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

    • +2

      Actually did you know if you pay for home insurance you're paying for a fire services levy etc?

      If you don't then not only do you get free emergency services you get a go fund me because you're not insured

      It's the age of no consequences and no responsibility

    • +1

      I think it’s reasonable logic when the policy in question is essentially a wealth transfer to an arbitrary section of the population.

      Bracket creep has moved debtors onto a more onerous repayment schedule compared to the original intention of the scheme. However, while this imposes a hardship on debtors it also benefits them by forcing them to pay off their debt quicker reducing their total interest costs. The Labor Government is proposing to fix the onerous repayment schedule without taking away the associated benefit of a quicker debt repayment timeline (by means of a 25% debt forgiveness). It’s essentially saying “here’s your cake and you can eat it too”.

      You could graduate tomorrow, have never been charged a dollar in indexation fees, and get a nice 25% discount on your HECS-HELP debt. It’s unjust.

      • It's not arbitrary, it's disproportionately benefiting a segment of the voting population (young, high uni debt, renters) who have gravitated towards voting Green. Might be the difference between a Labor majority and a hung parliament.

    • In the same vein if you already own a home I assume you're opposed to increasing the First Home Buyers Grant (or similar policies) because you don't directly benefit ?

      No but I bet he and many people are against measures that would make homes cheaper for those that can't afford to buy one.

      • No, not really. I would be ecstatic if the Government did something besides encouraging developers to cram more s—-boxes into Melbourne and Sydney. Obviously, the best place to start would be to deport anybody who’s arrived or returned post-COVID and the housing crisis would be solved overnight. Crazy that sycophants still say mass migration isn’t the problem - covid blew up that narrative.

  • +10

    There absolutely needs to be forgiveness for the last 10 years of interest. People who oppose this have zero clue what is going on.

    The immediate issue is the immense inflation of indexation that occured in the last 3 years that went out of control. On top of this everyones salary inflated well past repayment thresholds. But neither wage growth nor tax brackets were scaled to debt increases. This was a stealth tax increase on the youngest and most cash poor of the population.

    Secondly HECS was originally on CPI increase but unjustly switched over to Indexation by the Coalition. And of course it was the Coalition that induced inflation via delayed vaccines effects on the economy, immense weapons acquisition and poor management of foreign trade.

    Thirdly HECS isn't a bond tied to the Reserve. It's an investment that has low expectation of repayment. Wiping it out has next zero effect on the budget.

    The debt increases were basically a wealth transfer from HECS holders to the Government for their reckless spending.

    • Wait until you get a home loan if you're struggling with HECS.

      • +10

        The young won't even get a home loan at this rate. Especially since the inflation induced ballooning HECS debt counts towards the application.

        People who oppose this are voting to create a lost generation.

        I have no debt and won't benefit but even I see the train wreck comming.

        • So what is so special about this round of inflation ballooning HECS debt that is so different to what many of us dealt with during our HECS debt in the early 90's. hell my first 2 years were at 8% and 6.4%. I don't recall anyone calling us a lost generation in the 90's.

          • +1

            @gromit: Wage growth support the inflated rates. Buying a house in the 90's was much more feasible. That is the difference.

      • I mean hypothetically speaking, if I'm paying $500 a week rent and another $100 a week on a HECS repayment, it's going to be harder than paying $500 a week on a mortgage. Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

        • Because living in a 3br house in say outer Melbourne, the rent is about 500 a week. Loan repayments on that exact same house is about 900 a week.

          • @arkie0: I mean repayments are entirely dependent on the length and size of your loan, so you’re just making random things up now. What if it was 200? What if it was 1500?

            • @EFC94: I said the exact same house, in my case I used my own house as the example.

              You can look up your own house, get a rental evaluation, get a market appraisal and do your own calculations if you want. Sites like realestate.com sometimes gives you both just look for a house that was recently bought/sold, then immediately rented.

              • @arkie0: I never said it was a different house? I said that the repayments are entirely dependent on the size and length of the loan. Just because you’ve got say a 700k loan on the house, doesn’t mean someone else who could’ve bought it would have a 700k loan, everyone has differing financial circumstances.

                • @EFC94: My calcs, 800k house, we thought about renting it out, appraisal came back with $500 a week.

                  I did 80% loan on the value of the house, default 20% deposit, using 6%, over 30 years.

                  I assumed someone renting would get a least a 20% deposit - sure you can buy the house with a 5% deposit, but the repayments would be even higher so that argument is in my favor.

