HECS-HELP “Loan Forgiveness” Thoughts - Good or Bad

Curious what OzBargainers think of the various HECS-HELP loan forgiveness programs the Labor Government is buying votes with has announced over the past few months. My wife saw an article on facebook and people were pretty mad about it, but that was back when it was only a de-rating of the 7% interest down to 4% or whatever. I’m a bit mixed on it. Hard to say I have strong feelings other than annoyance at how the Aussie system is always changing rules post-hoc.

There are two major changes:

  1. Changing of interest rate from CPI to the lower of WPI or CPI. This will be backdated a couple years back to when we had that 7% interest event.
  2. Reducing repayment thresholds and forgiving 25% of all outstanding balances. The 25% forgiveness offsets the fact that lower repayment schedule = more interest paid over loan lifetime.

Personally I will have a small benefit from both policies, although it’s slightly annoying in that I have made voluntary repayments prior to the 7% interest slug.

IMO the 25% discount is literally just buying votes. If the repayment schedule is to be reduced to match the original intention of the scheme, then what’s wrong with the total expected interest payments that were also part of the original intention of the loan? Nothing except it’s a point of weakness before an election.

Poll Options

  • 413
    Good
  • 447
    Bad
  • 33
    Don’t really care

Comments

  • +47

    I think the ALP is just picking up American political issues of the day.
    Student debt is a massive problem over there, but not here.

    The real interest rate is zero percent. it is just indexed for inflation.

    IMO the 25% discount is literally just buying votes.

    And badly. They are just shifting many billions of dollars in debt to the general public. Including those who never had a subsidised tertiary education.
    The best part for Albanese is that it hardly affects his budgets - the load is dumped on future governments to raise taxes or cut spending to pay for it. Brilliant!

    • +3

      The real interest rate is zero percent. it is just indexed for inflation.

      That’s just semantics from big HECS-HELP. My home-loan has an interest rate of 5.5% which applies in exactly the same manner as the HECS-HELP “indexation”. The only relevant difference is the protocol for calculating the rate. Is anybody else offering “interest free” loans that have an indexation rate?

      Even neglecting “indexation”, you’re slapped with a 20% “fee” up front which isn’t nothing. If you borrow worth $45,000, get a job out of Uni for $85k and get no payrises for the ~12 years it takes to pay this off (assuming the inflation rate is 0%), then this 20% fee is equivalent to just paying an interest rate of 2.8% on a loan of $45,000 for the same 12.5 year period.

      • +15

        The only relevant difference is the protocol for calculating the rate.

        That's called compound interest, HECS-HELP loans grow linearly with CPI - It was only at 7% for like a year, its back down now under your 5.5% compounded interest rate.

        Is anybody else offering “interest free” loans that have an indexation rate?

        No - because there's no profit? not sure what your point is.

        Even neglecting “indexation”, you’re slapped with a 20% “fee” up front which isn’t nothing. If you borrow worth $45,000, get a job out of Uni for $85k and get no payrises for the ~12 years it takes to pay this off (assuming the inflation rate is 0%), then this 20% fee is equivalent to just paying an interest rate of 2.8% on a loan of $45,000 for the same 12.5 year period.

        That's not correct - because you would get pay rises close (say on average WPI). You don't get hit with a CPI increase of $45k every year for 12 years, it would be 41k +CPI second year, 36k third year, 30k fourth year etc, as you get higher pay you pay back a higher % aswell, you principle + CPI amount is smaller and smaller every year.

          • +6

            @CommuterPolluter: Once a year indexed on a single day is what I'd call linear. Say it was $45k, and you paid off the whole $45k in May right before the 1st June index date you pay $0 in interest.
            Your home loan is 5.5% p/a interest applied daily. That's what I'd treat as compounded. If you did the above you would still have interest after paying the $45k

            Actually there have been various “interest free” loans offered with product purchases. They typically offer up to 24 months interest free. None of them charged indexation in the interest free period because it’s a form of interest and the only difference is semantic

            Correct, the nominal interest rate on them would be negative whatever the inflation rate was, your money is worth less 24 months after the purchase.

            I'm basing it on the fact I had HECS-HELP which started at 30k, went up to 48k, before it started to come down but once it started to come down it came down quite quick as my income increased rapidly thanks to the fact I went to Uni.

