Elite schools spend $20 million a year on upgrades

Date
    March 17, 2013


Sydney's elite private schools are spending up to $20 million a year on capital works, data on the My School website shows.     :-?

Pymble Ladies' College plans to demolish its 50-metre outdoor pool and replace it with a $20 million aquatic and fitness centre as part of the school's $39 million master plan. They will also redevelop sporting fields and build a 230-space underground car park, a dining hall, a function centre to seat 600 and a health care centre.

A new feature on the My School website lists schools' total capital expenditure from 2009 to 2011.
Pymble Ladies' College development proposal. image shows - Proposed Aquatic and fitness centree. image supplied



Knox Grammar School topped the list of school spending in Sydney, with more than $56 million over the three years. Sydney Church of England Grammar School (Shore) is next, with almost $45 million, followed by Newington College and Cranbrook School with almost $43 million and $42 million respectively.
Advertisement

Pymble Ladies' College, which has more than 2100 girls from kindergarten to year 12, spent almost $29 million between 2009 and 2011, which is about $13,500 a student.

The federal government would not provide Fairfax Media with the average capital expenditure of government schools. But, by comparison, between 2009 and 2011 the capital expenditure at the nearest public high schools was $1130 a student at Turramurra High School and $3854 a student at Killara High School.

A spokesman from the NSW Department of Education and Communities said $765 million would be spent this financial year on capital works and maintenance in the 2218 public schools in NSW, which is about $350,000 a school.

''It is important to note that, while all NSW public schools receive annual planned maintenance funding, not all schools receive funding for capital works every financial year,'' he said.     :(

At independent schools, on average, about 80 per cent of funds for capital developments, such as school buildings, are contributed by parents and the school community.

At Turramurra High, 76 per cent of capital expenditure came from governments, whereas at Pymble Ladies' College just 13 per cent was from government contributions.

Pymble Ladies' College principal Vicki Waters said the existing pool required ''extensive maintenance due to its age''. The upgrade would be funded through the school's contribution and fund-raising initiatives and would not affect fees. Local schools would be allowed to use the pool for swimming carnivals, as would learn-to-swim lessons. ''But it won't be a public leisure centre.''

The school, which charges year 12 students fees of $26,550 a year, received more than $4 million federal government funding in 2011 and almost $3 million from the state.

Greens NSW MP John Kaye said government funding to schools like Pymble Ladies' College was ''wasteful and divisive''. ''It is a stark illustration of the damage done by the $426 million provided by the O'Farrell and Gillard governments to the state's 110 wealthiest private schools in operational subsidies. ''Not only could this money provide for two additional teachers at every public school … but it is also driving a massive, wasteful and divisive capital expansion program at the state's elite private schools.''     :(

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/elite-schools-spend-20-million-a-year-on-upgrades-20130316-2g7ez.html#ixzz2NlFdOEF8

Vote 1 - Australian Greens.     :)    

wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Vote 1 - Australian Greens.     :)

great savings for the taxpayer  ;)

Greens NSW MP John Kaye said government funding to schools like Pymble Ladies' College was ''wasteful and divisive''. ''It is a stark illustration of the damage done by the $426 million provided by the O'Farrell and Gillard governments to the state's 110 wealthiest private schools in operational subsidies. ''Not only could this money provide for two additional teachers at every public school … but it is also driving a massive, wasteful and divisive capital expansion program at the state's elite private schools.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]   

Nasty streak of class envy imcrook

Difference in school opportunity 'alarming'     :(

Date
    March 15, 2013

Daniel Hurst


The difference in educational opportunities between the haves and have-nots is ''alarming'', according to the businessman who reviewed school funding for the federal government.     :(

In rare public comments over education reform progress, David Gonski says he sincerely hopes something comes out of his 18-month review, handed to the government in late 2011.

The plea comes amid doubts over whether the proposed school funding reform will be achieved amid brawling between state and federal governments before the showdown at the Council of Australian Governments meeting next month.     :(

In an interview with CPA Australia to be aired on the Nine Network on Saturday, Mr Gonski said an extra $6 billion in funding each year was not a lot of money considering $1 billion was currently spent on schools each week.


He said he was waiting to see whether the proposed changes, involving base funding for each student plus loadings recognising disadvantage, would be achieved.

''It's very interesting that not many have said we've got it wrong [with the review] … I'm just hopeful that it will go further.''

Mr Gonski said he and the review panel visited 80 schools and saw vividly the difference in educational opportunities between those who were advantaged and disadvantaged.

''When I went out to have a look at so many of the schools, what upset me was not everybody got the same opportunities, and that's why we embraced very early on in my review the concept that where you're born, what's available to you, the monies available to you should not designate what education you're going to get, and I think that that was a very good mantra - it's something that we announced very early on in our review.''     ;)

His comments came as analysis of data from the My School website showed a concentration of high-performing schools in Melbourne's south-eastern suburbs. But Cowes Primary School on Phillip Island was a particularly strong performer. In numeracy at grades three and five, it scored above or substantially above the national average, according to its results from NAPLAN tests. It also outperformed statistically similar schools.

Principal Sue Becker said there were no short cuts to achieving high standards in teaching and learning.

''I always push the point that a school is only as good as the teachers in front of the class,'' she said. ''There's no trick, just bloody good teaching and hard work.''

Ms Becker said teachers were determined to lift students' performance regardless of their financial backgrounds. ''You can't use it as an excuse.''

In Melbourne's outer north, Craigieburn South Primary School was a top performer in grades three and five. Its results were substantially above average in spelling, grammar and punctuation and numeracy.

Principal Stella Garreffa said the school had been on a 10-year ''journey'' to improve its results. ''The results at this school used to be quite low. We saw that was a problem,'' she said.

The school has since introduced good-quality uniforms, hung students' best work in corridors, and focused on building relationships with the surrounding community and parents. It also employs 15 parents as classroom aids who help students with their reading and maths.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/difference-in-school-opportunity-alarming-20130315-2g5n0.html#ixzz2NlMIk8xl

Don't you like kids that go to nice schools?
Every child should receive government funding for education.

My taxes should not exclude my own children.

Hi Andrei. Did you get my PM to you?

Do you intend to reply?

Private schools save the Govt about $7 Billion per year.

The Greens have no brains.  Put them dead last on the ballot paper.

The problem with the 'haves' and 'have nots' in the educational environment is that it is really 'the payers' and the 'non payers'. If you want a higher standard of education then you pay for it. If you dont want to pay for it then you get what is free.

Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 5:23am:

Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools. SOB

Didn't you read my post?  Private schools SAVE the Govt around $7 Billion dollars annually.

Actually the figure is more like $8.3 Billion according to ISCA (Independent Schools Council of Australia).


Quote:

From ISCA Having independent schools saves Commonwealth and State governments in order of $3.9 billion a year in recurrent funding alone. That is, for the governments of Australia to educate in government schools those students currently attending non-government schools would cost an additional $8.3 billion per annum of which approximately $3.9 billion is attributed to students attending independent schools. In the absence of the non-government school sector, either total government spending on education (and most likely taxation) would have to increase or average government funding per student in government schools would need to be reduced.

Governments, even quasi socialist Labor Govts know this. 

That's why they fund private schools.  It's a no brainer... :)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

The problem with the 'haves' and 'have nots' in the educational environment is that it is really 'the payers' and the 'non payers'. If you want a higher standard of education then you pay for it. If you dont want to pay for it then you get what is free.

Exactly how I see it.

Swagman wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 5:23am: Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools. SOB Didn't you read my post?  Private schools SAVE the Govt around $7 Billion dollars annually. Actually the figure is more like $8.3 Billion according to ISCA (Independent Schools Council of Australia). Quote: From ISCA Having independent schools saves Commonwealth and State governments in order of $3.9 billion a year in recurrent funding alone. That is, for the governments of Australia to educate in government schools those students currently attending non-government schools would cost an additional $8.3 billion per annum of which approximately $3.9 billion is attributed to students attending independent schools. In the absence of the non-government school sector, either total government spending on education (and most likely taxation) would have to increase or average government funding per student in government schools would need to be reduced. Governments, even quasi socialist Labor Govts know this.  That's why they fund private schools.  It's a no brainer... :)

So what? Doesnt mean the government should be propping up businesses.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 9:07am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 7:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 5:23am: Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools. SOB Didn't you read my post?  Private schools SAVE the Govt around $7 Billion dollars annually. Actually the figure is more like $8.3 Billion according to ISCA (Independent Schools Council of Australia). Quote: From ISCA Having independent schools saves Commonwealth and State governments in order of $3.9 billion a year in recurrent funding alone. That is, for the governments of Australia to educate in government schools those students currently attending non-government schools would cost an additional $8.3 billion per annum of which approximately $3.9 billion is attributed to students attending independent schools. In the absence of the non-government school sector, either total government spending on education (and most likely taxation) would have to increase or average government funding per student in government schools would need to be reduced. Governments, even quasi socialist Labor Govts know this.  That's why they fund private schools.  It's a no brainer... :) So what? Doesnt mean the government should be propping up businesses. SOB

A business?

Private schools are a business?

Who receives the profits Miss Borg?

Are there share holders.

How much dividend is paid?

That's right, private schools are "not for profit" organisations.

NFPs are quasi government.  They provide a community service and therefore save the Govt (Tax-payers) billions of dollars annually that would otherwise come out of the budget to fund these essential services.