                  Or do you think someone who is renting, is able to buy that house with like a 50% deposit, bringing the loan down to like 400k, and having then paying only 500 a week on the mortgage? and if they could afford a 50% deposit, why are they worrying about $100 a week on HECS, just pay off hecs with that deposit.

    • On top of this everyones salary inflated well past repayment thresholds.

      Well, that seems like good news? I guess they could always ask for a pay cut if they were really concerned.

      Secondly HECS was originally on CPI increase but unjustly switched over to Indexation by the Coalition.

      Umm, indexation is CPI increase, what change are you referring to?

  • If people vote for this then they really got rocks in their heads.

    People with debts get a discount. But what about their kids. Lets live in hope they get a lucky cut too?

    I found out the other day Open University is charging the same as top tier universities (Melbourne / UNSW) and it is online only. Why are they charging the same $16k when there is no campus etc. Should be less than $10k.

    The whole university charging scheme here is a rort.

    There used to be a discount for paying up front and discount for voluntary repayments. It is a common thing in the private sector to motivate people to pay on time. But you know the government don't motivate they just punish you with more fees / penalty interest.

    • -2

      People with debts get a discount. But what about their kids. Lets live in hope they get a lucky cut too?

      Why bother doing anything to help or improve the situation if it doesn't fully solve the problem? People benefitting today doesn't eliminate the possibility of a better system being implemented down the road

  • -5

    Let's continue to reward the baristas with bachelors degrees. Good job government.

  • +9

    Could have at least reduced HECS debts on critical roles (i.e., nurses, paramedics, STEM, etc)

    • +3

      This is what should happen. Get a degree and a job in a role where we need people, get reduced HECS debt. Get a degree and a job in a role where we need people, and go regional for X years, wiped HECS debt.

  • +1

    Higher education must be free for citizens imho. We are paying life long taxes on earnings anyway!

    • Governments don't think long term, hell people in general don't think long term, it's just "what can I get NOW?"

  • +1

    Looking over finance videos on Youtube, it seems like many young and middle aged Americans are banking on large debt forgiveness over there as a bailout, and it seems like we're developing that trend here too.

    Why work to pay off the debt you voluntarily took on when someone in the future will just wipe it out? The people who paid off their HECS debt must feel like suckers.

    • It gets taken out of your pay automatically. This was how I paid off mine. If I hadn't worked and paid it off, the debt would now be twice or three times as big.

    • I don't think this culture genuinely exists in Australia. The government proposal is clearly a vote buying exercise a few months before the election, but it doesn't make sense that voters would be worried about HECS debt like students in the USA, it simply isn't a similar burden

  • +1

    It's really bad for people who just paid off their loans before whatever cutoff date they decide.

    And it also teaches you not to pay off your debts - you get punished for saving and paying off your loans, you get rewarded for delaying as much as possible.

    Instead they could just make it cheap to begin with and it would encourage more people to take up education

  • +4

    I support loan reductions, however, they must be accompanied by some market rationalization. Just because the bills change hands from students, to the government, doesn't mean there shouldn't be strong downward pressure on the tuition. Similarly, we don't want to see this lead to large scale enrolments "because it's free." Students should face a significant and non-trivial barrier to entry to prevent frivolous enrollment. These barriers should strongly favor degrees with stronger market demand. I don't know what the right balance is. But simply passing the debt from student to government doesn't address the root cause.

    The qualification bar is in such a weird place nowadays, and the pay for skilled persons has simply been eroded. We have a combination of intermediate degrees (Cert 1-4) disappearing (as a result of TAFE being gutted), businesses hiring "degree only" where it isn't required, and those degrees, attracting minimum wage. We need to make that stop.

    • Similarly, we don't want to see this lead to large scale enrolments "because it's free." Students should face a significant and non-trivial barrier to entry to prevent frivolous enrollment. These barriers should strongly favor degrees with stronger market demand.

      I agree. I think Rudd specifically deserves a lot of blame for this, his ego has put us in a bad position.

      • +1

        What did Rudd's ego do?

        • +3

          Probably made OP literally shake.

  • +3

    its mixed. I support change to the way it is indexed and threseholds, but not the loan forgiveness, it is completely unnecessary government pork barreling.

  • +2

    Bad. Very bad.

    These people wanted the degree and were happy to let others front the money.

    And now repaying it is a problem?

    Everyone knows what interest vs indexing is. Again they happily took the deal, for decades never complained about sub 3% indexing. Now that it doesn't go their way they bitch.

    Shameful.