            • +14

              @arkie0:

              @CommuterPolluter: Once a year indexed on a single day is what I'd call linear. Say it was $45k, and you paid off the whole $45k in May right before the 1st June index date you pay $0 in interest.
              Your home loan is 5.5% p/a interest applied daily. That's what I'd treat as compounded. If you did the above you would still have interest after paying the $45k

              It doesn’t matter what you treat as compounded because that isn’t what the word means.

              Compounding refers to the phenomenon by which the interest from a previous period will included in the interest calculation for a subsequent period. The indexation charged on a HECS-HELP loan absolutely will compound if you don’t pay it off.

              The specific method of applying the interest/indexation, whether it is calculated for a daily balance or once annually, is irrelevant.

              Correct, the nominal interest rate on them would be negative whatever the inflation rate was, your money is worth less 24 months after the purchase

              The real interest rate would be negative. The nominal interest rate would be zero.

              Why are you arguing about this stuff when you don’t understand what any of the basic terms, such as compounded, real, or nominal mean?

              • +1

                @CommuterPolluter:

                Why are you arguing about this stuff when you don’t understand what any of the basic terms, such as compounded, real, or nominal mean?

                haha sorry, I'll shut up now.

                • +8

                  @arkie0: I will never understand people who moan and groan about HECS. If you chose to borrow the money, you pay it back.

                  If someone borrows $100 from you and pay you back 10 years later, you'd expect at the very least, the same value in 10 years-later dollar amount that you lend.

                  The government is literally not making any profit from it.

                  • @buckethat: Yeah the way I see it

                    HECS-HELP = Individual gets the benefit of higher income, so the individual repays the "loan", it's not even an interest loan.

                    Free Uni = Individual gets the benefit of higher income; the general taxpayer pays for you. Too bad if you're grades aren't good enough to get higher education, you still need to pay for that doctor who needs the free education. Yes you can do free TAFE as well, but you don't get as much.

                    Nordic states can do free Uni because their taxes are much higher and more progressive, Sweden has a flat +20% tax rate for people above the 90k AUD equivalent, the people with degrees who are most likely to be on this pay rate.

                    I reckon if you gave the people the choice
                    Free Uni pay but you pay a flat +20% tax flat rate if you earn above 100k for the rest of your life to help fund future students.
                    Or HECS-HELP, you repay the loan but you don't need to pay the higher tax rate, most people would pick this option.

              • -1

                @CommuterPolluter: Indexation is an amazing loan - you can invest money simply by sitting it in a random bank account and do better than this.

                The specific method of applying the interest/indexation, whether it is calculated for a daily balance or once annually, is irrelevant.

                How is it irrelevant when it directly affects how you can pay it off and result in different dollar values?

                Your take is as terrible as your logic

                • @sakurashu: It’s great that anybody can access it and that the ongoing interest rate is low (pegged to inflation). However, as you’re slapped with a whopping 20% upfront it’s neither free money nor “amazing” in my book.

                  You can do the calculations for your particular scenario but for anybody who uses it to get a well paying job and actually pays it off quickly, it works out to be similar to, or slightly better than, a commercial loan product.

                  • @CommuterPolluter: Did them for myself - much better than a loan. In my home country I wouldn't have been able to afford university and the quality of university here is much better - I'm still in favour of the system. Maybe instead we shouldn't be pushing everyone to go to university

                    • @sakurashu: You absolutely nailed it.
                      Here the HECS available to everyone iresspective of your pay back capacity when you avail the loan.
                      But the indexation should be in line with CPI index and payments up to the indexation date to be excluded.

                  • +2

                    @CommuterPolluter:

                    Even neglecting “indexation”, you’re slapped with a 20% “fee” up front which isn’t nothing. If you borrow worth $45,000, get a job out of Uni for $85k and get no payrises for the ~12 years it takes to pay this off

                    Ignoring all your other points… you are somehow slapped with a 20% "fee" up front.. that accrues over 12 years, but its upfront? I'm lost.

                    Also, if you got a job out of Uni and get no payrise for 12 years.. well you've got bigger problems.

