Update me on VSU (1 Viewer)

[walrusbear]

how are people who are born into the means to pay for their services 'contributing their part' to society?
or does your principal only apply to the poor?

 

[Calculon]

how are people who are born into the means to pay for their services 'contributing their part' to society?
or does your principal only apply to the poor?

Their parents have done their part, and chosen to writeoff part of their contribution to provide a better life for their children. Yes there is an element of unfairness to it, no doubt, but I'd consider it more unfair if those who were out earning an income had their money taken by the uni and redistributed among those who choose not to.

 

[walrusbear]

Their parents have done their part, and chosen to writeoff part of their contribution to provide a better life for their children. Yes there is an element of unfairness to it, no doubt, but I'd consider it more unfair if those who were out earning an income had their money taken by the uni and redistributed among those who choose not to.

at least under the present system there is no discrimination in who has to pay.
there is a universal support system for those who need it. it's more fair to have collective support than allow many to be severely disadvantaged by a system that favours user pay.

under your definition it is more fair to disadvantage those who have no money, than to disadvantage those who do. it's more important that individuals have complete control over their finances than providing a union that benefits the overall education value of universities as well as providing access for all students?

 

[Calculon]

How does the Union disadvantage those with no money? The fact that they have no money disadvatages those who are poor, not the Union. I would also think it would be clear that I believe redistribution of wealth is a horrid concept, purely because it is using coercion to try and correct an inequality which quite often exists because one group is willing to work harder than another. In the case of a poor student, they are disadvataged by their unwillingness to take a year off and work, and conversely a rich student is advataged by their own or their parents willingness to work.

 

[walrusbear]

How does the Union disadvantage those with no money? The fact that they have no money disadvatages those who are poor, not the Union. I would also think it would be clear that I believe redistribution of wealth is a horrid concept, purely because it is using coercion to try and correct an inequality which quite often exists because one group is willing to work harder than another. In the case of a poor student, they are disadvataged by their unwillingness to take a year off and work, and conversely a rich student is advataged by their own or their parents willingness to work.

that's a fallacy
poverty doesn't exist because the lower classes 'don't work hard enough'

i never really said that that the union disadvantaged those without money... I was putting forward the idea that a universal system was fairer because it supports all.

 

[erawamai]

I would also think it would be clear that I believe redistribution of wealth is a horrid concept, purely because it is using coercion to try and correct an inequality which quite often exists because one group is willing to work harder than another.

Someone has been to ideologue school.

I can't wait till you get into power and abolish income tax, all welfare and impose a 20% flat tax. It's like listening to a communist except at the other extreme.

In the case of a poor student, they are disadvataged by their unwillingness to take a year off and work, and conversely a rich student is advataged by their own or their parents willingness to work.

That simply shows that individual initiative that powers the perfect market is a fallacy ...since wealth and power are inherited and are not simply a result of individual traits and work ethic.

 

[Calculon]

that's a fallacy
poverty doesn't exist because the lower classes 'don't work hard enough'

i never really said that that the union disadvantaged those without money... I was putting forward the idea that a universal system was fairer because it supports all.

All students are unskilled, they are all in more or less the same situation so far as earning capacity goes.

And you're right, there is more than that to it, there's also talent and qualifications, but in the end the person who contributes more to society can draw back the greatest benefit.

A universal system is not fairer, because, for example, one unskilled student with poor parents may decide to work 30 hours a week, while another in the same situation decides not to work at all. Are you meaning to tell me that we should expect the first to support the second, under a fair system?

That simply shows that individual initiative that powers the perfect market is a fallacy ...since wealth and power are inherited and are not simply a result of individual traits and work ethic.

Yes but in Australia there are qualifications which are accessible to anyone who has the ability, and as such it should be a realtively fair playing field in spite of inherited differences.

 

[erawamai]

Yes but in Australia there are qualifications which are accessible to anyone who has the ability, and as such it should be a realtively fair playing field in spite of inherited differences.

...because the socialists got to education first and argued that market principles should not determine who should get an education. The only reason there are public schools and catholic schools because old lefties in the ALP (ALP pre war days) felt it would be a good idea for people to have access to education...to protect education from the inequalities of the market.

I though it would be reasonably clear that procedural fairness (the core of the market) for public goods such as health and education often just does not work. Mainly because people will miss out and will not have access to education.

 

[walrusbear]

A universal system is not fairer, because, for example, one unskilled student with poor parents may decide to work 30 hours a week, while another in the same situation decides not to work at all. Are you meaning to tell me that we should expect the first to support the second, under a fair system?

i think it is an exception in a much fairer system to what you described earlier.
it's closer to a meritocracy than user pay principal

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The only reason there are public schools and catholic schools because old lefties in the ALP (ALP pre war days) felt it would be a good idea for people to have access to education...to protect education from the inequalities of the market.

I believe there was a situation where a government stopped funding catholic schools (or reduced funding significantly) so alot of them shut down, causing more pressure on the government schools, so the government folded and funded the catholic schools again.

Confirm / Deny?

 

[Calculon]

...because the socialists got to education first and argued that market principles should not determine who should get an education. The only reason there are public schools and catholic schools because old lefties in the ALP (ALP pre war days) felt it would be a good idea for people to have access to education...to protect education from the inequalities of the market.

I though it would be reasonably clear that procedural fairness (the core of the market) for public goods such as health and education often just does not work. Mainly because people will miss out and will not have access to education.

I agree, there should be public hospitals and primary/secondary schools, but their subsidies should be exactly the same as those given to private ones. Tertiary education I support the user paying for it, but at a later time when they are earning an income.

 

[townie]

No Vsu For 2006

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/uni-fees-plan-held-for-a-year/2005/10/30/1130607152232.html

 

[walrusbear]

looks like you pro-VSU chaps have to contribute to the community for yet another year!

no joy for you

 

[Liberal Scum]

My SRC fees are going to the building fund.

 

[SashatheMan]

omg . i wish they would hurry up and get rid of this money stealing system.
aslong as it happens ill be happy.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

looks like you pro-VSU chaps have to contribute to the community for yet another year!

no joy for you

LOL WE HAVE CONTROL OF THE SENATE
lollooloololol

you lose.

 

[SashatheMan]

LOL WE HAVE CONTROL OF THE SENATE
lollooloololol

you lose.

but the fees still go on for a yuear. thats another 600 doen the drain

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea, but at least its gone and will never come back.
Cry babies cry.

 

[SashatheMan]

if they keep delayign it, ill be out of uni by then. but atleeast my children and their childrens children wont have to suffer like i did.

 

[walrusbear]

LOL WE HAVE CONTROL OF THE SENATE
lollooloololol

you lose.

goddamn he's right

still...

score one for the bad guys!