    • +2

      You think every year 12 student knows what interest vs indexing is?

      They're just herded to uni/TAFE and told to take on debt.

      • +2

        Every Year 12 that is going to HIGHER learning, yes.

      • +4

        If you finish year 12 and don't understand that, you shouldn't be doing higher education.

    • Yes they should know, but I suspect many don't look into it very hard.

      It can be easy to forget on OzB, but many adults who are good at lots of other things have a very poor grasp of finances. Students/young adults are no different.

      This is just an observation, I'm not suggesting it gives anyone an excuse to complain after the fact.

  • +6

    I still remember going to uni and talking to people about their semester break. They all went on holiday and I had to work 40+ hours a week just to pay my fees upfront. Why should I feel bad for them? They had a great time at university and now they need to pay up for it. I think most people rely too much on government support and just expect other people to pay for everything.

  • +3

    I will beneft from this but im also supportive of this as any little bit helps. There are plenty of other taxpayer funded benefits that others get that I dont begrudge them for. I must admit I got in at the right time as my whole course only cost $24k or $1000 per unit. Now its like $17k or something a year, the younger generation are getting screwed and whatever can be done to help is appreciated.

  • +5

    Its definitely a bad idea.

    • Tax Payers shouldn't be paying off degrees.
    • Doing this just encourages people to not pay their HECS debt in case a future government helps them with HECS.
    • Many of those degrees are not in the public interest
    • Half of those degrees are probably not even particularly useful for the person who owns it.
    • This pulling the ladder up on all future students who have to pay full price.
    • Going to university is a choice, and only you get the benefits from that so why shouldn't you pay for it?
    • We need more Teachers for example, but this only helps people who have already studied, it doesn't encourage more people to become Teachers

    I would support loan forgiveness for degrees like teaching and nursing, something Australia needs, but isn't paid very well. Everyone else has a lot of high paid potential in their future.

    • We dont have a choice in regards to paying our HECS debt or not. Its compulsory through the tax system.

      • +1

        Yes but you choose to go to university.

        • Sorry, I may have misunderstood your point when you said "Doing this just encourages people to not pay their HECS debt in case a future government helps them with HECS."

          Could you clarify what you meant?

          • @nedski: Oh, sorry in that case I meant it encourages people not to make voluntary contributions to their HECS to pay it off faster and avoid inflation.

        • +1

          Well successive generations drummed it into people's minds that "you have to go uni to get anywhere in life.

          • +1

            @smartazz104: Which was true until large scale international migration from places like India where they had the degrees but little knowledge which devalued most degrees.

  • +10

    The government should offer HECS subsidies for critical roles. Nurses, Paramedics, STEM etc. If someone wants to do a bachelor of brewing, then HECS should not apply.

    • +4

      I disagree, I find it an essential service to have brewers making university level beer for me

    • +3

      It already does, in HECS funding is divided into 3 bands. The department of education determines which courses go into which bands, higher value courses (like medicine), gets a larger government subside as well as more CSP so more students can sign up for it.

  • +2

    A ridiculous policy. If you signed up for a degree knowing the cost and repayment conditions, then honour that contract and pay up. University should not be free (actually, it isn't really free but we all know that) anyway.

    • +2

      Why shouldn't university be free? Especially courses for areas of workforce shortage. Surely the more educated a society is, the more prosperous?

      • Maybe it should be free for education in very critical areas, but generally it shouldn't be. Australia doesn't have free university education yet we are one of the most prosperous countries in the World.

      • Uh no, not necessarily. In what world is studying some braindead arts or sociology degree more useful than becoming a plumber or carpenter.

        • Spoken like someone who does their best thinking with their hands

          Society works because we have a variety of interest and type of workers, and it's ridiculous to play the "more useful" career game. Jobs don't compete against each other to see which is the most useful.

          We want carpenters to build the stage and Shakespeare's to write the plays performed on it when they are done.

          • @Crow K: Mate I have PhD and am fair useless with a spanner. I'm just saying there's more people going to uni doesn't always mean society is more prosperous. You need other skills too.

            • @CaptainJack: You're arguing against "free education makes a society more prosperous", remember.

              We aren't rounding up people who want to be plumbers at gunpoint and forcing them to become poets or surgeons.

              What's the harm in allowing people who want to pursue their passion/interest free education to do so? Doesn't that mean they're more likely to succeed, gain wealth, and pay taxes?

              • +1

                @Crow K: The statement was that more university education always makes a society more prosperous. Perhaps you missed that I said it's not necessarily true (not that its never true)?