There are tens of thousands of such organisations providing childcare, aged care, disability care, education, training, affordable housing etc etc.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Don't you like kids that go to nice schools? Every child should receive government funding for education. My taxes should not exclude my own children.

what has that to do with $20+ million dollars used to build a new pool? Private schools are a business like any other and should not receive any funding ....

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 1:18pm: Don't you like kids that go to nice schools? Every child should receive government funding for education. My taxes should not exclude my own children. what has that to do with $20+ million dollars used to build a new pool? Private schools are a business like any other and should not receive any funding ....

OK  SO USING that rule taxation payments by the parents of students attending private schools Should be refunded if used for state schools ;)

FRED. wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:57am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 1:18pm: Don't you like kids that go to nice schools? Every child should receive government funding for education. My taxes should not exclude my own children. what has that to do with $20+ million dollars used to build a new pool? Private schools are a business like any other and should not receive any funding .... OK  SO USING that rule taxation payments by the parents of students attending private schools Should be refunded if used for state schools ;)

sure, if my taxes can be used to landscape my back garden and buy my next car, I'll accept that. ... moron

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:07am:

FRED. wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 10:03am: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:57am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 1:18pm: Don't you like kids that go to nice schools? Every child should receive government funding for education. My taxes should not exclude my own children. what has that to do with $20+ million dollars used to build a new pool? Private schools are a business like any other and should not receive any funding .... OK  SO USING that rule taxation payments by the parents of students attending private schools Should be refunded if used for state schools ;) sure, if my taxes can be used to landscape my back garden and buy my next car, I'll accept that. ... moron

Good morning  wog boy   ;)

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 9:13am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:07am: Swagman wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 7:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 5:23am: Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools. SOB Didn't you read my post?  Private schools SAVE the Govt around $7 Billion dollars annually. Actually the figure is more like $8.3 Billion according to ISCA (Independent Schools Council of Australia). Quote: From ISCA Having independent schools saves Commonwealth and State governments in order of $3.9 billion a year in recurrent funding alone. That is, for the governments of Australia to educate in government schools those students currently attending non-government schools would cost an additional $8.3 billion per annum of which approximately $3.9 billion is attributed to students attending independent schools. In the absence of the non-government school sector, either total government spending on education (and most likely taxation) would have to increase or average government funding per student in government schools would need to be reduced. Governments, even quasi socialist Labor Govts know this.  That's why they fund private schools.  It's a no brainer... :) So what? Doesnt mean the government should be propping up businesses. SOB A business? Private schools are a business? Who receives the profits Miss Borg? Are there share holders. How much dividend is paid?

Of course they are businesses since they are "private". Some may be churches and so we will never know where the money goes though.

SOB

FRED. wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:10am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 10:07am: FRED. wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 10:03am: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:57am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 1:18pm: Don't you like kids that go to nice schools? Every child should receive government funding for education. My taxes should not exclude my own children. what has that to do with $20+ million dollars used to build a new pool? Private schools are a business like any other and should not receive any funding .... OK  SO USING that rule taxation payments by the parents of students attending private schools Should be refunded if used for state schools ;) sure, if my taxes can be used to landscape my back garden and buy my next car, I'll accept that. ... moron Good morning  wog boy   ;)

morning d1ck head.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:13am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:07am: Swagman wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 7:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 5:23am: Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools. SOB Didn't you read my post?  Private schools SAVE the Govt around $7 Billion dollars annually. Actually the figure is more like $8.3 Billion according to ISCA (Independent Schools Council of Australia). Quote: From ISCA Having independent schools saves Commonwealth and State governments in order of $3.9 billion a year in recurrent funding alone. That is, for the governments of Australia to educate in government schools those students currently attending non-government schools would cost an additional $8.3 billion per annum of which approximately $3.9 billion is attributed to students attending independent schools. In the absence of the non-government school sector, either total government spending on education (and most likely taxation) would have to increase or average government funding per student in government schools would need to be reduced. Governments, even quasi socialist Labor Govts know this.  That's why they fund private schools.  It's a no brainer... :) So what? Doesnt mean the government should be propping up businesses. SOB A business? Private schools are a business? Who receives the profits Miss Borg? Are there share holders. How much dividend is paid? Of course they are businesses since they are "private". Some may be churches and so we will never know where the money goes though. SOB

Over $700B in assets, and thats just the catholic church ... I'm sure if you add up the other religions you will exceed $100 B.

The pope needs a new office complex in Rome ... his rental income figures aren't going up at the rate they were expected so they need to boost it by adding more property to the pool. 

What they spend their own money on has got effall to do with you or the Govt....

Swagman wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

What they spend their own money on has got effall to do with you or the Govt....

it has a lot to do with it if they are asking for millions in govt. handouts ....

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 10:20am: What they spend their own money on has got effall to do with you or the Govt.... it has a lot to do with it if they are asking for millions in govt. handouts ....

Gillard's school monument scam has ceased hasn't it?

Besides people on the dole get millions (billions) of dolllars in hand outs.  Does the Govt tell them to stop drinking beer and playing pool?  :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 10:20am: What they spend their own money on has got effall to do with you or the Govt.... it has a lot to do with it if they are asking for millions in govt. handouts ....

Do you question where the money goes we give Indonesia?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 5:23am:

Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools. SOB

only to you and a couple other drongos. the rest of understand that it actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. that alone should justify it and is one of the major reasons that left-wing idiots lie Gillard dont get rid of it. she cant afford it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:13am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:07am: Swagman wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 7:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 5:23am: Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools. SOB Didn't you read my post?  Private schools SAVE the Govt around $7 Billion dollars annually. Actually the figure is more like $8.3 Billion according to ISCA (Independent Schools Council of Australia). Quote: From ISCA Having independent schools saves Commonwealth and State governments in order of $3.9 billion a year in recurrent funding alone. That is, for the governments of Australia to educate in government schools those students currently attending non-government schools would cost an additional $8.3 billion per annum of which approximately $3.9 billion is attributed to students attending independent schools. In the absence of the non-government school sector, either total government spending on education (and most likely taxation) would have to increase or average government funding per student in government schools would need to be reduced. Governments, even quasi socialist Labor Govts know this.  That's why they fund private schools.  It's a no brainer... :) So what? Doesnt mean the government should be propping up businesses. SOB A business? Private schools are a business? Who receives the profits Miss Borg? Are there share holders. How much dividend is paid? Of course they are businesses since they are "private". Some may be churches and so we will never know where the money goes though. SOB

private schools are all comprehensively audited as part of the process of receiving govt funding.

try again.

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 10:28am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 10:22am: Swagman wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 10:20am: What they spend their own money on has got effall to do with you or the Govt.... it has a lot to do with it if they are asking for millions in govt. handouts .... Do you question where the money goes we give Indonesia?

the Indonesian don't come preaching to me about one thing and then do the opposite ...

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 10:11am: KJT1981 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:13am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 9:07am: Swagman wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 7:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 5:23am: Its completely ridiculous how the government (all parties) fund private schools. SOB Didn't you read my post?  Private schools SAVE the Govt around $7 Billion dollars annually. Actually the figure is more like $8.3 Billion according to ISCA (Independent Schools Council of Australia). Quote: From ISCA Having independent schools saves Commonwealth and State governments in order of $3.9 billion a year in recurrent funding alone. That is, for the governments of Australia to educate in government schools those students currently attending non-government schools would cost an additional $8.3 billion per annum of which approximately $3.9 billion is attributed to students attending independent schools. In the absence of the non-government school sector, either total government spending on education (and most likely taxation) would have to increase or average government funding per student in government schools would need to be reduced. Governments, even quasi socialist Labor Govts know this.  That's why they fund private schools.  It's a no brainer... :) So what? Doesnt mean the government should be propping up businesses. SOB A business? Private schools are a business? Who receives the profits Miss Borg? Are there share holders. How much dividend is paid? Of course they are businesses since they are "private". Some may be churches and so we will never know where the money goes though. SOB private schools are all comprehensively audited as part of the process of receiving govt funding. try again.

and $20 Million for a pool is OK? not sure what the auditors are checking, but I could get them a nice pool for a lot less than that.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year.

firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try

secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools.

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools.

Yeah I am sure thats the reason.

Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one.

Those of us who did have always been a fan of them.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. Yeah I am sure thats the reason. Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one. Those of us who did have always been a fan of them.

who says I never went ot one d1ckhead?

lets not worry about facts when you can make them up.

You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point.

The system should be very simple -

1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education.
2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil.
3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that.


That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it.

What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing?

Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education.

Make it a level playing field for Government funding.

Every school receives the same as each other.
Public or private.

Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you.

I actually went to 4 schools during the course of my education moron .... Ohh, Andrei doesn't like being called names ... poor didums. Don't act like a d1ckhead and I won't call you d1ckhead .. pretty simple really.

Does the quality of your education explain why you earn less than me despite being 10 years older?

Or is it something else?

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you.

yes  quite correct,  the truth is that currently the public schools receive MORE government funding per student than the private schools.  it is the parents of private school kids who are being ripped off

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:

Does the quality of your education explain why you earn less than me despite being 10 years older? Or is it something else? :)  :)  :)  :)  :)

hahaha .... grasping at straws now d1ckhead. .. as if you have a clue what I make!!!! unlike you, I am well aware of what information I post and what you know about me ... and I can tell you, you don't know sh1t

I have to chuckle when Lefties take ownership of taxpayer funds as though they were there's when they are clearly from the majority that pay the minority of taxes (the slavemasters).