                    • @buckethat:

                      You are somehow slapped with a 20% "fee" up front

                      It was a change in 2006 to HECS-HELP, some courses have a 20% loan fee which is added to the cost of the course mostly for non CSP. Most places are CSP and do not have this fee.

                      • @arkie0: Oh I see, I stand corrected then.

                        No idea this was a thing.

      • +1

        If you borrow worth $45,000, get a job out of Uni for $85k and get no payrises for the ~12 years ~8 months it takes to pay this off

        • +2

          Why would anybody do that now? He justed pissed $11250 up the wall by now waiting for Albos Alms.

          • +1

            @CommuterPolluter: I was pointing out that paying off the debt in a longer time is a choice, not an obligation. One could live at home or live extremely frugally and pay of their debt without having to pay 12 years of compounded interest.

            • +2

              @RiseAndRuin: I agree and I have made voluntary contributions on the basis of the scheme as it existed. However, this is disincentivised under a scheme which retroactively makes changes which primarily benefit those who only make minimum repayments.

              The conspiratorial part of my brain thinks the Labor Government just likes it as another income tax, another yoke around the peasants. Reminds me of the Gary Shearston lyric “great granddaddy walked along the street with a ball and chain around his feet, and that’s the way they’d like to see me walk just to give the toffs a chance to talk”.

              • @CommuterPolluter:

                I agree and I have made voluntary contributions on the basis of the scheme as it existed. However, this is disincentivised under a scheme which retroactively makes changes which primarily benefit those who only make minimum repayments.

                Isn't this true for any government policy change though?

                There are always going to be those who "miss out", so by your logic, no government policy can ever be enacted?

                For example, there are those who bought their first homes right before the FHOG was announced, those who installed solar before the rebates were announced, those who bought EVs right before the subsidies came into play, those who had babies right before baby bonuses…etc. You can think of plenty of other examples.

                You can't always win - all government policies are redistributive in nature, Medicare benefits the sick at the expense of the well, school funding benefits those with kids at the expense of those without, FHOG benefits home buyers at the expense of long-term renters, roads benefit those with cars at the expense of those without…etc.

                It's just in this case, that the changes to how HECS will be paid benefits those with large HECS debts at the expense of those with small / no HECS debts (either because they paid them off early, went to university ages ago, or never went to university at all). The policy needs to be judged on its own merits, not the fact that some have missed out.

                • +1

                  @p1 ama:

                  The policy needs to be judged on its own merits, not the fact that some have missed out.

                  Why not engage with that aspect of my criticism rather than 5 paragraphs making the rather banal observation that every policy has relative winners and relative losers?

                  I don’t like that the policy specifically disincentivises people not to repay their debts. I don’t like the aspects of the policy which specifically and exclusively benefit a fixed cohort, rather than a class of people. These elements don’t have a broader societal benefit (like roads, free education and affordable healthcare do), instead these policies serve primarily to assist in the re-election of the incumbent Government.

                  • @CommuterPolluter:

                    Why not engage with that aspect of my criticism rather than 5 paragraphs making the rather banal observation that every policy has relative winners and relative losers?

                    Because you seem relatively hung up on the point that you have made voluntary contributions and you are now worse off.

                    I don’t like that the policy specifically disincentivises people not to repay their debts.

                    How does the policy disincentivise people to repay their debts? There is already no incentive to repay HECS, as you've pointed out, because the (real) interest rate is zero.

                    I don’t like the aspects of the policy which specifically and exclusively benefit a fixed cohort, rather than a class of people. These elements don’t have a broader societal benefit (like roads, free education and affordable healthcare do), instead these policies serve primarily to assist in the re-election of the incumbent Government.

                    Well there are broader societal benefits, namely that young people with HECS now have lower repayments which will help them, for example, purchase a property sooner (amongst other things).

                    The motivation of the policy is irrelevant - if anything, I believe that the Albanese government's approach to policy has put them in this position in the first place. They had an overwhelming mandate to delivery structural economic change, instead, they've wasted huge amounts of political capital on (ultimately) unfruitful issues (e.g. the Voice to Parliament referrendum).

                    • @p1 ama:

                      Because you seem relatively hung up on the point that you have made voluntary contributions and you are now worse off.

                      I haven’t made that specific point and I don’t endorse that.