                Obviously that statement is not necessarily true, otherwise you think 100% of it's citizens going to university is going to be more prosperous than a society that has a mixture of people pursuing higher education, trades, farming, learning on the job, etc.

                • -1

                  @CaptainJack: Let's dumb this down with an example of your logic fail and see if it helps.

                  More free colorectal screenings make society a healthier place.

                  "Yeah but there's other kinds of cancers what about people with other types like bone cancer this doesn't affect bone cancer"

                  That's true! Also, irrelevant!

                  "Yeah but you're saying you think 100% of cancer is colorectal cancer and/or that this is the only sort of cancer we need to address"

                  Nope! Learn to read!

                  • @Crow K: The example would apply if it took 3-5 years to get the results of a screening, and while one screening is in progress, you cannot have any others undertaken.

                    And it would then show you're wrong.

                    Learn to write precisely.

                    • -1

                      @CaptainJack: The only point you've proved today is a PhD is not necessarily a sign of intelligence.

                      • +1

                        @Crow K: Ad homeneim fallacy

                        • @CaptainJack: If you're so keen on fallacies

                          1. Stick to the ones you can spell
                          2. Have a revisit of your jump in logic to "you think 100% of it's (sic) citizens..", which wasn't related in the slightest way to what anyone else was saying?
                          • @Crow K: 1 is fair. 2 is not - as I said, if you can't write precisely that's on you.

                            • -1

                              @CaptainJack: No one said anything that assumed 100% of society would be doing something.

                              You invented that entirely out of thin air, for reasons none of us know. Perhaps you felt it would be easier to make your point if I had said that?

                              But I did not, and frankly I don't care to take commentary on my precision from the likes of you. The reason you're unable to understand even the dumbed down versions of this discussion is not due to my precision.

                              Back to the spanners with you, "Doctor".

                              • @Crow K: The statement in question is

                                Surely the more educated a society is, the more prosperous?

                                which would suggest that a society where 100% of the population have multiple PhDs (or equivalent) would be the 'most prosperous'

                                I think CaptainJack was simply pointing out that would be unlikely to be a high functioning society as other vital skills would be lacking, therefore making it unlikely to be the 'most prosperous'

                                Tldr; more education is good but only to a certain (undefined) point

                                • @larndis:

                                  "Surely the more educated a society is, the more prosperous?" which would suggest that a society where 100% of the population have multiple PhDs (or equivalent) would be the 'most prosperous'

                                  It would likely suggest that to people who interpret Universities as the only form of education, maybe. Which is a bonkers place to begin (and likely sends them to "oh my God, they're saying we all need PhDs in philosophy, how UNPRACTICAL"). Those are strawmen they can easily knock down (or not so easily, as we saw with the unfortunate Doctor above).

                                  Read it as this however: The more barriers to education there are, the less likely it is taken up. And the more educated a society is, the more prosperous it becomes. Providing free University education would make a more prosperous society. And providing free TAFE and tradesman/apprentice classes would also make a more prosperous society. Because removing barriers to education makes a more prosperous society (regardless of where the barriers are).

                                  No one is forcing an entire society's people to only pick one form of education or seriously insisting society should be all professors or all plumbers. People who think that's what's being argued started from a false premise.

                                  • @Crow K: Mate it seems like you're just very intent on arguing, no matter what anyone else has to say?

                                    Would we be more prosperous if everyone continued studying forever, and no one worked? Obviously not. That is all anyone is saying. No one is arguing against education. There are (also) other ways to be prosperous.

                                    I really don't know what you are worked up about, but your communication skills are horrendous. Literally nothing has been said to warrant personal attacks. I'm not interested in a debate, just trying to spell it out for you. But never mind.

                                    • @larndis:

                                      Would we be more prosperous if everyone continued studying forever, and no one worked? Obviously not. That is all anyone is saying.

                                      Yeah, and where did that question come from? If someone says first aid courses should be free, is a natural reaction "What, and have people do first aid courses forever and nothing else? How would society work if everyone just did first aid courses all the time??"?

                                      It's a ridiculous starting point for an argument no one was proposing in the first place. It's a straw man.

                                      • @Crow K: Mate, go back and read it again. I quoted it for you and everything.

                                      • @Crow K: Maybe read up on diminishing marginal returns if you are really still struggling

                                        • -1

                                          @larndis: I mean, straight off the bat, admitting there are returns (albeit diminishing) means I was correct? "Yes but the returns are diminishing, they aren't as big as the original ones". Oh well, at least it's still an improvement?