"Hey you capitalist pigs, you earn more than me and you pay the lion's share of taxes but how dare you use a public road or a public service" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Does the quality of your education explain why you earn less than me despite being 10 years older? Or is it something else? :)  :)  :)  :)  :) hahaha .... grasping at straws now d1ckhead. .. as if you have a clue what I make!!!! unlike you, I am well aware of what information I post and what you know about me ... and I can tell you, you don't know sh1t

You received the Rudd handout.
Unless you have successfully reduced your tax income by HALF you earn less than me.

You trip yourself up Johnny. If we are honest you do earn less than me.

Ignoring your fking absurd per hour route by the way.

I should add I am still not happy with what I earn.

"The Spirit Nourishes Within" John.

---

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Does the quality of your education explain why you earn less than me despite being 10 years older? Or is it something else? :)  :)  :)  :)  :) hahaha .... grasping at straws now d1ckhead. .. as if you have a clue what I make!!!! unlike you, I am well aware of what information I post and what you know about me ... and I can tell you, you don't know sh1t

is the idiot still trying to suggest that he is of more worth to society? ;D ;D ;D  For someone who "earns so much (in his imaginary world)" he sure is dumb.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 1:25pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Does the quality of your education explain why you earn less than me despite being 10 years older? Or is it something else? :)  :)  :)  :)  :) hahaha .... grasping at straws now d1ckhead. .. as if you have a clue what I make!!!! unlike you, I am well aware of what information I post and what you know about me ... and I can tell you, you don't know sh1t You received the Rudd handout. Unless you have successfully reduced your tax income by HALF you earn less than me. You trip yourself up Johnny. If we are honest you do earn less than me. Ignoring your fking absurd per hour route by the way.

no, it's your absurd horly rate, not mine  ... 

As far as receiving the Rudd handout as you put it, I am self employed ... just like you reduced your profit to minimise tax when you sold your house, so do I .... except that being self employed and working from home means I can reduce it significantly. .... 

as an accountant you should know that what one pays in tax is not always a true indicator of what one earns .. i seem to recall Packer one years paid $30 in tax ... do you think you earned more than Packer that year? I'm starting to think you aren't such a hot shot accountant after all ....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. Yeah I am sure thats the reason. Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one. Those of us who did have always been a fan of them.

I went to a private primary school so there goes that theory

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

I should add I am still not happy with what I earn.

and you will never be ... if you made $5 million a year you would still want more. .. that is the difference between you and I

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you.

It would be better to give equal education rather than equal funding.

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you.

What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.

Market capitalism is fundamental.
You pay for something, you get a service in return.

Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education??

The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense?

Thats the absurd system you prefer.

NO.

Funding to all.
Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard.

Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.  Market capitalism is fundamental. You pay for something, you get a service in return. Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education?? The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense? Thats the absurd system you prefer. NO. Funding to all. Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard. Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids?

Thats the system that we live in - just like your tax goes towards welfare and yet you should no tbe entitled to welfare. Same thing. It works.  It strengthens the economy to do it. And paying tax doesn't mean you get something in return.

PRivate Schools should receive $0.  By definition they should not be entitled to any government funding.

so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children?

And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason.

Care to explain then why both major parties will not be going to your system and come election time pretty much fall over themselves offering policies aimed at the swinging vote of middle Australia from tax money?

If you don't get anything back - or aren't supposed to - then the two major parties do a bloody good job of portraying the opposite!

You know your plan of not funding private schools will never get up don't you?
You are that much of a realist I take it.

Good old Andrei

If his not getting a benefit, his whining about paying tax.

Buggered if I know where he thinks Government get money from. :D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason.

Why would someone's taxes go to pay for somebody elses child with regard to family allowance? Why would you have someone's taxes go to pay for someones health service?   Why am I paying for someone to have a baby bonus? Why am I paying for pensioners? etc. etc. etc.

It's very simple: by ensuring that as a society we do look after those that need it what actually ends up happening is an increased and better economy.  I'm surprised an accountant like yourself is so dumb you fail to realise this point ;D What a waste of money you are ;D

And it works the way it works at the moment because Howard is a wank.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

Good old Andrei If his not getting a benefit, his whining about paying tax. Buggered if I know where he thinks Government get money from. :D

If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back?

Goes to the fundamentals of the system and may explain the stance of both parties to middle Australia.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:11pm: so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason. Why would someone's taxes go to pay for somebody elses child with regard to family allowance? Why would you have someone's taxes go to pay for someones health service?   Why am I paying for someone to have a baby bonus? Why am I paying for pensioners? etc. etc. etc. It's very simple: by ensuring that as a society we do look after those that need it what actually ends up happening is an increased and better economy.  I'm surprised an accountant like yourself is so dumb you fail to realise this point ;D What a waste of money you are ;D And it works the way it works at the moment because Howard is a wank.

Care to tell me why Labor have not, and do not intend, to change it then?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:14pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:11pm: so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason. Why would someone's taxes go to pay for somebody elses child with regard to family allowance? Why would you have someone's taxes go to pay for someones health service?   Why am I paying for someone to have a baby bonus? Why am I paying for pensioners? etc. etc. etc. It's very simple: by ensuring that as a society we do look after those that need it what actually ends up happening is an increased and better economy.  I'm surprised an accountant like yourself is so dumb you fail to realise this point ;D What a waste of money you are ;D And it works the way it works at the moment because Howard is a wank. Care to tell me why Labor have not, and do not intend, to change it then?

Simple. Unfortunately Howard created too many "battlers" like you who feel a need for every cent. He bugger* up this coutnry like noone else and did a brilliant job at creating a mediocre needy society.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:14pm: Good old Andrei If his not getting a benefit, his whining about paying tax. Buggered if I know where he thinks Government get money from. :D If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? Goes to the fundamentals of the system and may explain the stance of both parties to middle Australia.

You do  - in the form of economic growth that helps you keep your job.  Move on.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.  Market capitalism is fundamental. You pay for something, you get a service in return. Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education?? The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense? Thats the absurd system you prefer. NO. Funding to all. Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard. Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids?

If you want to educate your children on public money then send them to public school. Simple.

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back?

No you are not.

Simple end of story

Taxation is not some sort of forced saving nor is it a service industry.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? No you are not. Simple end of story Taxation is not some sort of forced saving nor is it a service industry.

Sorry my friend, the political system (Coalition and Labor are much the same) don't see it the same way.

They'll target the middle of Australia with kickbacks all the way to Sept now with tax money.

That's how we roll these days.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:14pm: Good old Andrei If his not getting a benefit, his whining about paying tax. Buggered if I know where he thinks Government get money from. :D If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? Goes to the fundamentals of the system and may explain the stance of both parties to middle Australia. You do  - in the form of economic growth that helps you keep your job.  Move on.

But as I said, that's your wishful thinking.
In reality we are offered a tonne of kickbacks across the board - are we not?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.  Market capitalism is fundamental. You pay for something, you get a service in return. Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education?? The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense? Thats the absurd system you prefer. NO. Funding to all. Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard. Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids? If you want to educate your children on public money then send them to public school. Simple. SOB

Nope I can send to a private school in Australia which will get public money and the money I put in as fees.

That's how it works.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:18pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:14pm: Good old Andrei If his not getting a benefit, his whining about paying tax. Buggered if I know where he thinks Government get money from. :D If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? Goes to the fundamentals of the system and may explain the stance of both parties to middle Australia. You do  - in the form of economic growth that helps you keep your job.  Move on. But as I said, that's your wishful thinking. In reality we are offered a tonne of kickbacks across the board - are we not?

Already explained why. It's actually quite amazing that here we have me, someone youw ould called a "socialist leftie hack" arguing against welfare for all, and you , a extreme rightwing nutjob crying you want more money. ;D  You becoming a commie, Andrei?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason.

You reckon you earn so much then why shouldnt you pay your own way?

SOB

I have always been of the view that if I am to pay tax, I should get something back.

We justified getting the baby bonus by the fact we had paid for it many times over.

If the tax rates are so high, then there needs to be something back for it in my view.

You want no benefits - then cut the tax rate to what I have here.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

I have always been of the view that if I am to pay tax, I should get something back. We justified getting the baby bonus by the fact we had paid for it many times over. If the tax rates are so high, then there needs to be something back for it in my view. You want no benefits - then cut the tax rate to what I have here.

and that is such a loonie nonsense view ;D  Your sense of entitlement is so rank it's just hilarious.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:11pm: so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason. You reckon you earn so much then why shouldnt you pay your own way? SOB

This isnt about me personally, its about what is right and fair.
People should not have to see their taxes go to other people's kids and yet none to their own.

I hold the view on education and healthcare the same.

Base level funding for all.
Private funding on top of the base to get the additional service.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:11pm: so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason. You reckon you earn so much then why shouldnt you pay your own way? SOB This isnt about me personally, its about what is right and fair. People should not have to see their taxes go to other people's kids and yet none to their own. I hold the view on education and healthcare the same. Base level funding for all. Private funding on top of the base to get the additional service.

;D socialist.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/who-are-the-real-bludgers-20130312-2fyf3.html

Who are the real bludgers?


Quote:

It seems the better off feel entitled to better treatment by government. Their status as wealth generators is a passport to ''diplomatic immunity'' from accusations of sponging off the state - however disproportionate to need their benefits and tax concessions may be. Similarly, while age pensioners get the biggest slice of $132 billion in welfare spending (36 per cent of the budget), they are seen to have earned the right to be dependent on government - even those living in $1 million-plus homes. Pensioners and their assets are untouchable, too.