                      How does the policy disincentivise people to repay their debts? There is already no incentive to repay HECS, as you've pointed out, because the (real) interest rate is zero.

                      You seem to be conflating two distinct topics here. I’m not sure if this is intentional or you just aren’t thinking clearly. There are two manners in which these policies disincentive repayments: Firstly, by telling debtors that any Labor Govt might arbitrarily forgive debts to win their vote. Secondly, this disincentives repayments by telling debtors that even in situations where there appears to be a financial incentive to make a repayment, any Labor Govt will change the rules after the fact to eliminate that.

                      Well there are broader societal benefits, namely that young people with HECS now have lower repayments which will help them, for example, purchase a property sooner (amongst other things).

                      This is unrelated to the aspects of the policies which I have actually criticised. Specifically, the 25% HECS-HELP discount to current debtors only reduces the duration of their repayments. So instead of having this extra 5% tax for another 12 years maybe they have it for another 9 years. That doesn’t help them get into a house quicker.

                      They had an overwhelming mandate to delivery structural economic change

                      Oh, you are a Labor shill. It was pretty clear to everybody that the Liberals resoundingly lost the election. I’m not sure what mandate the Labor party had other than “don’t take your holiday during bushfire season”.

                      • @CommuterPolluter:

                        Oh, you are a Labor shill. It was pretty clear to everybody that the Liberals resoundingly lost the election. I’m not sure what mandate the Labor party had other than “don’t take your holiday during bushfire season”.

                        How am I a Labor shill? I literally criticised the Labor government right in that paragraph.

                        If you just want to shit on the Labor government, better to just be honest than pretend to be having a sophisticated policy discussion.

    • +15

      I think the ALP is just picking up American political issues of the day.

      Labor, whom platform some form of fee-free TAFE courses at basically every freaking election?

      You never cared about the $trillion debt that the Liberals left the ALP for all the socialised losses for profitable businesses (including the Catholic church, whom declared their priests are employees and thus are entitled to JobKeeper payments - but have stated they aren't employees when it comes to Sexual Abuse cover-ups so therefore they aren't liable…. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-16/anger-over-church-vic…)

      • -2

        Oh dear, what is it with this tribal politics?
        Every time people criticise a party you identify with, you must assume they like the other one? Your team is not above criticism, whichever "team" that is.

        • +10

          "Identify with" what a brain-dead interpretation. Not shocking, mind you, with your horrible take in the original comment.

          Labor platform fee-free TAFE. My original comment stands and you are politically-illiterate.

        • Oh dear, what is it with this tribal politics?

          Criticism of a particular political party (as opposed to a specific policy) is, in and of itself, "tribal politics".

          FWIW, the entire opening post is littered with "tribal politics", that the policy is "buying votes", "a point of weakness before the election"…etc., points which have nothing to do with the actual substantive policy questions (namely, how a country should fund higher education in the first place), and economic questions (namely, whether CPI is an appropriate measure of inflation for the purposes of HECS indexation).

          The reality is that either we have a discussion about "policy", or a discussion about "politics" - starting a discussion on politics and being upset when others respond with politics is just disingenuous.

          • @p1 ama: Fair point. It would have been better if I had said "government" instead of ALP.
            We've seen the adoption of US political battles a bit lately. Conservative backbenchers trying to make abortion an issue for example.
            And I felt like the government was likewise being influenced by the US issues of the day.

    • +15

      The real interest rate is zero percent. it is just indexed for inflation.

      As someone with a student loan that grows every year this is rubbish, call it or "interest rate" or "indexation rate" it definitely grows and sure doesn't feel like a free loan.

      • Do you understand that 1 dollar today is not the same as 1 dollar in a years time? If it never grew it would actually be getting smaller and somebody else would be paying for it?

        • +10

          That's literally how HECS was supposed to work - this idea of indexation is relatively recent idea. When I signed up for HECS there was no indexation and then the deal was unilaterally changed on me. If a Bank did that there would be an uproar. Instead I'm supposed to be thankful that it's 'only indexation on an annual basis'. The public is being taken for a ride.

          • @Waspanater: Source? HECS-HELP started in 1996, I studied with a clear-cut contract including indexation in 2011 and indexation was happening for a time before that for all of my siblings.

