The fascist regime that made you a moron: Thanks dJonkey

[Banditbandit]

Sold our assets did he?
All of them?

Thanks for the tax cut BTW.

I would rather pay more tax and have free education and health ...

[oldrider]

I would rather pay more tax and have free education and health ...

Free anything just means "someone else" is paying!

[Oscar]

I would rather pay more tax and have free education and health ...

I don't mind paying for things like education and health.
I do tire of people referring to "free" education however.
It's not free and someone has to pay.
Whereas it is a right, it is also privilege and I’m sick of hearing people whine about student loans (and the use of this reasonably fair system as an election bride).

[Banditbandit]

I don't mind paying for things like education and health.
I do tire of people referring to "free" education however.
It's not free and someone has to pay.
Whereas it is a right, it is also privilege and I’m sick of hearing people whine about student loans (and the use of this reasonably fair system as an election bride).

Don't get me wrong - I do realise that "free education" means someone is paying ...

By "free" I mean free to the students ...

The argument is really over who benefits from education ... the individual or the society ...?? The neo-liberal argument is, of course, always that it is the individual ...
one of the other argument that both society and the individual benefit ... so the cost should be spread (and it is - about 70% Government/30% individual)) ...

The further argument is that society benefits the most - and so it should be a societal cost ..

My answer to the neo-liberal argument is that if education is an individual benefit then the government should stop interfering and it will all be sorted out on an individual level .. the fact the neo-liberals want to interfere in education "for the good of the country" shows that there is a major societal benefit .. if, as the neo-liberal actions suggest, education is primarily a social benefit then it should be funded by the society that benefits ..

And please note - I do not agree that there are such things as "rights" ... nor do I agree that education is a privileged.

[Ocean1]

Don't get me wrong - I do realise that "free education" means someone is paying ...

By "free" I mean free to the students ...

The argument is really over who benefits from education ... the individual or the society ...?? The neo-liberal argument is, of course, always that it is the individual ...
one of the other argument that both society and the individual benefit ... so the cost should be spread (and it is - about 70% Government/30% individual)) ...

The further argument is that society benefits the most - and so it should be a societal cost ..

My answer to the neo-liberal argument is that if education is an individual benefit then the government should stop interfering and it will all be sorted out on an individual level .. the fact the neo-liberals want to interfere in education "for the good of the country" shows that there is a major societal benefit .. if, as the neo-liberal actions suggest, education is primarily a social benefit then it should be funded by the society that benefits ..

And please note - I do not agree that there are such things as "rights" ... nor do I agree that education is a privileged.

Education is no less free now than it's ever been.

And my you do get hung up on labels doncha?

Course, you do have a certain dislike of all dem rich pricks to maintain if you're to feel at all adequate in your failure to achieve as much...

[BoristheBiter]

Don't get me wrong - I do realise that "free education" means someone is paying ...

By "free" I mean free to the students ...

The argument is really over who benefits from education ... the individual or the society ...?? The neo-liberal argument is, of course, always that it is the individual ...
one of the other argument that both society and the individual benefit ... so the cost should be spread (and it is - about 70% Government/30% individual)) ...

The further argument is that society benefits the most - and so it should be a societal cost ..

My answer to the neo-liberal argument is that if education is an individual benefit then the government should stop interfering and it will all be sorted out on an individual level .. the fact the neo-liberals want to interfere in education "for the good of the country" shows that there is a major societal benefit .. if, as the neo-liberal actions suggest, education is primarily a social benefit then it should be funded by the society that benefits ..

And please note - I do not agree that there are such things as "rights" ... nor do I agree that education is a privileged.

All costs of education up to 18 years of age should be free (the government picks up the tab).
After that it should be fully funded by the student.
If the student can not pay for this then they can ask for a loan, if it is a "good for the country" (i.e doctors, dentists etc) then it will be fully funded and you are bonded for 15 years (or so to state health care) and then free to do what you please.
If it is "good for the country" (i.e. engineers, mechanics etc) then you can take a loan out but it will have interest charged and you are free to work where you please.
if it is not classed as this (i.e. Sunday golf, lawyers etc) you can pay for it yourself.

[Oscar]

Don't get me wrong - I do realise that "free education" means someone is paying ...

By "free" I mean free to the students ...

The argument is really over who benefits from education ... the individual or the society ...?? The neo-liberal argument is, of course, always that it is the individual ...
one of the other argument that both society and the individual benefit ... so the cost should be spread (and it is - about 70% Government/30% individual)) ...