Quote:

However, much better-off ''working families'' who have come to rely on government to boost their finances seemingly have little to fear from the bipartisan savings drive. Families with children are the second-biggest recipients of welfare spending - about $34 billion a year. Most goes on family tax benefits A and B, but there are also childcare benefits and rebates, paid parental leave, schoolchildren's and baby bonuses and carer allowances. The full list of family benefits is very long. Many who receive family welfare are, on any reasonable definition, not needy. Couples with two children in the middle 50 per cent range of incomes ($80,000 to $135,000) may qualify for most or all of the above benefits. One partner can earn up to $150,000 and the second up to $25,623 and they can still get something from Family Tax Benefit B, which costs about $4.5 billion a year.

Quote:

Given how much welfare money goes to middle and high-income families, you'd think the budget costs of ''middle-class welfare'' would be a natural target for savings, especially when Abbott has declared: ''The fiscal position will always be better under the Coalition because budget surpluses and reducing debt, paying back debt, that's in our DNA.'' Yet family payments seem to be off-limits. The Coalition even proposes to add Abbott's $3 billion-a-year paid parental leave plan so benefits for high-income earners are proportionate to their earnings.

Quote:

When last year's budget trimmed the baby bonus for households with incomes of up to $75,000 in the six months after birth, this was said to be a ''vicious and savage'' attack on families

Quote:

What about private health cover, which gets government support worth $5 billion a year? Policy holders received a 30 per cent rebate on premiums regardless of incomes until the government legislated last year to reduce rebates for single people earning more than $83,000 (the top 20 per cent) and families more than $166,000. Rebates cut out at $129,000 and $258,000. The saving is $2.4 billion over three years. Abbott vows to restore the full rebate for all as soon as possible, for the usual genetic reasons. ''Private health insurance is in our DNA. It is our raison d'etre, that is why we exist as a political movement, to give more support and encourage people who want to get ahead.''

Quote:

Far too many Australians on good incomes have come to rely in many ways on an overstretched welfare budget, one that began as a safety net for the truly needy. This culture of entitlement represents a greater and more insidious moral failing than applies to the vulnerable few whose dependency we scorn.

bugger it that's how it is.

Smithy I was paying friggen $4,500 per month mortgage in AUS.
You don't think the help came in handy?!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

bugger it that's how it is. Smithy I was paying friggen $4,500 per month mortgage in AUS. You don't think the help came in handy?!

Your choice

Buy a fvckin smaller house.

Simple

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

bugger it that's how it is. Smithy I was paying friggen $4,500 per month mortgage in AUS. You don't think the help came in handy?!

You're mixing up two separate issues.  It seems everyone wants to have an investment property that yields them a high return and that has value growth each year, a high income, and minimal expenses.  That's not how it works unfortunatley and if you put yourself into a situation that you can't manage because of an over zealous desire to have too much,  don't expect others to cover you.

On a side note I will agree $4500 per month for an AVERAGE home in Australia is RIDICULOUS! Again, Thanks Howard. What a champ that man was!

wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

Elite schools spend $20 million a year on upgrades Date     March 17, 2013 Sydney's elite private schools are spending up to $20 million a year on capital works, data on the My School website shows.     :-? Pymble Ladies' College plans to demolish its 50-metre outdoor pool and replace it with a $20 million aquatic and fitness centre as part of the school's $39 million master plan. They will also redevelop sporting fields and build a 230-space underground car park, a dining hall, a function centre to seat 600 and a health care centre. A new feature on the My School website lists schools' total capital expenditure from 2009 to 2011. Pymble Ladies' College development proposal. image shows - Proposed Aquatic and fitness centree. image supplied Knox Grammar School topped the list of school spending in Sydney, with more than $56 million over the three years. Sydney Church of England Grammar School (Shore) is next, with almost $45 million, followed by Newington College and Cranbrook School with almost $43 million and $42 million respectively. Advertisement Pymble Ladies' College, which has more than 2100 girls from kindergarten to year 12, spent almost $29 million between 2009 and 2011, which is about $13,500 a student. The federal government would not provide Fairfax Media with the average capital expenditure of government schools. But, by comparison, between 2009 and 2011 the capital expenditure at the nearest public high schools was $1130 a student at Turramurra High School and $3854 a student at Killara High School. A spokesman from the NSW Department of Education and Communities said $765 million would be spent this financial year on capital works and maintenance in the 2218 public schools in NSW, which is about $350,000 a school. ''It is important to note that, while all NSW public schools receive annual planned maintenance funding, not all schools receive funding for capital works every financial year,'' he said.     :( At independent schools, on average, about 80 per cent of funds for capital developments, such as school buildings, are contributed by parents and the school community. At Turramurra High, 76 per cent of capital expenditure came from governments, whereas at Pymble Ladies' College just 13 per cent was from government contributions. Pymble Ladies' College principal Vicki Waters said the existing pool required ''extensive maintenance due to its age''. The upgrade would be funded through the school's contribution and fund-raising initiatives and would not affect fees. Local schools would be allowed to use the pool for swimming carnivals, as would learn-to-swim lessons. ''But it won't be a public leisure centre.'' The school, which charges year 12 students fees of $26,550 a year, received more than $4 million federal government funding in 2011 and almost $3 million from the state. Greens NSW MP John Kaye said government funding to schools like Pymble Ladies' College was ''wasteful and divisive''. ''It is a stark illustration of the damage done by the $426 million provided by the O'Farrell and Gillard governments to the state's 110 wealthiest private schools in operational subsidies. ''Not only could this money provide for two additional teachers at every public school … but it is also driving a massive, wasteful and divisive capital expansion program at the state's elite private schools.''     :( Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/elite-schools-spend-20-million-a-year-on-upgrades-20130316-2g7ez.html#ixzz2NlFdOEF8

Look on the positive side, they are spending money from the filthy rich and providing employment for tradesmen, hopefully locals.

Swagman wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

I have to chuckle when Lefties take ownership of taxpayer funds as though they were there's when they are clearly from the majority that pay the minority of taxes (the slavemasters). "Hey you capitalist pigs, you earn more than me and you pay the lion's share of taxes but how dare you use a public road or a public service" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

;) ;) ;)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.

breath takingly stupid post,
all the real poorer people who struggle to put their kids through private schools will tell you (and i think research bore this out) IT IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST VALUE FOR MONEY INVESTMENT A FAMILY CAN MAKE..
i forget the exact figures but i think private educations return on capital in terms of lifting a families wealth was something like 5 X greater than super or the stock market.

we need to stand firmly behind private schools as a shining example of communities members grouping together to achieve something.

public schools are mediocre at best and people who send their children there are totally misguided . it is tantamount to child neglect to subject your child to a public school if you can afford better. i look forward to the day we privatise every school.  school vouchers and let the money follow the child to whoever offers the best . surely this is better than gonski throwing more money at rubbish public schools.

40 % increase in school funding (after inflation that is)in the last decade  to see us drop down the oecd every year. 

PATHETIC 

parents who dont send their kids to private schools wont be able to look them in the eye.  public schools are dead technology

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:35pm: bugger it that's how it is. Smithy I was paying friggen $4,500 per month mortgage in AUS. You don't think the help came in handy?! Your choice Buy a fvckin smaller house. Simple

It was 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom.
We're not talking about fking Gatcombe Park Estate here.

That's the cost of houses these days.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 3:30pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:35pm: bugger it that's how it is. Smithy I was paying friggen $4,500 per month mortgage in AUS. You don't think the help came in handy?! Your choice Buy a fvckin smaller house. Simple It was 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom. We're not talking about fking Gatcombe Park Estate here. That's the cost of houses these days.

Like I said, Life is full of choices

You chose to buy a large home in a exclusive suburb.

Why should I help you with your other expenses.

I chose a large home in a not so exclusive suburb & use my mortgage savings on overseas holidays.

Like you the tax offsets/rebates I get allow this lifestyle, however unlike you I'm under no illusion that I am ENTITLED to them.

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools.

wrong on so many levels
1) you claim Frasers debt was $40B based on a blog instead of Treasurys figures but somehow the independent schools figures are wrong (despite nobody but the education union disagreeing with it)
2) it is FINLAND not Sweden and the reason there are next to no private schools is because all the public schools are run using the private school model

So congratulations. you gave two reasons that comprehensively torpedo your own argument.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:32pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. Yeah I am sure thats the reason. Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one. Those of us who did have always been a fan of them. I went to a private primary school so there goes that theory SOB

the difference is that the rest of us went to highscool as well,

so easy...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.  Market capitalism is fundamental. You pay for something, you get a service in return. Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education?? The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense? Thats the absurd system you prefer. NO. Funding to all. Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard. Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids? Thats the system that we live in - just like your tax goes towards welfare and yet you should no tbe entitled to welfare. Same thing. It works.  It strengthens the economy to do it. And paying tax doesn't mean you get something in return. PRivate Schools should receive $0.  By definition they should not be entitled to any government funding.

so are you happy to pay $9B a year in extra tax because private schools dont get govt funding? does that sounds like a good plan and a good investment? on what planet does paying MORE to get a lower outcome make sense.  the answer is: planet lefty.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? No you are not. Simple end of story Taxation is not some sort of forced saving nor is it a service industry.

actually, you are. taxation is not ever intended to be a method of wealth redistribution. It is meant to be how you fund the essential services of govt of which one of the PRIME areas is education. it is govts intrinsic responsibility to fund education. it is not however essential that they provide the service. If this were so then welfare should be provided not in cash but in food stamps to govt run and owned food stores. but it isnt is it? it is provided in cash wher you shoose where to spend it. education money is exactly the same.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:11pm: so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason. You reckon you earn so much then why shouldnt you pay your own way? SOB

how about he then pays NO TAX and then pays for the services he uses? sound fair?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 1:52pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:32pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. Yeah I am sure thats the reason. Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one. Those of us who did have always been a fan of them. I went to a private primary school so there goes that theory SOB the difference is that the rest of us went to highscool as well, so easy...