            If by relatively recent you mean 20 years and for most people with remaining substantial debt then yeah, maybe.

            Also doesn't the bank do this all the time with variable interest rates? Or does your HECS contract not have a provision for changes?

            • +4

              @sakurashu: Indexation was introduced in 2006, prior to this it was just a fixed sum and anyone who had a debt from prior was just lumped with the indexation. You can argue the right or wrong of it, but the deal was fundamentally changed for anyone who signed up for a student loan prior to the change of policy.

              And the bank can change the rate, sure, but they can't just introduce an entirely new concept for how they intend to charge you.

              • @Waspanater: Then like any other adjustment it should only have applied to new debt accrued from 2006 - there's no argument there. But how something was supposed to work and how it now does isn't really relevant for those signing up for debt from 2006 onwards? Super has changed drastically as well.

                Also banks definitely doing stuff just as dodgy:
                https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-04/westpac-will-not-take…

                • +1

                  @sakurashu: Government's dodgy, banks are dodgy, there's nowhere to hide!

              • +6

                @Waspanater: No. Indexation did not start in 2006. It started when the Hawke government introduced HECS with a zero real interest rate - that is, the debt was indexed to CPI from the start. In fact it was an option considered at that time to set the real interest rate above zero, but that did not proceed.
                https://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-1989-hawke-govern…

              • +9

                @Waspanater:

                When I signed up for HECS there was no indexation and then the deal was unilaterally changed on me

                I also graduated in 2000 and this is incorrect. Indexation was applied even before 2006, indexing was always part of the 1989 HECS.

                The annual course charge, the outstanding debt and the personal taxable income levels above which payment is required will be indexed to keep pace with inflation. These arrangements will ensure that those paying the charge will pay the same amount in real terms, regardless of how long they take to do so. The scheme will cover all higher education students-both new and continuing-and study undertaken from 1 January, 1989 Source

                What changed in 2006 was a name change to HECS-HELP but most of the changes was around how university and course were funded and subsidized. I pretty sure this change resulted in Uni courses getting more expensive, anyway no changes to the way indexation worked in 2006.

                • +2

                  @arkie0: I'd have to find my old papers, but yes I'm pretty sure I copped indexation on my HECS debt from the start (2001)

                • +5

                  @arkie0: I'll take the L on this one, my mind starting to play tricks on me.

        • -1

          Please explain to me how if I studied 20 years ago with the help of a HECS loan, so the teachers/universities were also paid 20 years ago that "somebody else would be paying for it"???

          It shouldn't be indexed or have interest or even exist (we should not need a loan for higher education) IMO.

          • +2

            @A-mak: Okay.

            1) You take a loan from entity A
            2) This loan pays the university and teachers (irrelevant, discard them as relevant parties)
            3) You pay the loan back but the value of the loan is never indexed

            In this scenario Entity A is getting paid back an amount less than what they loaned to you. If you took $1000 dollars and then paid only an absolute $1000 over 20 years, inflation eats this amount up. Inflation adjusted $1000 from 2003 to 2023 is ~$1702. For Entity A to make no profit (or loss) they would need you to pay back a more complex calculation closer to $1702 over that period (not the full 1702 because as you pay some off it no longer needs to be inflation adjusted).

            Entity A in this case is the somebody else who is paying for your loan amount - essentially the government and by extension taxpayers.

            If we didn't have loans then somebody still has to pay for it - which is a fine position to take but let's be clear on the position and who pays.

            • -4

              @sakurashu: I disagree, loan was disbursed 20 years ago and that fact is entirely relevant as the service that required payment are paid back then and not today. If there was no loan the gov would likely not have put those funds into an investment that matches inflation anyways.

              • @A-mak: This is not about who was paid but who was loaned from - they are different transactions. If you didn't pay the university your fees for 20 years and then tried to pay the amount those fees were 20 years ago then yes the university would also be making a loss. That is the exact same scenario - do you think it is somehow appropriate because it is the government supplying the loan?

                • -1

                  @sakurashu: I think some numbers that just sat on a computer/piece of paper whiles all other services are rendered prior/at the initial time doesn't mean those numbers should go up because of time (interest on a debt is a different story but within this topic it's apparently well established ThAt InDeXiNg Is NoT interest).

