HECS/HELP debts incurred before 2014 to suffer interest after 2020 - fair?

[Mayestro]

wow, university graduates earn about 75% more than no tertiary education according to https://go8.edu.au/sites/default/fi...graduate_skills_and_national_productivity.pdf. This strengthens the argument that students should repay their education.

Further, currently the subsidies for university are covered 60% by the government. The changes proposed amount to reducing these subsidies to 50%. That still means the poorer non-tertiary educated are still forking out for other peoples privileged education.

Lastly, the shift away from CPI to government bonds provides a cap on the subsidies by ensuring the full cost of borrowings are passed on to the consumer.

You may want to read ABC's fact checker that indicate Pyne's figure of 75% is overblown.

 

[Power Raid]

You may want to read ABC's fact checker that indicate Pyne's figure of 75% is overblown.

I did and decided to go to the source than some article with wishie washie opinions and potentials

 

[Dry Rot]

This is ridiculous. What were the Libs thinking?

Uni course fees expected to double, analysis shows
Date June 1, 2014
Alexandra Smith, Jonathan Swan

Students will be hit with double fees for some arts degrees and at least 55 per cent rises for engineering and science degrees at the University of Sydney under the federal government's controversial overhaul of higher education.

An analysis of the cost implications to the university from the government's planned 20 per cent reduction in funding for university places shows fees for communications, social science, environmental and engineering degrees will soar.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educ...lysis-shows-20140531-39b0b.html#ixzz33MaZe8mj

 

[Gough]

Less upward social mobility I would imagine. Keep the proles in their place, pretty standard Liberal Party modus operandi.

 

[noddy]

As Pyne has stated gotta protect the Private Schools against the lower society from creeping up too close.

Not a violent person at all but Pyne is one person that i would take great delight in rearranging his nose.

 

[Power Raid]

Good to see you parroting Pyne's talking points on Insiders this morning PR. The arrogant little s**t showed us exactly why this government deserves to be a one term government.

you're right, pyne is an arrogant twat but that doesn't change the merits of the policy.

try and look past the politics if you can

 

[Patrick Bullet]

no, tax rates are the same for tertiary and non-tertiary educated. so no it doesn't.

further the students already pay it back, so the principle isn't different.

The only change is deregulating the fees system so our universities can be properly funded and the interest rate is being married to borrowing costs rather than inflation.

So I am not sure where your comment is relevant.

I can't work out if you are deliberately being obtuse; the argument really is really not that complicated and has nothing to do with tax rates. If you know how taxation works, then you would know that the more income a person earns, in raw dollar terms, the more tax they pay.

Thus, according to the GO8 stats that you cited, university graduates earn 75% more than non graduates. If they are earning more than non-graduates, then they must be, on a per-person basis, paying more taxes than non-graduates. If they pay more taxes than non-graduates over their lifetime, which must be true if they are earning more than non-graduates, (which according to the Go8 report is true) then the government is very likely getting its money back through these extra taxes, and then some. The end result is that a government's investment in a person's education very likely returns a profit.

You can ask questions about the ROI on specific degrees (e.g. are Arts degrees worth funding), but this policy is proposed to affect the whole system of education, so questions like these, while perhaps interesting and should perhaps be asked, aren't really relevant to the current government policy discussion.

 

[Gough]

As Pyne has stated gotta protect the Private Schools against the lower society from creeping up too close.

Not a violent person at all but Pyne is one person that i would take great delight in rearranging his nose.

Cibo at Burnside Village on a Saturday morning during a non sitting week Noddy.

 

[Power Raid]

I can't work out if you are deliberately being obtuse; the argument really is really not that complicated and has nothing to do with tax rates. If you know how taxation works, then you would know that the more income a person earns, in raw dollar terms, the more tax they pay.

Thus, according to the GO8 stats that you cited, university graduates earn 75% more than non graduates. If they are earning more than non-graduates, then they must be, on a per-person basis, paying more taxes than non-graduates. If they pay more taxes than non-graduates over their lifetime, which must be true if they are earning more than non-graduates, (which according to the Go8 report is true) then the government is very likely getting its money back through these extra taxes, and then some. The end result is that a government's investment in a person's education very likely returns a profit.