The public high school was better quality than the local private one. The private one was rife with religion. Actually so was the public one but not quite as bad. . . . .

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:26pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 1:52pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:32pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. Yeah I am sure thats the reason. Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one. Those of us who did have always been a fan of them. I went to a private primary school so there goes that theory SOB the difference is that the rest of us went to highscool as well, so easy... The public high school was better quality than the local private one. The private one was rife with religion. Actually so was the public one but not quite as bad. . . . . SOB

public school "rife " with religion??  you sure??

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. wrong on so many levels 1) you claim Frasers debt was $40B based on a blog instead of Treasurys figures but somehow the independent schools figures are wrong (despite nobody but the education union disagreeing with it) 2) it is FINLAND not Sweden and the reason there are next to no private schools is because all the public schools are run using the private school model So congratulations. you gave two reasons that comprehensively torpedo your own argument.

Do you ever know what you're talking about?  Your comment shows complete lack of understanding of the Nordic education system.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.  Market capitalism is fundamental. You pay for something, you get a service in return. Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education?? The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense? Thats the absurd system you prefer. NO. Funding to all. Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard. Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids? Thats the system that we live in - just like your tax goes towards welfare and yet you should no tbe entitled to welfare. Same thing. It works.  It strengthens the economy to do it. And paying tax doesn't mean you get something in return. PRivate Schools should receive $0.  By definition they should not be entitled to any government funding. so are you happy to pay $9B a year in extra tax because private schools dont get govt funding? does that sounds like a good plan and a good investment? on what planet does paying MORE to get a lower outcome make sense.  the answer is: planet lefty.

That figure came out of the toilet did it?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. wrong on so many levels 1) you claim Frasers debt was $40B based on a blog instead of Treasurys figures but somehow the independent schools figures are wrong (despite nobody but the education union disagreeing with it) 2) it is FINLAND not Sweden and the reason there are next to no private schools is because all the public schools are run using the private school model So congratulations. you gave two reasons that comprehensively torpedo your own argument.

What 2 reasons dopey? All you did was have a rant, you haven't blown anything out of your teacup let alone the water ...

the figures are provided by independent schools board ... Independent schools board has it's own agenda and unless the figures are supported elsewhere, you cannot seriously give them a lot of credence....  why not supply treasury figures dopey? since they mean so much to you

Sweden or Finland, does it matter?  ... they have no private schools and have the best education system ... the point still stands. what part is difficult for you?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:19pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? No you are not. Simple end of story Taxation is not some sort of forced saving nor is it a service industry. actually, you are. taxation is not ever intended to be a method of wealth redistribution. It is meant to be how you fund the essential services of govt of which one of the PRIME areas is education. it is govts intrinsic responsibility to fund education. it is not however essential that they provide the service. If this were so then welfare should be provided not in cash but in food stamps to govt run and owned food stores. but it isnt is it? it is provided in cash wher you shoose where to spend it. education money is exactly the same.

that does not however mean the government has to fund elitist schools for posh rich kids ... the govt. provides for your kids education in the form of a public education system, if you chose to go elsewhere the choice is yours. there is no responsibility, intrinsic or otherwise, for them to fund that.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:26pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 1:52pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:32pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. Yeah I am sure thats the reason. Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one. Those of us who did have always been a fan of them. I went to a private primary school so there goes that theory SOB the difference is that the rest of us went to highscool as well, so easy... The public high school was better quality than the local private one. The private one was rife with religion. Actually so was the public one but not quite as bad. . . . . SOB public school "rife " with religion??  you sure??

Yes im sure. "Scripture" was mandatory.

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:11pm: so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason. You reckon you earn so much then why shouldnt you pay your own way? SOB This isnt about me personally, its about what is right and fair. People should not have to see their taxes go to other people's kids and yet none to their own. I hold the view on education and healthcare the same. Base level funding for all. Private funding on top of the base to get the additional service.

Its completely ridiculous. Private businesses should look after themselves and then all the money can be used to improve the public systems. Especially health. In QLD its spread too thin and now theres long waiting lists in private.

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 3:30pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:35pm: bugger it that's how it is. Smithy I was paying friggen $4,500 per month mortgage in AUS. You don't think the help came in handy?! Your choice Buy a fvckin smaller house. Simple It was 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom. We're not talking about fking Gatcombe Park Estate here. That's the cost of houses these days.

Normal is 3 BR 2 bathroom. Not 4. 4 are actually rare and way more expensive. But you already knew that.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 4:26am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 3:30pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:35pm: bugger it that's how it is. Smithy I was paying friggen $4,500 per month mortgage in AUS. You don't think the help came in handy?! Your choice Buy a fvckin smaller house. Simple It was 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom. We're not talking about fking Gatcombe Park Estate here. That's the cost of houses these days. Normal is 3 BR 2 bathroom. Not 4. 4 are actually rare and way more expensive. But you already knew that. SOB

Jesus Miss Borg. Where have you been for the last twenty years?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 4:23am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:26pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:11pm: so why would you have someone's taxes going to pay for somebody else's kid to be educated but see none of that money going to your own children? And that's not how it works by the way - for very good reason. You reckon you earn so much then why shouldnt you pay your own way? SOB This isnt about me personally, its about what is right and fair. People should not have to see their taxes go to other people's kids and yet none to their own. I hold the view on education and healthcare the same. Base level funding for all. Private funding on top of the base to get the additional service. Its completely ridiculous. Private businesses should look after themselves and then all the money can be used to improve the public systems. Especially health. In QLD its spread too thin and now theres long waiting lists in private. SOB

the morale in public health and public education is at an all time low .
all the good people leave and all the dregs (who couldnt get a job in the private sector remain).
then an army of bureaucrats come in to try and stop the sinking ship but they just make morale worse.
then funding restrictions kick in coz all the money is blown on an ever increasing bureacracy and army of clerks whose real job is to produce spin for the government of the day.

seen it all before,

the cream will always exit a rubbish system and they have.  and the more cream that exits, the remaining cream is left to burnout :D :D

i was talking to a private radiologist a few weeks ago. i said, how do you go recruiting staff.

he said, we just go up the public hospital and pinch the cream. offer them $100,000 more than they get working for the public system

you forget borg that just the payroll debacle has cost qld health over $1 billion (yes thats billion) to fix. and it is still wrong.  you think the cream are going to work in a system like that.

you cant fix it with money.  its f'ed. :D :D

good luck if you use it. my prediction is an early death.

good luck if you use public schools.  my prediction is your kids should become expert burger flippers.

again, the whole reason to get into private schools is to get your kids mixing wioth motivated teaches, motivated parents, motivated kids.

public equals f'ed.

just admit it , stop funding it, let it die

and let the cream do their thing.

we will be compassionate enough to treat the public patients if you want to send em our way  (AND THAT< SPOT IS EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN)  you heard it here. ;) ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:19pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? No you are not. Simple end of story Taxation is not some sort of forced saving nor is it a service industry. actually, you are. taxation is not ever intended to be a method of wealth redistribution. It is meant to be how you fund the essential services of govt of which one of the PRIME areas is education. it is govts intrinsic responsibility to fund education. it is not however essential that they provide the service. If this were so then welfare should be provided not in cash but in food stamps to govt run and owned food stores. but it isnt is it? it is provided in cash wher you shoose where to spend it. education money is exactly the same.

LOL, I was going to go down the,"Tax you pay buys the society you want" angle, but I was talking to Andrei and anything not framed in the context of self is either not understood or ignored ;)

You missed my point that private is just as bad.

SOB

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? No you are not. Simple end of story Taxation is not some sort of forced saving nor is it a service industry.

Progressive taxation is slavery.

Taxation is supposed to pay for the cost of Govt.

Are we not all supposed to be equal in a democracy?

Everyone should contribute equally to the cost of Govt.  Taxation is basically a membership fee.

Who legislates for progressive taxation?  The majority rules in a (flawed) democracy (An Ochlocracy).  The majority just happens to be those that pay the minority of tax.  As the majority they can use their numbers to (legally) thieve the income from the minority that pay the majority of tax.

They have then brainwashed the unwashed via public schools and subtle indoctrination methods into thinking that theft is perfectly OK when the majority agrees.... >:(

It is wrong.  It is tyranny.  It is a form of slavery.  Those that pay more than an equal share of tax are in effect being forced to work for nothing.

Being forced to work for nothing is S L A V E R Y

You Lefties are slavers.  Gillard is trying to be pharaoh and her humongous money wasting exercises like the NBN and school monuments are her version of the pyramids..... :(

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 1:52pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:32pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. Yeah I am sure thats the reason. Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one. Those of us who did have always been a fan of them. I went to a private primary school so there goes that theory SOB the difference is that the rest of us went to highscool as well, so easy...

In your case that could be debatable...

