Youth Allowance Eligibility (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

you're not very good at maths are you?

you were challenged to live on 350 a FORTNIGHT, you said this was doable.

$120 a week was the going price (for VERY CHEAP accommodation, and im talking some distance from the uni). so:

350-
240
----
110

a fortnight to spend on food, bills, travel and of course, entertainment.

have fun on that bro.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. You you cant see the practical realities of your own argument, let alone have experienced them first hand.

Los: if you had to live on 350 a week i'm very sorry you had to experience that.

I lived the 'practical realities' of my argument for my first two years at uni. The first year without YA and without support from my parents I lived on around $250 p/w

Rent: 120
Food: 50
Utilities: 50
Incidentals/Entertainment: 40

And being honest there was room to make cuts even in that. I could have gone without ADSL and a car. And the incidentals/entertainment could have been cut a bit.

I worked a couple of shifts a week at a supermarket and did some cash in hand tutoring together that pretty much covered my costs. I had worked full-time over the summer break before uni so I had money saved up to cover big purchases and give me a buffer if I didn't work for a week here or there.

When I became eligible for YA I crunched the numbers and was able to reduce my working hours slightly while still having an increase in my income. On YA+work I was on easy street.

As for your complaint that YA is insufficient, I don't really see a problem. Though of course I don't see any reason that YA should be sufficient, I see no reason why you shouldn't need to work. Cry me a river that YA might not pay enough to support entertainment....

 

[moll.]

How about the idea of Youth Allowance being added to your HECS debt?
Adding 100% of the amount given probably wouldn't work because it would end up outweighing the uni fees in terms of volume when it came time for repayment, which would in effect defeat the purpose of trying to help the disadvantaged students. But if, say, half of the YA given was added to your HECS debt, then it would result in less of a loss for the government, a possible relaxation of the eligibility criteria and make teriary education more accessable.

 

[loquasagacious]

How about the idea of Youth Allowance being added to your HECS debt?
Adding 100% of the amount given probably wouldn't work because it would end up outweighing the uni fees in terms of volume when it came time for repayment, which would in effect defeat the purpose of trying to help the disadvantaged students. But if, say, half of the YA given was added to your HECS debt, then it would result in less of a loss for the government, a possible relaxation of the eligibility criteria and make teriary education more accessable.

Getting towards what I suggested in my first reply

PS: I think it's a pretty good idea because as you say it transforms YA from a loss to a loan. Though as with my idea you have to consider why the market isn't offering it already.... note that afaik some banks do offer living expenses loans which become payable on graduation but they are only available in final year (presumably because there is a high risk making loans to first-years who may drop out)...

 

[aussie-boy]

I don't follow your premise. If those around me are wealthy, but choose to ignore any moral obligation to support me, why do I deserve to suffer relative to someone who is born into an impoverished home?

You seem to be suggesting it is just for a student born into a rich family, to suffer relatively because his parents choose not to invest in his education.

How is this situation his fault and why does he deserve relatively harsh treatment for the actions of his parents?

Morally, the student is entirely independent of their parents. If they possessed the wealth themselves directly, and then chose to waste it, not spending it on their education, and then expected a government handout, that would be unjust. However, they can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents, and they deserve to be supported by tax payers in this activity as much as any other student, however much that may be.

Exactly right - thanks for clarifying my POV so well

As for taxation, my youth allowance (and my age pension) should come out of the tax that I will pay during my working life.
This is just a continuation of the notion that I am a distinct financial entity.

This is the basic premise; any necessary redistribution of wealth/progressive taxation should be layered on top - I don't really have a firm position on that issue (except that my parents' wealth is not mine)

The problem with all this occurs when you have rich parents who throw money at their kids. But its indisputable that such cases would be extremely rare (top 1% of income earners?) and that these kind of parents would have payed incredible amounts of tax anyway

 

[aussie-boy]

So what you're saying is that your single-parent which a mortgage, school fees, etc to pay should have to pay more tax. And more obscene still you are saying that the cleaner who works for minimum wage should subsidise the lifestyle of you and your family. That is nothing short of disgusting regressive income transfer.