                  With that motto, may as well index the HECS against the cost of the course each year rather than CPI as the course could increase in price above CPI.

                  • @A-mak: They aren't just numbers on a piece of paper. The government is carrying the debt and paying interest on it until (if) it is paid off. You've never heard of government debt?

                    Administering HECS-HELP costs a ton, it's a very complex scheme and many loans are never repaid. Indexation only covers a fraction of that.

                    Indexation just maintains the real value (purchasing power) of the loan. If there was no indexation, people would be heavily incentivised to avoid paying it off as long as possible.

                    You don't have to like it but indexation makes a lot of sense. Your arguments don't.

  • +40

    saw an article on facebook

    groan

    • -2

      It was one of those ones with a number at the front too. The commenters had very strong opinions.

  • +24

    If they do it immediately so I can benefit then GOOD, if they wait until July next year then BAD.

    Regardless, I voted bad. People need to learn to take accountability for contracts they signed.

    • +21

      People need to learn to take accountability for contracts they signed.

      100000000%

      • +1

        But they changed the rules halfway through.

        Having said that I do agree with rolling back the indexation changes, I don't agree with a broader debt forgiveness.

        • +1

          But they changed the rules halfway through.

          How do you mean?

          Having said that I do agree with rolling back the indexation changes, I don't agree with a broader debt forgiveness.

          I have no problem with the indexing changes. I also think they should apply what is paid throughout the year as it goes, it's not like they don't have the ability.

          • @brendanm: I was wrong!

            I thought the indexation changed under the brutal 2014 budget but it turns out the budget proposal never got through.

        • changed the rules halfway through.

          Which rules? Nothing has changed in my many years of having a HECS debt.

      • vote for the honesty
    • +17

      The contract I signed the loan had no indexation and was fixed, perhaps the government should take responsibility for the contracts it signs.

      • -8

        Prove it.

        • +6

          Just read the history of the student loan scheme in Australia? Prior to 2006 there was no indexation, anyone who signed up for a loan before that time got it foisted on them with no recourse.

          • +6

            @Waspanater: That's not correct, it's always been indexed since the inception of HECS in 1989:

            HECS – HELP Loans Annual Indexation
            Year ended 30 June:

            Year CPI (%) WPI (%)
            2024 4.8% 4.0%
            2023 7.1% 3.2%
            2022 3.9% -
            2021 0.6% -
            2020 1.8% -
            2019 1.8% -
            2018 1.9% -
            2017 1.5% -
            2016 1.5% -
            2015 2.1% -
            2014 2.6% -
            2013 2.0% -
            2012 2.9% -
            2011 3.0% -
            2010 1.9% -
            2009 3.9% -
            2008 2.8% -
            2007 3.4% -
            2006 2.8% -
            2005 2.4% -
            2004 2.4% -
            2003 3.1% -
            2002 3.6% -
            2001 5.3% -
            2000 1.9% -
            1999 1.9% -
            1998 -0.1% -
            1997 2.0% -
            1996 1.6% -
            1995 2.5% -
            1994 1.9% -
            1993 0.9% -
            1992 2.4% -
            1991 6.4% -
            1990 8.0% -

          • @Waspanater: Just not correct. Indexation applied from the moment HECS was introduced.

      • -2

        Except you didn’t sign a contract.

        You took advantage of a scheme that is governed by legislation. Parliament has the right to amend or change legislation as they see fit.

      • @Waspanater: Just not correct. Why are you so misinformed about this?

    • +2

      Absolutely agree with this..
      People sign up to uni to improve their education with a result to earn a higher income and pay it back once in said career.
      Education isn't free. Tutors and lecturers need to be paid.
      And this means students need to pay once in the workforce.
      There may be some conditions where a forgiveness can be considered. E.g unemployment etc but if a student decides to buy a luxury (high yield investment) car or a house bigger than what they can afford. It's not an excuse to not pay HECS debt.

      • +1

        Sure, if you ignore those who were educated in the 1970s ( and are still in power).

  • +53

    All type public sector higher education should completely be free for Australian citizens.

    • +11

      Totally agree. Need to cut back the numbers and increase the quality.

      • +6

        Except when you make it free, Uni's increase their fees and you get more junk courses

        • -8

          Exactly. You can get PhD in Lesbian Basket Weaving all payed for by the taxpayer.