:D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.  Market capitalism is fundamental. You pay for something, you get a service in return. Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education?? The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense? Thats the absurd system you prefer. NO. Funding to all. Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard. Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids? Thats the system that we live in - just like your tax goes towards welfare and yet you should no tbe entitled to welfare. Same thing. It works.  It strengthens the economy to do it. And paying tax doesn't mean you get something in return. PRivate Schools should receive $0.  By definition they should not be entitled to any government funding.

How about distributing 50% of the total education budget between ALL schools on a per student basis?
Then the remaining 50% divvied up between the public schools on a 'needs' basis.

Just a thought....

:)

aquascoot wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:26pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 1:52pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:32pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. Yeah I am sure thats the reason. Strangely, I have always found people who dislike the private school system are those who never went to one. Those of us who did have always been a fan of them. I went to a private primary school so there goes that theory SOB the difference is that the rest of us went to highscool as well, so easy... The public high school was better quality than the local private one. The private one was rife with religion. Actually so was the public one but not quite as bad. . . . . SOB public school "rife " with religion??  you sure??

its SOB remember... his memory is full of gaps which he fills in with fabrications and imagination.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 7:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:24pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. wrong on so many levels 1) you claim Frasers debt was $40B based on a blog instead of Treasurys figures but somehow the independent schools figures are wrong (despite nobody but the education union disagreeing with it) 2) it is FINLAND not Sweden and the reason there are next to no private schools is because all the public schools are run using the private school model So congratulations. you gave two reasons that comprehensively torpedo your own argument. Do you ever know what you're talking about?  Your comment shows complete lack of understanding of the Nordic education system.

he was referring to FINLANDS system (but misnamed it). and if you wish to correct me then do so, but using a few actual facts.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.  Market capitalism is fundamental. You pay for something, you get a service in return. Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education?? The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense? Thats the absurd system you prefer. NO. Funding to all. Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard. Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids? Thats the system that we live in - just like your tax goes towards welfare and yet you should no tbe entitled to welfare. Same thing. It works.  It strengthens the economy to do it. And paying tax doesn't mean you get something in return. PRivate Schools should receive $0.  By definition they should not be entitled to any government funding. so are you happy to pay $9B a year in extra tax because private schools dont get govt funding? does that sounds like a good plan and a good investment? on what planet does paying MORE to get a lower outcome make sense.  the answer is: planet lefty. That figure came out of the toilet did it?

its called logic and you should try it.  it woudl cost $9B per year extra to fund public schools for the flood of ex-private students if govt funding was removed. therefore (and here is the logic bit) it woudl eb safe to assume that taxes would need to rise to cover this amount.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 7:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:24pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. wrong on so many levels 1) you claim Frasers debt was $40B based on a blog instead of Treasurys figures but somehow the independent schools figures are wrong (despite nobody but the education union disagreeing with it) 2) it is FINLAND not Sweden and the reason there are next to no private schools is because all the public schools are run using the private school model So congratulations. you gave two reasons that comprehensively torpedo your own argument. Do you ever know what you're talking about?  Your comment shows complete lack of understanding of the Nordic education system. he was referring to FINLANDS system (but misnamed it). and if you wish to correct me then do so, but using a few actual facts.

I thought his facts were pretty clear ...

  Your comment shows complete lack of understanding of the Nordic education system

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 11:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:24pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: actually SAVES the govt tens of billions of dollars a year. firstly, the figure given was $8.3 B  not 10's off .... nice try secondly, that figure is given by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, do you think they might try talking themselves up so as to ask for more funding? get real longlooser ... the truth is that the only ones making that claim is the private schools themselves ... everyone else knows it's a load of sh it... look at Sweden, considered the best education system in the world with the best results .. why ? no private schools. wrong on so many levels 1) you claim Frasers debt was $40B based on a blog instead of Treasurys figures but somehow the independent schools figures are wrong (despite nobody but the education union disagreeing with it) 2) it is FINLAND not Sweden and the reason there are next to no private schools is because all the public schools are run using the private school model So congratulations. you gave two reasons that comprehensively torpedo your own argument. What 2 reasons dopey? All you did was have a rant, you haven't blown anything out of your teacup let alone the water ... the figures are provided by independent schools board ... Independent schools board has it's own agenda and unless the figures are supported elsewhere, you cannot seriously give them a lot of credence....  why not supply treasury figures dopey? since they mean so much to you Sweden or Finland, does it matter?  ... they have no private schools and have the best education system ... the point still stands. what part is difficult for you?

the point dear blog-reader is that it isnt the fact that they are PRIVATE which makes them so much more succesful than public schools but rather the model they employ. Finlands education system is virtually identical to the private school model with independant schools, virtually no education dept at all, and hire and fire rights for the principal etc.

this has all been covered before.

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2013 at 11:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:19pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? No you are not. Simple end of story Taxation is not some sort of forced saving nor is it a service industry. actually, you are. taxation is not ever intended to be a method of wealth redistribution. It is meant to be how you fund the essential services of govt of which one of the PRIME areas is education. it is govts intrinsic responsibility to fund education. it is not however essential that they provide the service. If this were so then welfare should be provided not in cash but in food stamps to govt run and owned food stores. but it isnt is it? it is provided in cash wher you shoose where to spend it. education money is exactly the same. that does not however mean the government has to fund elitist schools for posh rich kids ... the govt. provides for your kids education in the form of a public education system, if you chose to go elsewhere the choice is yours. there is no responsibility, intrinsic or otherwise, for them to fund that.

even if you accept your flawed argument you still have to explain why you are happy to p[ay $9B pa extra (and therefore in taxes) to fund a education system with substantially LOWER outcomes?

the reasons no one - not even the loopy Greens - support that is for just that reason. ONly a madman or an ideologically bound nincompoop would support paying 30% more to get 30% less back.

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 4:26am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 3:30pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:35pm: bugger it that's how it is. Smithy I was paying friggen $4,500 per month mortgage in AUS. You don't think the help came in handy?! Your choice Buy a fvckin smaller house. Simple It was 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom. We're not talking about fking Gatcombe Park Estate here. That's the cost of houses these days. Normal is 3 BR 2 bathroom. Not 4. 4 are actually rare and way more expensive. But you already knew that. SOB Jesus Miss Borg. Where have you been for the last twenty years?

given his memory I would say he has no idea where he has been either. Almost every house built now is 4BR

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:19pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:15pm: If you pay x amount in tax - are you not entitled to expect something back? No you are not. Simple end of story Taxation is not some sort of forced saving nor is it a service industry. actually, you are. taxation is not ever intended to be a method of wealth redistribution. It is meant to be how you fund the essential services of govt of which one of the PRIME areas is education. it is govts intrinsic responsibility to fund education. it is not however essential that they provide the service. If this were so then welfare should be provided not in cash but in food stamps to govt run and owned food stores. but it isnt is it? it is provided in cash wher you shoose where to spend it. education money is exactly the same. LOL, I was going to go down the,"Tax you pay buys the society you want" angle, but I was talking to Andrei and anything not framed in the context of self is either not understood or ignored ;)

he is without doubt the most self-absorbed poster Ive ever read. That doesnt make him necessarily wrong but you always have to realise that the common good never factors into any of his reasoning - ever.

Longweekend is a disciple of Hitlers Right wing Atheist populism  and pretends he is a Bible Believing christian and that Jesus had no compassion for the poor... :D ::)

Lobo wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2013 at 12:48pm: You have already said you went to a state school full of wogs but anyway thats not the point. The system should be very simple - 1) Every child should have the benefit of taxpayer's money to go towards their education. 2) Every school and I mean EVERY school should receive the same funding per pupil. 3) Then if schools wish to charge on top of that for additional quality of either school or quality of teaching etc, trips - then they can do that. That way, the private school kids receive the better education and advantage - but they have to pay for it. What on earth is the point of having only some schools receive funding from the Government and others receive nothing? Completely defeats the object of paying to get a better education. Make it a level playing field for Government funding. Every school receives the same as each other. Public or private. Please refrain from the childish name calling Johnny, you do it a lot lately and just reflect poorly on you. What a stupid post.  Private schools are exactly that - private.  If you want to be a fool and then pay for a private school then go ahead and do that.  But don't expect the public purse to cover you.  Market capitalism is fundamental. You pay for something, you get a service in return. Now you would have an absurd system where I pay a lot in tax but then see neither of my children receive any of that money to their education?? The funding goes to give someone else's kid a free one at my expense? Thats the absurd system you prefer. NO. Funding to all. Then you pay for a private education above the base level standard. Answer this - why would you pay to give your child an education if they are not going to receive better quality and more than public kids? Thats the system that we live in - just like your tax goes towards welfare and yet you should no tbe entitled to welfare. Same thing. It works.  It strengthens the economy to do it. And paying tax doesn't mean you get something in return. PRivate Schools should receive $0.  By definition they should not be entitled to any government funding. How about distributing 50% of the total education budget between ALL schools on a per student basis? Then the remaining 50% divvied up between the public schools on a 'needs' basis. Just a thought.... :)

how about a truly equitable model where the entire budget is divided by teh number of students and allocated thusly?

I'm old enough to remember when Private and Catholic schools received no govt funding.

I was fortunate enough that my parents could afford to send me to both C of E and Catholic Private schools. (Family thing.)

Even so, I firmly believe that the greater percentage of govt funding should go into the public school system.