The further argument is that society benefits the most - and so it should be a societal cost ..

My answer to the neo-liberal argument is that if education is an individual benefit then the government should stop interfering and it will all be sorted out on an individual level .. the fact the neo-liberals want to interfere in education "for the good of the country" shows that there is a major societal benefit .. if, as the neo-liberal actions suggest, education is primarily a social benefit then it should be funded by the society that benefits ..

And please note - I do not agree that there are such things as "rights" ... nor do I agree that education is a privileged.

I don't understand why education funding can't be tuned a bit.
For example, the idea that some graduates can't be given the opportunity to reduce their loans by helping where there are shortages of that occupation.
Doctors and Teachers in out of the way places are a good example.

Also the concept that you can accept an education from society and then piss overseas to avoid paying your loan, really, really annoys me…
Of course this leads to the ridiculous situation where we train Doctors, who then fuck off overseas to either get better money and/or avoid their loan obligations, so we pinch replacements from third world countries.

[mashman]

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa

[Oscar]

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa

...and there we have it - Internet Tourette's Syndrome.
Poor Lamb.

[bogan]

I don't understand why education funding can't be tuned a bit.
For example, the idea that some graduates can't be given the opportunity to reduce their loans by helping where there are shortages of that occupation.
Doctors and Teachers in out of the way places are a good example.

Also the concept that you can accept an education from society and then piss overseas to avoid paying your loan, really, really annoys me…
Of course this leads to the ridiculous situation where we train Doctors, who then fuck off overseas to either get better money and/or avoid their loan obligations, so we pinch replacements from third world countries.

Need to add performance criterea in there I reckon, used to be bursary would pay a year's fees, now (if NCEA even has it) would barely cover one textbook. And scaling for need, so don't just get fuckaround degrees like BAs. So 100% free if you're smart enough, and doing a degree which would benefit the country.

[Banditbandit]

Course, you do have a certain dislike of all dem rich pricks to maintain if you're to feel at all adequate in your failure to achieve as much...

I'm sorry - but that is a massive judgement - and it is wrong.

As I have repeatedly said - I earn what I think is an obscene amount of money - and I certainly pay tax in the highest tax bracket.

I have just turned down a job with higher pay - I value my sanity, freedom and my relatively stress-free lifestyle more than I value the money to make me "rich" ...

I have certainly achieved more in this life than I expected too ... I believe I leave a richer legacy than simply money ..

I reject your assumptions of "achievement" ... my value base is quite different to yours ...

(And no, I don't hate "rich pricks" I hate the system that allows such an uneven distribution of wealth ...)

[Brian d marge]

I don't mind paying for things like education and health.
I do tire of people referring to "free" education however.
It's not free and someone has to pay.
Whereas it is a right, it is also privilege and I’m sick of hearing people whine about student loans (and the use of this reasonably fair system as an election bride).

who reached into their pocket when you got yours

Stephen

[Oscar]

who reached into their pocket when you got yours

Stephen

As a resident non-citizen I had to pay for my own University courses.

[SPman]

All costs of education up to 18 years of age should be free (the government picks up the tab).
After that it should be fully funded by the student.
If the student can not pay for this then they can ask for a loan, if it is a "good for the country" (i.e doctors, dentists etc) then it will be fully funded and you are bonded for 15 years (or so to state health care) and then free to do what you please.
If it is "good for the country" (i.e. engineers, mechanics etc) then you can take a loan out but it will have interest charged and you are free to work where you please.
if it is not classed as this (i.e. Sunday golf, lawyers etc) you can pay for it yourself.

Back when I were ' lad, people who wanted to teach were put through University and training college by the government - then, all they had to do was teach for X number of years, (5?) and the cost of their education was wiped. Of course, if you didn't fulfill the obligations of the bond, you had to pay everything back (I know of one girl who did that - ran off and married a possum trapper in her last semester at uni.....)

It always seemed like a good scheme to me - wonder why it was dropped - probably Roger Douglas and his band of hell hounds.......

[BoristheBiter]

Back when I were ' lad, people who wanted to teach were put through University and training college by the government - then, all they had to do was teach for X number of years, (5?) and the cost of their education was wiped. Of course, if you didn't fulfill the obligations of the bond, you had to pay everything back (I know of one girl who did that - ran off and married a possum trapper in her last semester at uni.....)

It always seemed like a good scheme to me - wonder why it was dropped - probably Roger Douglas and his band of hell hounds.......

I didn't go as i had to fund uni myself, apparently my folks earned to much tui add there.