Need I remind you that something like 10-20% of Australians are net transfer payment recipients?
It's predominantly high income earners subsidising the lifestyles of those on welfare.

 

[loquasagacious]

As for taxation, my youth allowance (and my age pension) should come out of the tax that I will pay during my working life.
This is just a continuation of the notion that I am a distinct financial entity.

Government doesn't work with you as a distinct financial entity though so all of this income transfer creates distortions. More importantly though why is it the government's responsibility to smooth your income (increase it as a student/pensioner and reduce it as a working adult). This income smoothing is one of the key functions of the savings/loans market. You should loan money to survive as a student, repay it as a working adult and save money for your retirement.

Why should the government be involving it's clumsy hands in managing your finances?

The problem with all this occurs when you have rich parents who throw money at their kids. But its indisputable that such cases would be extremely rare (top 1% of income earners?) and that these kind of parents would have payed incredible amounts of tax anyway

I'd like to see some stats before declaring this to be 'indisputably extremely rare'... because my gut says it is in fact relatively common (though I was fortunately or unfortunately not the recipient of this largese).

Need I remind you that something like 10-20% of Australians are net transfer payment recipients?
It's predominantly high income earners subsidising the lifestyles of those on welfare.

What point though in taxing someone with one hand and then proving them welfare with the other? All that doing so does is waste money (administrative costs) and force people to spend their money in a way which is deemed more effective by a distant ivory-tower bureaucrat....

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

you're not very good at maths are you?

you were challenged to live on 350 a FORTNIGHT, you said this was doable.

$120 a week was the going price (for VERY CHEAP accommodation, and im talking some distance from the uni). so:

350-
240
----
110

a fortnight to spend on food, bills, travel and of course, entertainment.

have fun on that bro.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. You you cant see the practical realities of your own argument, let alone have experienced them first hand.

Los: if you had to live on 350 a week i'm very sorry you had to experience that.

As I said, 110 is for your own room, so you could get it down lower. But even on $65 a week you could eat healthy foods and pay public transport fares.

Entertainment is a luxury, not a right to be guaranteed by the government.

But this 350 figure is a joke anyway. If you WORK TO SUPPORT YOURSELF you can have a whole lot more than this to live on.

Even working part time (20 hours per week) at minimum wage you would make $550 a fortnight.

Even if you only work during the holidays you can save up quite a bit to supplement your income while you study.

 

[David Spade]

Are you shitting me?

~$250 a week rent + bills means you are not going anywhere fast apart to either a hospital for malnutrition/ being bashed for being in a shit neighbourhood, or going back to living with the parents.

lol man maybe dont pay $250 a week rent u dum snofox

 

[David Spade]

Because the government has legislated against me acquiring any of the easy means to do so. The means that still remain involve a great deal of suffering or risk of failure.

m8 i can get you a unregistered rifle if u want

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Because the government has legislated against me acquiring any of the easy means to do so. The means that still remain involve a great deal of suffering or risk of failure.

Just take a few packets of paracetamol and wash it down with a bottle of vodka, you'll drift into a pleasant sleep, FOREVER.

Or slit your wrists and then lie in a bathtub of warm water, as the blood seaps out you'll peacefully drift off into the abyss.

Or just jump of a nice high cliff, totally painless.

You could easily find more methods with a quick google search.

The government restricting a few dramatic methods like guns (out of thousands of possible methods) has done nothing to lower suicide rates.

Check it out.

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australia and the USA have almost exactly the same rate, while countries with strict gun control like New Zealand, France and Japan actually have much higher rates than the USA.

 

[moll.]

Getting towards what I suggested in my first reply

PS: I think it's a pretty good idea because as you say it transforms YA from a loss to a loan. Though as with my idea you have to consider why the market isn't offering it already.... note that afaik some banks do offer living expenses loans which become payable on graduation but they are only available in final year (presumably because there is a high risk making loans to first-years who may drop out)...