:)

Lobo wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 7:29pm:

I'm old enough to remember when Private and Catholic schools received no govt funding. I was fortunate enough that my parents could afford to send me to both C of E and Catholic Private schools. (Family thing.) Even so, I firmly believe that the greater percentage of govt funding should go into the public school system. :)

it still does. public students get around 50% more per head from govt than private students.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:29pm: I'm old enough to remember when Private and Catholic schools received no govt funding. I was fortunate enough that my parents could afford to send me to both C of E and Catholic Private schools. (Family thing.) Even so, I firmly believe that the greater percentage of govt funding should go into the public school system. :) it still does. public students get around 50% more per head from govt than private students.

Personally I'd prefer it to be 75%+......

:)

Lobo wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:37pm: Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:29pm: I'm old enough to remember when Private and Catholic schools received no govt funding. I was fortunate enough that my parents could afford to send me to both C of E and Catholic Private schools. (Family thing.) Even so, I firmly believe that the greater percentage of govt funding should go into the public school system. :) it still does. public students get around 50% more per head from govt than private students. Personally I'd prefer it to be 75%+...... :)

why? Governments already provides for education  ... if you feel it isn't good enough and want to go private, you should pay, not the taxpayer

John Smith wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:37pm: Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:29pm: I'm old enough to remember when Private and Catholic schools received no govt funding. I was fortunate enough that my parents could afford to send me to both C of E and Catholic Private schools. (Family thing.) Even so, I firmly believe that the greater percentage of govt funding should go into the public school system. :) it still does. public students get around 50% more per head from govt than private students. Personally I'd prefer it to be 75%+...... :) why? Governments already provides for education  ... if you feel it isn't good enough and want to go private, you should pay, not the taxpayer

its not that simple. Education is one of the PILLARS of govt service (ie health, defence, education). govt cannot simply ignore it.

but anyhow the argument haas already been made that it is far cheaper for the govt to pay 30% LESS per student using the private model than a fully public one. ideology aside, it makes zero sense to pay $9Bpa more for no advantage. even a dumb lefty can understand that.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 8:25am:

but anyhow the argument haas already been made that it is far cheaper for the govt to pay 30% LESS per student using the private model than a fully public one. ideology aside, it makes zero sense to pay $9Bpa more for no advantage. even a dumb lefty can understand that.

The problem is that 'Lefties' cannot (or refuse to) understand this concept as demonstrated by the comments in this thread.

Why can't you Lefties understand that the education dollars the Govt saves (around $8 billion dollars a year from the budget) directly because of non-Govt schools participation in the education sector and the (after tax) dollars from non-govt school parents goes towards other Government services such as the dole, pensions and back to PUBLIC education.

Health dollars is a similar concept.  The more people that take out private health cover the more the Govt save in health expenditures.  That is why there is a private health insurance rebate and a medicare levy surcharge to prod people into private health insurance.

The cost to the budget of funding private schools and providing incentive to take up private health is miniscule compared to the Govt having to fund these sectors 100%. :exclamation :exclamation :exclamation :exclamation

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 8:25am:

its not that simple. Education is one of the PILLARS of govt service (ie health, defence, education). govt cannot simply ignore it.

they aren't ignoring it ... they provide education ... of a fairly good standard .. you want to go elsewhere you pay.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 8:25am:

it is far cheaper for the govt to pay 30% LESS per student using the private model than a fully public one. ideology aside, it makes zero sense to pay $9Bpa

the argument that i smade by the independant schools themselves? it's not like they wouldskew the figures in their favour now would they.

Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB

It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'.

GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout.

Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services.

Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers.

Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc

Savvy? :-?

John Smith wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 9:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:25am: it is far cheaper for the govt to pay 30% LESS per student using the private model than a fully public one. ideology aside, it makes zero sense to pay $9Bpa the argument that i smade by the independant schools themselves? it's not like they wouldskew the figures in their favour now would they.

oh the irony from the forums least numerate poster

Swagman wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-?

its a very good analogy. the trouble is the lefties dont like the fact that private schools outperform public ones by a massive margin.

John Smith wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:37pm: Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:29pm: I'm old enough to remember when Private and Catholic schools received no govt funding. I was fortunate enough that my parents could afford to send me to both C of E and Catholic Private schools. (Family thing.) Even so, I firmly believe that the greater percentage of govt funding should go into the public school system. :) it still does. public students get around 50% more per head from govt than private students. Personally I'd prefer it to be 75%+...... :) why? Governments already provides for education  ... if you feel it isn't good enough and want to go private, you should pay, not the taxpayer

That was 75%+ to public schools, John.

:)

Lobo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 8:35pm: Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:37pm: Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:29pm: I'm old enough to remember when Private and Catholic schools received no govt funding. I was fortunate enough that my parents could afford to send me to both C of E and Catholic Private schools. (Family thing.) Even so, I firmly believe that the greater percentage of govt funding should go into the public school system. :) it still does. public students get around 50% more per head from govt than private students. Personally I'd prefer it to be 75%+...... :) why? Governments already provides for education  ... if you feel it isn't good enough and want to go private, you should pay, not the taxpayer That was 75%+ to public schools, John. :)

Yes yes, heaven forbid the people who pay in the most in tax actually get some funding towards their own kids eh?

Higher income earner should just be a cash cow.

Amazing how so many people who pretty much pay in over the course of a year, less than what a lot of us pay in a month - get free healthcare, free transport passes, free schooling for their kids, help to pay bills.

Then still complain and demand more?

The "I am entitled" Generation.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Lobo wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:10pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 8:35pm: Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:37pm: Lobo wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 7:29pm: I'm old enough to remember when Private and Catholic schools received no govt funding. I was fortunate enough that my parents could afford to send me to both C of E and Catholic Private schools. (Family thing.) Even so, I firmly believe that the greater percentage of govt funding should go into the public school system. :) it still does. public students get around 50% more per head from govt than private students. Personally I'd prefer it to be 75%+...... :) why? Governments already provides for education  ... if you feel it isn't good enough and want to go private, you should pay, not the taxpayer That was 75%+ to public schools, John. :) Yes yes, heaven forbid the people who pay in the most in tax actually get some funding towards their own kids eh? Higher income earner should just be a cash cow. Amazing how so many people who pretty much pay in over the course of a year, less than what a lot of us pay in a month - get free healthcare, free transport passes, free schooling for their kids, help to pay bills. Then still complain and demand more? The "I am entitled" Generation.

Its more to do with govt handouts going to the needy rather than going towards manicured tennis courts and school excursions to Paris.
Its just another case of welfare going to those that dont need it and sucking all taxpayers dry just to buy votes.

Not at all.
Funding should be the same flat level to all kids - public and private.

No child should not receive public funding for their education.

Then private schools should charge on top of that and state schools just keep to the funding level.

That way parents who choose to fund their child through fees get more - because as you all know and agree - you should always get something for your money.

What on earth would be the point in paying for an education when the state is funding other kids for free if its no better??

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:25am: it is far cheaper for the govt to pay 30% LESS per student using the private model than a fully public one. ideology aside, it makes zero sense to pay $9Bpa the argument that i smade by the independant schools themselves? it's not like they wouldskew the figures in their favour now would they. oh the irony from the forums least numerate poster

haveing trouble coming up with a response are you?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

Not at all. Funding should be the same flat level to all kids - public and private. No child should not receive public funding for their education. Then private schools should charge on top of that and state schools just keep to the funding level. That way parents who choose to fund their child through fees get more - because as you all know and agree - you should always get something for your money. What on earth would be the point in paying for an education when the state is funding other kids for free if its no better??

the public school funding is there ... for all the kids ... you chose to forgo it for private that is your choice and you should pay.

Swagman wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-?

Sub contractors are private businesses .... and that analogy doesn't apply anyway ... govt subsidise schools, not pay them .

the rest of your claims are unsubstantiated claims put out by the private schools themselves .. I'm sure it helps them when arguing for extra funding.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-? its a very good analogy. the trouble is the lefties dont like the fact that private schools outperform public ones by a massive margin.

Nope. What the "lefties" dont like is private businesses getting funding and taking money away from places that actually need it.

SOB

John Smith wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:27pm: Not at all. Funding should be the same flat level to all kids - public and private. No child should not receive public funding for their education. Then private schools should charge on top of that and state schools just keep to the funding level. That way parents who choose to fund their child through fees get more - because as you all know and agree - you should always get something for your money. What on earth would be the point in paying for an education when the state is funding other kids for free if its no better?? the public school funding is there ... for all the kids ... you chose to forgo it for private that is your choice and you should pay.

lets hear you support that principle if govt decided that there shoudl be no child-care subsidy. you want childcare? pay for it yourself! And I'm tipping once your kids reach school age you might find your attitude to private school funding will change too when you haev to choose between the bogan public school and the first-rate private school.

John Smith wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 9:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-? Sub contractors are private businesses .... and that analogy doesn't apply anyway ... govt subsidise schools, not pay them . the rest of your claims are unsubstantiated claims put out by the private schools themselves .. I'm sure it helps them when arguing for extra funding.

well we could get govt estimations instead but you have clearly shown that you only accept figures that support your position so why would anyone bother?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:09am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:56pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:27pm: Not at all. Funding should be the same flat level to all kids - public and private. No child should not receive public funding for their education. Then private schools should charge on top of that and state schools just keep to the funding level. That way parents who choose to fund their child through fees get more - because as you all know and agree - you should always get something for your money. What on earth would be the point in paying for an education when the state is funding other kids for free if its no better?? the public school funding is there ... for all the kids ... you chose to forgo it for private that is your choice and you should pay. lets hear you support that principle if govt decided that there shoudl be no child-care subsidy. you want childcare? pay for it yourself! And I'm tipping once your kids reach school age you might find your attitude to private school funding will change too when you haev to choose between the bogan public school and the first-rate private school.