You can ask questions about the ROI on specific degrees (e.g. are Arts degrees worth funding), but this policy is proposed to affect the whole system of education, so questions like these, while perhaps interesting and should perhaps be asked, aren't really relevant to the current government policy discussion.

yes on average they do

but some non-tertiary educated earn more and thus pay the same tax rate

so no, your idea is not fair and your argument doesn't hold up

 

[Patrick Bullet]

So even though the government gets a return on its investment, on average, you think it's not a good idea?

 

[Power Raid]

So even though the government gets a return on its investment, on average, you think it's not a good idea?

are you kidding me? so we don't get a return on investment by non-tertiary educated?


The debate is simply how much universities can charge and whether CPI or government bond rate is more appropriate.

Try and keep up.

The first argument is a little more complicated as it is as much about whether additional funding that universities require should be paid for by students, the government or even by efficiencies created by the universities.



one more time....lol....marginal tax rates....lol....tax paid by tertiary educated has more value than non-tertiary educated who earn the same amount and pay the same level of tax.....lol

 

[Theseventhhamster]

so why should they pay for YOUR education again?

Why should Joe Random pay for some old kent's pension or someone else's surgery or a road he doesn't use? What a ******* stupid argument.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Watching the replay of Insiders. I love Pyne's use of the word "market". The brilliant fact about using the word "market", for right leaning knobs, is that it absolves interested people from responsibility. The market will do this, the market will do that...

 

[imadodgyumpire]

"Competition weaves it's magic"

What a ********!

 

[Patrick Bullet]

are you kidding me? so we don't get a return on investment by non-tertiary educated?

I don't know what you are talking about. The 'investment' in this case is the government's contribution to the student's course fees, which is highly topical at the moment since the government is proposing to reduce it. There is no similar investment in non-tertiary educated people because there are no course fees to contribute to because these people don't do any tertiary courses.

The debate is simply how much universities can charge and whether CPI or government bond rate is more appropriate.

The amount universities will charge will be determined in part by the size of the contribution of the government so my point is relevant.

Try and keep up.

There is no need to be patronising - your post brings up a lot of stuff that I never even mentioned and has nothing to do with my argument. I suspect that you and I are might not be talking about the same thing.

The first argument is a little more complicated as it is as much about whether additional funding that universities require should be paid for by students, the government or even by efficiencies created by the universities.

Precisely - I am saying that when the government makes a contribution, it gets a return on that investment. This is because the contribution encourages more people to undertake an tertiary education, which, as you discovered, increases their salaries. That then increases the amount of tax they pay, relative to what they would have paid had they not undertaken tertiary education.

marginal tax rates....lol....

say what??

tax paid by tertiary educated has more value than non-tertiary educated who earn the same amount and pay the same level of tax.....lol

When I did I say that? You just made that up. All I said was that the amount of tax paid by people who earn less is less than the amount of tax paid by people who earn more. It's a simple mathematical fact which has nothing to do with whether someone is tertiary educated or not. I don't know why you keep talking about non-tertiary educated people who pay lots of tax - they have nothing to do with the argument I am making and I have not once discussed them.

All I am saying is that when the government subsides a person's tertiary education, that money doesn't simply disappear forever - it comes back when that person starts to earn a living, that is higher than it otherwise would have been had they not done a degree (as per the data you found from the Go8).

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Don't waste your time with Power Raid. He's a shill.

Refuses to answer why the first 13 years of education should be free but the next three or four years should attract significant fees.

 

[Power Raid]

"Competition weaves it's magic"

What a ********!

Agree

University fees will go up. That is the point of deregulating.

Universities need additional funding to continue providing a world class service and the government is putting pressure on the universities to find efficiency savings and justify to the client why fees should increase.

I dare say some universities will get bigger whilst others may fail.


I know time has passed since 2000 but companies like Andersen and EY refused to hire students in WA unless they graduated from UWA or Curtin. So what is the value of wasting your time and $s earning a degree at murdoch, edith cowan or notredam? These universities will have to lift their standards or close under the new regime.