Yeah, to further my idea, you could have various scalings of how much of the YA to repay. For example, someone considered extremely disadvantaged would get none of the YA added to their HECS. Someone considered reasonably disadvantaged could get 50% of it added. You could even open YA up to all students, even the ones without any perceivable disadvantage, and add either 100% or 110% or the YA to their HECS debt. However, short-term blowouts in government expenditure may make this latter point impractical unless there is a stable fiscal position for the medium-term upon which to draw.
The problem I still have with the private sector taking over from the government in providing living expense and tuition loans to students is the exhorbitant interest rates charged to cover risk. This often makes such loans completely impractical for someone with an unkown future income and no certaintly of employment. That the government can in effect provide low-interest loans for only a slight loss is what I believe makes the Australian system quite superior.
The only way I can see the private-loans idea working is if the government offered subsidies to the banks to keep their rates lows, which would defeat the purpose of privatisation anyway.

 

[Riet]

I support it in that I think people who don't live near a university should able to affordably attend one should they have the marks to get in.

 

[Riet]

Just take a few packets of paracetamol and wash it down with a bottle of vodka, you'll drift into a pleasant sleep, FOREVER.

Or slit your wrists and then lie in a bathtub of warm water, as the blood seaps out you'll peacefully drift off into the abyss.

Or just jump of a nice high cliff, totally painless.

You could easily find more methods with a quick google search.

The government restricting a few dramatic methods like guns (out of thousands of possible methods) has done nothing to lower suicide rates.

Check it out.

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australia and the USA have almost exactly the same rate, while countries with strict gun control like New Zealand, France and Japan actually have much higher rates than the USA.

errr no you will die an extremely painful death from liver failure over a number of days.

New Zealand doesnt have strict gun control. France has fairly high numbers of guns in the rural areas. So much ignorance in such a short post.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

errr no you will die an extremely painful death from liver failure over a number of days.

Whatever bro, I'm no expert on suicide methods. The point is there are lots of methods you could use that the government doesn't effectively control.

New Zealand doesnt have strict gun control. France has fairly high numbers of guns in the rural areas. So much ignorance in such a short post.

All the countries mentioned have much tighter gun control than the USA, and much lower rates of gun ownership. You are the ignorant one:

List of countries by gun ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even France only has 1/3 the amount of guns per capita as the USA. That's a pretty fucking significant difference!

Japan is of course the best example, because it has the highest suicide rate in the developed world and almost the lowest rate of gun ownership and the strictest gun control.

Also, who are you to be the judge of what is strict and what isn't? It's pretty subjective.

Personally, I'd consider any regime that restricts adults having guns in their own homes to protect themselves pretty fucking strict.

 

[aussie-boy]

Government doesn't work with you as a distinct financial entity though so all of this income transfer creates distortions. More importantly though why is it the government's responsibility to smooth your income (increase it as a student/pensioner and reduce it as a working adult). This income smoothing is one of the key functions of the savings/loans market. You should loan money to survive as a student, repay it as a working adult and save money for your retirement.

Why should the government be involving it's clumsy hands in managing your finances?

...

What point though in taxing someone with one hand and then proving them welfare with the other? All that doing so does is waste money (administrative costs) and force people to spend their money in a way which is deemed more effective by a distant ivory-tower bureaucrat....

So we agree that 'income smoothing' is a good thing.

However I certainly do not agree that it can be left to the private financial sector to facilitate.

Look at old age... there are alarmingly few self funded retirees at the moment, with a huge amount of pensioners. Why? Because the savings market failed to attract sufficient savings so as to wane dependence on the old age pension. The only fix for this has been Government intervention - with compulsory 9% super and the co-contribution scheme for low income earners.

And this is even with high interest rates being offered.

Now, for youth, the loan market is even more unattractive because you have to pay to utilise it. I know that I would never consider taking out a loan to pay for basic stuff - I'd rather starve than pay 7% a year for the next decade.

So I guess a HECS style loan could be an excellent option, and achieve income smoothing without too much Gov intervention.