I think you are absolutely right there.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:05pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-? its a very good analogy. the trouble is the lefties dont like the fact that private schools outperform public ones by a massive margin. Nope. What the "lefties" dont like is private businesses getting funding and taking money away from places that actually need it. SOB

I know that you wont understand the answer but another reader may so here goes.

there are for example 2000 students needing to go to school. If they all go to public school it will cost $22Mpa. If they all fo to private school it costs the govt $15M - a saving of $7M.

But you say just dont pay the $15M at all and make the saving even more! However there is a problem in that simplistic argument. The vast majority of private schools are low-fee ones of around $3000 per student per year. Take out the govt funding and parents would be up for $10,500pa which the vast majority could not afford and the rest will not. Estimates are that around 80% (or more) of private students would return to the public system. So to alter that calculation accordingly, you take back the $15M in private subsidies and then have to pay $17.6M extra in public school money to handle all the extra students

do you see how this works? the private sector actually saves the govt money which is why no govt, no matter how ideologically determined, is going to change this system.

The debate ALWAYS centres on 10 elite schools and never on the vast majority and is why the debate is never honest and why it is always ignored by govt.

John Smith wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:27pm: Not at all. Funding should be the same flat level to all kids - public and private. No child should not receive public funding for their education. Then private schools should charge on top of that and state schools just keep to the funding level. That way parents who choose to fund their child through fees get more - because as you all know and agree - you should always get something for your money. What on earth would be the point in paying for an education when the state is funding other kids for free if its no better?? the public school funding is there ... for all the kids ... you chose to forgo it for private that is your choice and you should pay.

Even if everyone paid the same amount of tax you still wouldn't have a valid point.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:09am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:56pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:27pm: Not at all. Funding should be the same flat level to all kids - public and private. No child should not receive public funding for their education. Then private schools should charge on top of that and state schools just keep to the funding level. That way parents who choose to fund their child through fees get more - because as you all know and agree - you should always get something for your money. What on earth would be the point in paying for an education when the state is funding other kids for free if its no better?? the public school funding is there ... for all the kids ... you chose to forgo it for private that is your choice and you should pay. lets hear you support that principle if govt decided that there shoudl be no child-care subsidy. you want childcare? pay for it yourself! And I'm tipping once your kids reach school age you might find your attitude to private school funding will change too when you haev to choose between the bogan public school and the first-rate private school.

bugger your an idiot ... I do pay for my kids childcare. Any subsidy I may get I get because they give it to me, not because I sought it. That's the way the childcare system is and I play by their rules. .. if they remove the subsidy it won't change a thing for me.

Don't try to judge me by your standards, just because you're a selfish old goat who only cares about themselves it doesn't mean I do as well.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:10am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:58pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-? Sub contractors are private businesses .... and that analogy doesn't apply anyway ... govt subsidise schools, not pay them . the rest of your claims are unsubstantiated claims put out by the private schools themselves .. I'm sure it helps them when arguing for extra funding. well we could get govt estimations instead but you have clearly shown that you only accept figures that support your position so why would anyone bother?

the problem when you start to invent arguments is that you are often left looking like an idiot ... and you look like an idiot.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:22am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:12am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:05pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-? its a very good analogy. the trouble is the lefties dont like the fact that private schools outperform public ones by a massive margin. Nope. What the "lefties" dont like is private businesses getting funding and taking money away from places that actually need it. SOB I know that you wont understand the answer but another reader may so here goes. there are for example 2000 students needing to go to school. If they all go to public school it will cost $22Mpa. If they all fo to private school it costs the govt $15M - a saving of $7M. But you say just dont pay the $15M at all and make the saving even more! However there is a problem in that simplistic argument. The vast majority of private schools are low-fee ones of around $3000 per student per year. Take out the govt funding and parents would be up for $10,500pa which the vast majority could not afford and the rest will not. Estimates are that around 80% (or more) of private students would return to the public system. So to alter that calculation accordingly, you take back the $15M in private subsidies and then have to pay $17.6M extra in public school money to handle all the extra students do you see how this works? the private sector actually saves the govt money which is why no govt, no matter how ideologically determined, is going to change this system. The debate ALWAYS centres on 10 elite schools and never on the vast majority and is why the debate is never honest and why it is always ignored by govt.

and if the govt. provides schooling for those 2000, but 100 decide to go private, that is their choice and it is up to the parents to pay and not the govt. You keep reverting to that figure that govt.s save but cannot find anyone other than private schools who come up with that figure ....

John Smith wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:09am: John Smith wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:56pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:27pm: Not at all. Funding should be the same flat level to all kids - public and private. No child should not receive public funding for their education. Then private schools should charge on top of that and state schools just keep to the funding level. That way parents who choose to fund their child through fees get more - because as you all know and agree - you should always get something for your money. What on earth would be the point in paying for an education when the state is funding other kids for free if its no better?? the public school funding is there ... for all the kids ... you chose to forgo it for private that is your choice and you should pay. lets hear you support that principle if govt decided that there shoudl be no child-care subsidy. you want childcare? pay for it yourself! And I'm tipping once your kids reach school age you might find your attitude to private school funding will change too when you haev to choose between the bogan public school and the first-rate private school. bugger your an idiot ... I do pay for my kids childcare. Any subsidy I may get I get because they give it to me, not because I sought it. That's the way the childcare system is and I play by their rules. .. if they remove the subsidy it won't change a thing for me. Don't try to judge me by your standards, just because you're a selfish old goat who only cares about themselves it doesn't mean I do as well.

so when you complain (rightly) that andrei is self-absorbed, does it ever occur to you that your  entire position on this issue is about how it affects you? You wouldnt know a principle if it bit you and frankly, I doubt very much that you would be happy if the govt removed the childcare subsidy.

but once again, you have utterly failed to address the topic as expressed. you clearly dont understand the fiscal argument to retaining private school subsidies. you actually DONT understand it.

John Smith wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:15am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:22am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:12am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:05pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-? its a very good analogy. the trouble is the lefties dont like the fact that private schools outperform public ones by a massive margin. Nope. What the "lefties" dont like is private businesses getting funding and taking money away from places that actually need it. SOB I know that you wont understand the answer but another reader may so here goes. there are for example 2000 students needing to go to school. If they all go to public school it will cost $22Mpa. If they all fo to private school it costs the govt $15M - a saving of $7M. But you say just dont pay the $15M at all and make the saving even more! However there is a problem in that simplistic argument. The vast majority of private schools are low-fee ones of around $3000 per student per year. Take out the govt funding and parents would be up for $10,500pa which the vast majority could not afford and the rest will not. Estimates are that around 80% (or more) of private students would return to the public system. So to alter that calculation accordingly, you take back the $15M in private subsidies and then have to pay $17.6M extra in public school money to handle all the extra students do you see how this works? the private sector actually saves the govt money which is why no govt, no matter how ideologically determined, is going to change this system. The debate ALWAYS centres on 10 elite schools and never on the vast majority and is why the debate is never honest and why it is always ignored by govt. and if the govt. provides schooling for those 2000, but 100 decide to go private, that is their choice and it is up to the parents to pay and not the govt. You keep reverting to that figure that govt.s save but cannot find anyone other than private schools who come up with that figure ....

GOVT figures themselves show that they spend around $11,000 per student pa in the public sector while around $7500 per student in the private sector. Thats actual govt figures. Of course now we get back to the same old problem you have with government figures... you prefer blogs so I would refer you to the education union website where you can get all kinds of amazing (yet demonstrably false) information. You would love it!

John Smith wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 9:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:31am: Why do some of you ppl call the government "socialist" and yet want them to fund private businesses? SOB It's the party in Govt that is being branded 'socialist'. GOVT is NOT funding private business.  Funding is a handout. Think of Private schools as a sub-contractor.  They are being paid for delivering a service that the Govt is obliged to provide.  Instead of costing them $1 per head it costs Govt 30c per head.  The 70c they save can be spent elsewhere on other essential Govt services. Think of it another way, say the Govt nationalised schools.  They would have to find that extra 70c per head and also find additional money to accommodate the extra 30% of student numbers. Unless they went into massive unsustainable debt other Govt services would be cut.  Dole would be less, pensions would be less etc etc etc Savvy? :-? Sub contractors are private businesses .... and that analogy doesn't apply anyway ... govt subsidise schools, not pay them . the rest of your claims are unsubstantiated claims put out by the private schools themselves .. I'm sure it helps them when arguing for extra funding.

Most sub-contractors are private businesses but do you know what a "not for profit organisation" is John Smith?

Do you know why they get income tax exempt status and why their employees get additional income tax breaks?

They lever off the private sector and provide essential Govt services more efficiently and at massive savings to the budget. :o

NFPs undertake services that the Govt of the day is obliged to provide.  They get funding from various sources but mainly from Govt.  It goes down in the books as 'grant' funding from Govt but in actuality the Govt is sub-contracting its own work load to save taxpayer money.

Private schools are NFPs.  They provide essential Govt services and whether you call their funding a subsidy, grant, contract receipts, wealthfare it matters not.  The result is the SAME.

Aged care, respite care, palliative care, disability welfare, community childcare, employment & training, neighbourhood centres etc are the same.  They all get Govt funding to provide Govt services in the same way as private schools.

Private schools are not businesses.  As not for profits no one is making an earn from them.  They do not have share holders where surpluses are distributed to.