        • +14

          Except the governemnt is free to regulate that market any way they want. Funny how the Scandi countries with completely free tertiary education don't have your "what if slippery slope" issue.

          • +1

            @Charmoffensive: Yes, I agree that would be a positive reform to emulate the Nordic countries on education. I went to a public school and support public education.

            In the current environment, if you just gave out free courses without any other reform Uni's would almost certainly increase their fees.

            We need to regulate and have more government oversight on course costs, entrance requirements and enrolment numbers first. What the department of education does for public primary/high schools, just needs to be done better - and public high schools are mostly free in Australia, except most of them are crap compared to private schools. Same thing would then just happen to tertiary education, everyone gets access to Uni, the rich get access to private Uni's.

            Nordic states also have a high tax rate to fund all this, so really step 1 is really to increase taxes - about $10B a year.

          • @Charmoffensive: I mean that's a pretty bad counter argument.

            Scandi countries have completely different political ideologies leaning more conservative so "Lesbian Basket Weaving" would never even occur

            They also have higher tax rates to subsidise the free education

            • -5

              @TheFreaK:

              Scandi countries have completely different political ideologies leaning more conservative

              You really think Australian politics doesn't lean conservative? I have a bridge to sell you.

              so "Lesbian Basket Weaving" would never even occur

              So is it the academics who are filthy liberals or the government who are dictating what unis teach (lol)? Tell me you never got a degree without telling me.

              They also have higher tax rates to subsidise the free education

              We currently take in more profit from HECS than we do gas in this country. If we had a sovereign welath fund like Norway, we wouldn't need to charge any additional taxes.

              C'mon man, at least do some research before running your mouth.

              • +1

                @Charmoffensive:

                You really think Australian politics doesn't lean conservative? I have a bridge to sell you.

                Try going outside, labor government and liberal-leaning mainstream media

                So is it the academics who are filthy liberals or the government who are dictating what unis teach (lol)?

                Yeah because society and therefore scholars and academics don't have their own political or societal views, do they?

                Doubt it's the government pushing Taylor Swift courses

                We currently take in more profit from HECS than we do gas in this country. If we had a sovereign welath fund like Norway, we wouldn't need to charge any additional taxes.

                Bold of you to claim I'm "running my mouth" when you think HECS takes in profit lmao

                Taxes against raw material producers as well as income tax would all need to be raised to subsidise a public tertiary education system

              • @Charmoffensive: If you are saying it is the academics and universities that are filthy liberals then you are correct

                Also charmoffensive, taking in more money from HECS isn't the same as more profit from it given they had to provide the money in the first place?

              • @Charmoffensive: "Tell me without telling me" makes no sense. Regardless of the fact that it's a stupid expression, if it's going to be used it should be "tell me without saying".

                Telling and saying are two different things.

              • @Charmoffensive: Data source on HECS profits?

                  • @Charmoffensive: these people seem very confused, why are they referring to HECS repayments as a tax? What point is there in comparing HECS to PRRT?

                    Nothing in that link mentions the cost of the program. Debt repayments are not profits, the scheme costs MUCH more to run than is covered by indexation.

                    • @larndis:

                      the scheme costs MUCH more to run than is covered by indexation.

                      And the gas/oil profits are MUCH higher than what HECS costs tthe government. If you don't see any issue with that, I have a rich man's boot for you to lick.

                      • @Charmoffensive: OK, but so what? The two things are completely unrelated. Argue your position on it's merits instead of deflecting.

                        Using the word 'profit' when talking about a scheme that costs billions of dollars is clearly intentionally misleading.

                        I do believe we should do a better job of taxing companies that profit from our natural resources. My views on the education system are unrelated to this, however. What changes are you actually proposing to taxation?

                        • @larndis: One is the revenue generated from indexation that should not exist, given education should be free and the other is a completely undertaxed resource that if it was appropriately taxed would entirely fund the other. I'm not sure why you're having such a problem connecting these two concepts.

                          • @Charmoffensive: Well I'm not sure why you're having such a problem not conflating two unrelated issues.