 

[Power Raid]

Why should Joe Random pay for some old kent's pension or someone else's surgery or a road he doesn't use? What a ******* stupid argument.

because we all use medical services (we also need to look after people in their time of need) and we have direct taxes like the fuel tax that cover roads.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

So Pyne told a blatant lie on Insiders.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ar-as-mud-after-education-ministers-responses

Looks like everybody with a HELP debt gets hit by the impost of interest rates as of 2016, while those who enrolled before the budget will maintain current fee rates throughout their degree.

And for those of us thinking of skipping to the UK to avoid the debts...

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...xist-after-death/story-e6frfku9-1226935343266

How hard would it be for a non-German speaker to land a job in Germany do you reckon?

 

[sabre_ac]

I know time has passed since 2000 but companies like Andersen and EY refused to hire students in WA unless they graduated from UWA or Curtin. So what is the value of wasting your time and $s earning a degree at murdoch, edith cowan or notredam? These universities will have to lift their standards or close under the new regime.

That certainly wasn't the case in the mid 2000's, high achievers at Murdoch, Edith Cowan and Notre Dam were still hired by the big accounting firms. I think recruitment has become quite sophisticated and moved past looking purely at the University you attend. Someone from the "lesser three" has to work harder to get the placement, however its certainly not a lost cause.

 

[sabre_ac]

The issue isn't the interest rate its the size of the debt, I have no problems with charging a government bond rate and chasing those who have moved overseas. Especially if rule around repayment only after fulltime work is secured are maintained.

How does the government bond rate compare to commercial interest rates?

I do think that if Universities are going to be given the right to charge what they want and act like private enterprises they should be held accountable to the product they put out. Too many graduates not finding work or forced to go back and study something else should result in funding cuts and reduction in positions.

That said, one of the advantages of being an Australian University graduate is we actually get to enjoy our 20's. The reason the American's dont travel or seem to have such a poor understanding of the rest of the world is they graduate with such crippling debt they have no other option but to sit and pay it back.

Is there any claim or expectation our education system will one day end up like that in the states? Even after the budget how do we compare?

 

[Juddism]

So Pyne told a blatant lie on Insiders.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ar-as-mud-after-education-ministers-responses

Looks like everybody with a HELP debt gets hit by the impost of interest rates as of 2016, while those who enrolled before the budget will maintain current fee rates throughout their degree.

And for those of us thinking of skipping to the UK to avoid the debts...

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...xist-after-death/story-e6frfku9-1226935343266

How hard would it be for a non-German speaker to land a job in Germany do you reckon?

thanks for confirming that because I wasn't quite sure I heard correctly yesterday whilst watching Insiders. I love his talk about fees going down, I suspect if Melbourne University (Pyne's example) raises their fees, then RMIT, Monash et al would be stupid not to follow. Why on earth would they lower the price?

 

[Gough]

thanks for confirming that because I wasn't quite sure I heard correctly yesterday whilst watching Insiders. I love his talk about fees going down, I suspect if Melbourne University (Pyne's example) raises their fees, then RMIT, Monash et al would be stupid not to follow. Why on earth would they lower the price?

As long as the invisible hand acts as it never has before, Pyne is perfectly correct.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

How does the government bond rate compare to commercial interest rates?

Why does it matter? Why should students here be paying interest on their government student loans in the first place?

It is, quite simply, a way to allow financiers to make money off of our young people seeking an education.

This is fundamentally sick, but we live in such a sick world that people think that this is normal or okay.

It isn't.

 

[Power Raid]

That certainly wasn't the case in the mid 2000's, high achievers at Murdoch, Edith Cowan and Notre Dam were still hired by the big accounting firms. I think recruitment has become quite sophisticated and moved past looking purely at the University you attend. Someone from the "lesser three" has to work harder to get the placement, however its certainly not a lost cause.

2002 was the first year Andersen accepted anyone from Notre Dam and that was because of one of the partners joined notre dam as he was banned from "corporate" work after the Bond litigation.

No one was accepted from Murdoch or Edith Cowan.