However, where I see it differently, is that I believe that Australia's tax rate is sufficiently high that it is reasonable to expect some of our tax to be rebated to us - especially for students who are going to end up paying 45c in the dollar.

Unless the tax rate is lowered for those with YA, inflation interest rate, loans - I would not support such a system.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You are all missing the point.

The more you give people money to make something "affordable" the more it drives the price up because they have more purchasing power to bid with, so it actually makes it less affordable.

That's why college tuition compared to average incomes is so much higher now than it was before all these government programs.

This stuff is economics 101.

But no, all you idiots think we need more government programs to solve a problem created by government programs.

 

[loquasagacious]

So we agree that 'income smoothing' is a good thing.

However I certainly do not agree that it can be left to the private financial sector to facilitate.

Look at old age... there are alarmingly few self funded retirees at the moment, with a huge amount of pensioners. Why? Because the savings market failed to attract sufficient savings so as to wane dependence on the old age pension. The only fix for this has been Government intervention - with compulsory 9% super and the co-contribution scheme for low income earners.

And this is even with high interest rates being offered.

Now, for youth, the loan market is even more unattractive because you have to pay to utilise it. I know that I would never consider taking out a loan to pay for basic stuff - I'd rather starve than pay 7% a year for the next decade.

So I guess a HECS style loan could be an excellent option, and achieve income smoothing without too much Gov intervention.

However, where I see it differently, is that I believe that Australia's tax rate is sufficiently high that it is reasonable to expect some of our tax to be rebated to us - especially for students who are going to end up paying 45c in the dollar.

Unless the tax rate is lowered for those with YA, inflation interest rate, loans - I would not support such a system.

There are few self-funded retirees because the current generation of retirees were in the workforce before superannuation and during a time where there was a deal of sorts that they would pay high taxes and recieve pensions. Even the baby-boomers now entering retirement have spent less than 50% of their working lives under superannuation, I would expect Gen X onwards to be basically all self-funded retirees. This is how transistions like this work.

At present the loan market is unattractive in part because few people use it. If more students were in the loan market then the risk would be diluted and rates could be lower. Also worth noting that if people can justify mortgages and personal loans I don't see how they can't justify education loans. And I think that you would take a loan rather than starve.

I agree that where people are forced to pay taxes that they should expect to get something back (welfare). Where I think you misunderstand me is that I believe in cutting both welfare and taxes. To cut welfare but not tax would be punitive at best, to cut tax but not welfare would be unsustainable. Imo tax and welfare should be cut across the board to remove pointless churn and allow people to make their own decisions.

 

[loquasagacious]

You are all missing the point.

The more you give people money to make something "affordable" the more it drives the price up because they have more purchasing power to bid with, so it actually makes it less affordable.

That's why college tuition compared to average incomes is so much higher now than it was before all these government programs.

This stuff is economics 101.

But no, all you idiots think we need more government programs to solve a problem created by government programs.

It's rare for me to argue in favour of new government programs but in this case I think that the program in place is so large and so deeply integrated into our education system that a phased withdrawal (involving new more market driven programs) is required. What alternative would you propose?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It's rare for me to argue in favour of new government programs but in this case I think that the program in place is so large and so deeply integrated into our education system that a phased withdrawal (involving new more market driven programs) is required. What alternative would you propose?

We had this discussion way back on page one, I agreed a phase out would be best:

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?

You still haven't explained why creating a whole new system is better than phasing out the existing system.

Just because you call it "market driven" doesn't mean its any better than the current system. You sound like a fucking politician.

 

[aussie-boy]

I agree that where people are forced to pay taxes that they should expect to get something back (welfare). Where I think you misunderstand me is that I believe in cutting both welfare and taxes. To cut welfare but not tax would be punitive at best, to cut tax but not welfare would be unsustainable. Imo tax and welfare should be cut across the board to remove pointless churn and allow people to make their own decisions.

Well then we must have a guarantee of tax cuts for the highest income bracket (which we will hopefully be in post-uni) as well as near interest-free loans if we are to accept Ms Gillard's proposed changes.