                            So you want to raise more taxes to fund free eduction? Fine. Again, what changes are you actually proposing to taxation? Or are you only interested in throwing around vauge, theoretical 'solutions' and deflecting to try and hide the fact you have no idea what you're talking about?

                            • @larndis:

                              what changes are you actually proposing to taxation?

                              What are you, high? I've mentioned like three times now the creation of a sovereign wealth fund to appropriately tax oil and gas superprofits.

                              Mate, go simp for a wealth class you'll never be a part of somewhere else.

                              • @Charmoffensive: Oh right, so you've got a well reasoned, highly detailed policy proposal. Good luck with that, mate.

                                • -1

                                  @larndis: "Unless you submit a detailed policy document that can be implemented tomorrow in this bargain forum argument, your point is null and void. I win!"

                                  Classic. I see you've read "how to be wrong and still try to win an argument on the internet" before.

                                  • @Charmoffensive: Mate, you're entirely free to continue ranting at strangers on the internet with your half-baked ideas and clear lack of actual knowledge. I hope you find whatever validation you're looking for.

    • and where do you expect the $$$ to come from ???
      Teachers don't work for free - you do know that … although many actually do 10-20 UNPAID hours each/every week … just saying !!!

      2x ppl in my family are teachers (year 11+) …
      not only do these ppl get paid for their 8-6 … they also do unpaid - EG. being available for students in lead-up to exams + marking at home … how many other professions take their work home +++ not get paid for doing it.

      • +10

        We seem to have plenty of money for nuclear submarines. Maybe we could cancel that deal and spend the money on things that are actually useful?

        • +5

          If you think nuclear submarines wouldn't be useful, are you living under a rock, or do you have a better plan?

          • +4

            @SlickMick: You really don't think there are better ways to spend $368 billion?

            Maybe go with conventional diesel submarines and cut that in half if we need a blue-water fleet

            • +3

              @Jolakot: I have no idea whether you think you know what you're talking about or not.

              I no nothing about the detail, I just figure we have a heap of coast and not much defending it, and that's going to be an issue sooner rather than later.
              I sure hope the people making the decisions don't try to skimp on our defence.

              • +13

                @SlickMick: It's like a new parent buying a $6000 pram, and then complaining that they can't afford rent. When asked why they spent so much on a pram, their only response is that the baby needs a pram, do you want the baby to not have a pram?

                For reference, we paid $5.1 billion in 1999 for our current fleet of 6 collins-class diesel submarines, adjusted for inflation that's about $10 billion today. For $368 billion, we are getting 8 nuclear submarines, the only real advantage is that they can be easily deployed beyond our waters. That's not entirely a fair comparison for a number of reasons, but it doesn't have to be with the gigantic difference in cost.

                For that same amount of money, we could build 100 new diesel submarines (expecting a catastrophic cost blow-out to $2 billion each), forgive the $80 billion in HECs debt, and still have enough money left over to hand every Australian a cheque for $3000.

                In what backwards-ass world does that make sense, if the purpose is to protect our borders?

                • -3

                  @Jolakot: You could also argue that it's like a new student buying a 100k course, then complaining then can't afford to repay it. When asked why they spent so much on a course (instead of working right away), their only response is that they need the 100k course, do you not want them to be on an above average income?

                  But not saying that nuclear subs spending could have been better spent

                  • +4

                    @arkie0: My gripe with HECs is that my parents didn't have to pay for their university education, but I did.

                    If the government tracked down everyone who got a free education and retroactively tacked on HECs based on the current cost of their degree, I would think the current system is more than fair.

                    Otherwise, I think it's cowardly to complain about having to pay for other people's education, when you had other people pay for yours. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

                    • -1

                      @Jolakot: So here's my gripe, my parents immigrated here - so they and I have never known free university. I finished a double degree costing about 35k (60-65k today accounting for inflation), it ballooned up to 48k over 5 years (75-80k inflation adjusted) before my income was high enough to start bringing it down. Took me about 10 years to pay it off from there, so 15 years all together.

                      I'm happy to subsidise Uni students to get the same advantage I got but then to say I now have to pay more tax so that they get free education is unfair in that I never got free handout for my education, but I now have to pay for yours?

                      In saying that, I would still support increased taxes for free university for future students - I just wouldn't support abolishing current HELP loans.

Login or Join to leave a comment