) would dare to think that, I think you listen to too much American right-wing 'Obama is a Communist' talk.

Edit: Everyone knows how supply and demand and taxation works, your graphs aren't necessary.
 
Last edited:

deterministic

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
423
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
If we look at look at the employment % of the mining industry, its really not a lot.



(it's around 1.3% of jobs in Australia).
The resultant increase in commodity prices due to the tax will impact most industries as well (we all use mining products of some form), so there is a rollover effect into unemployment in other industries as well.

More importantly, I really think it's important to acknowledge that an increased tax against the mining industry would equal Funding for long term infrastructure projects, education, future proofing Australia, bigger incentives for Research and development.
Given how the government has been currently spending tax money (laptops for children, billions spent on non existent broadband network), I wouldnt think supertaxing the miners would be anymore beneficial than the miners using that money for further investments.

Mining companies do not add value to their product, they literally pull it out of Australian Soil and claim their product to sell around the world. Why shouldn't all Australians get some benefit considering those resources are fetching astronomical prices...and why should the mining industry get such tax breaks?
Considering the initial capital investment for large scale mining equipment is quite substantial, the miners are entitled to get the return they reap from their operations. It is THEIR investment. If you really want to benefit from these resources, why don't you go get a shovel and start mining them yourself?
 

S4Saustralia

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
84
Location
Sydney, Nsw
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
The resultant increase in commodity prices due to the tax will impact most industries as well (we all use mining products of some form), so there is a rollover effect into unemployment in other industries as well.
There's no evidence to suggest that the mining companies would drop its employees...I added the graph to show that only 1.3% of aus jobs are under the mining industry, therefore there isnt much oppertunity to lose workers.

Given how the government has been currently spending tax money (laptops for children, billions spent on non existent broadband network), I wouldnt think supertaxing the miners would be anymore beneficial than the miners using that money for further investments.
Granted that the laptops were probably unnecessary and I dont think we can talk about the NBN...because it does exist and is pretty important in Australia's technological future. However, By supertaxing the mining industry, we put money back into our economy/nation, from which the miners have taken the minerals and as a result, their profit. Without Australia, these companies would have no profits...why shouldn't they give back after taking so much? Also, futher investments (I assume you mean more mining areas), would result in more profite for the CEOs and nothing for Australian society.

Considering the initial capital investment for large scale mining equipment is quite substantial, the miners are entitled to get the return they reap from their operations. It is THEIR investment. If you really want to benefit from these resources, why don't you go get a shovel and start mining them yourself?
The mining companies do make back the money for their equipment + the profit margin for mining was the highest for any industry classification in Australia (2008/2009), coming in at a whopping 37.1%, and where the aggregate profit margin for large mining firms was an even larger 46.1%...These companies make a LOT more than their money back.

I support individuals and industries making money from their investments...but the mining companies are exploiting Australia. Their profits depend on resources pulled from Australian soil, yet they dont have to give anything back? The mining industry needs greater political regulation...and not just this 'pseudo-labor' party pressure to increase tax to 12%.
 

murphyad

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
416
Location
Newy, brah!
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
futher investments (I assume you mean more mining areas), would result in more profite for the CEOs and nothing for Australian society.
lol yes, the mining industry does nothing for 'Australian society'.

Moving back to university education however, there is absolutely no way it should be free. HECS/HELP deferability means that no-one of sufficient academic merit will ever miss out on a university education.

Full fee places ought to be reintroduced for domestic students, too.
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
What the fuck happened to this forum? That spectularly long post by Abbeyroad presented as a rejoinder to my remarks (which contained an enormous number of assertions regarding the Flynn Effect and the taxonomic validity of the concept of race, including a misguided citation of Bamshad, et al) is now gone, and I am incapable of posting what I had prepared as a rebuttal to his post and saved into a notepad file. My rebuttal only contained an attempt to address several specific points and not the broad mass of what he/she had written because that is all I had finished writing before I went to Newcastle. Now the rest of his/her post is gone and I am unable to answer it in full.

This is disappointing.

The Greens however, are a homosexual political party headed by an emanciated homosexual who looks gay and unsurprisingly, is also gay and likes to have sex with men. The ultimate culmination of the Green's policies will be an immigration program that gives preference in admission to AIDS-ridden, disabled, homosexual Negro women with IQs of 65. The primary supportive demographic of the Greens are emanciated, inner-city, effeminate competitive altruists who take part in homosexual parades despite not being gay themselves, and who consider tolerance and the celebration of loser cultures, ugly, single women, people with AIDS and atavistic populations as the highest possible virtue. The only sensible initiative that could possibly involve the Greens would be one with the deliberate objective of abolishing their party and its supporters, preferably through systematic state sanctioned executions.
 
Last edited:

davidbarnes

Trainee Mȯderatȯr
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
1,459
Location
NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I think it has merit, although the current system is not too bad at all when you compare it to the US system (or lack thereof) say. That 23 billion figure is a lot of money though. I think if it was going to be done, it would have to be only for new units enrolled (i.e. any existing student debt is not written off).

What is going on in the UK though is terrible I. Fees are tripling there and will cost between 9.5K and 15K starting from next year (couple of days time :p ). Now that I think of it, I wonder if they are also tripling the international students fees there (I assume they have these, although are only assuming)?
 

red-butterfly

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
349
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Idealistically it would be a great idea to make uni for free but it's just not practical
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top