                                          Plus bringing the idea of diminishing returns to a free education resource that trains individuals doesn't seem to hold up:

                                          "Sure, free first aid courses for everyone sounds good on paper, but you haven't read up on diminishing marginal returns, it would be less worthwhile the more people participate". Uh, no.

                                          If you think a society where everyone had free access to university education is in trouble, imagine what a society with free access to your teachings would be like.

                                          Anyway, thanks for circling back around and making an obviously dumb comment. Just the thing I needed to put a pin in this.

                                          • @Crow K: Your sheer determination to miss the point and continue arguing yourself round in circles is quite impressive. Congratulations?

                • @CaptainJack:

                  The statement was that more university education always makes a society more prosperous.

                  That was not the statement, the statement was "Surely the more educated a society is, the more prosperous?", where "education" could refer to university education, vocational training, TAFE, apprenticeships, or any other various forms of education that give people the skills to pursue their preferred profession.

                  You do realise that people also need to get educated to become a plumber or carpenter, and that free TAFE and various other support for apprenticeships has made it easier to obtain an education in some of those areas.

                  From the students' point of view, why should an aspiring engineer, accountant, nurse…etc. be required to pay for their education in the way that an aspiring hairdresser, plumber, electrician…etc. is not required to? This is the simple argument for publicly funded university education.

                  FWIW, I find the discussions around HELP/HECS a bit contrived because it's overall a very small part of university funding (see: https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-publications/r…, page 8). Across all universities, in 2022, HELP accounted for only 17.6% of university funding (including all of the pseudo-universities which are delivering questionable education). If we only look at the top universities, HELP is even lower - e.g. UNSW at 10.4% and USyd at 9.0%.

                  So ultimately, what we are arguing about is a very small part of university funding, and it seems odd to me that we are getting worked up about this. It's almost as if all the people arguing against free university education are forgetting that this just means the government will be paying for 70% of a university's budget as opposed to 60% (not going from 0% to 100%).

                  In all of this discussion, probably useful to keep in mind that the total amount universities received from HELP payments was $6b in 2022, which would be less than 1% of the entire federal budget (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Australian_federal_budget), and would only increase education from 5.4% of the budget to around 6% of the budget. As a comparison, the government's $300 energy bill relief policy cost $3.5b, over half of what it would cost to make university education completely free.

                  • @p1 ama: No, the post just asked why university shouldn't be free. No mention of TAFE or vocational training etc.

                    I know some TAFE courses are free, but I didn't think that was the case for the ones you list. Fair enough if true.

                    Yeah you raise some fair points and I'm not 100% against free tertiary education - but some of your points also seem questionable. 17.6% of funding seems like a pretty significant contribution to me - you say its very small but to me that would be like 2% or something. Also the energy bill package wasn't an ongoing thing, which education costs are (although the energy relief was badly designed anyway, I think were just agreeing that the government is not good spending our tax dollars).

                    What do you see are the issues with the current system (other than the unforeseen recent situation with inflation being so high)? My understanding is that students basically get an interest free loan that they pay back once earning enough. That seems fair to me - its not a barrier to getting an education and if your earnings significantly increase because you benefited from a degree then shouldn't you fund (part of) the costs of that.

                    I know you say that if a plumbing course is free, why shouldn't an engineering course be free, but that seems to be backwards to me - perhaps both should be providing funding for the benefits they are getting?

              • @Crow K: Well, the main downside would be higher taxes to pay for it, and the additional regulation that would be required to keep fees/subsidies under control

  • +1

    If buying votes is Labor's intent, it's a weird way to go about it. University educated people with significant outstanding HECS must be one of their strongest demographics?

    • They're banking on that cohort not swinging to the right. I'm in the situation of having had a reduced tax cut, seeing that benefit flow elsewhere, but still have no intention of voting for Dutton

  • +1

    My issue is not that the debt needs to be repaid, the indexation is the issue. These debts should not have indexation applied, however a higher contribution needs to be mandated once you have an income where your basic needs are met.
    Also if you leave the country for an extended period of time you should be forced to make a contribution, could be linked to your passport renewals or re-entry into the country.

  • Where is the spare money to pay for this?

    priority courses should get full fee relief like nursing or engineering, etc

    and courses which have hordes of people stream through like accounting have to pay

  • +1

    Going to qualify this by saying I'm a leftie but I vote independent (ie have voted for all of them at varying points but mostly vote independent these days). This is straight out of the Libs playbook and I'd like to say I'm surprised at Labor but I'm not. This is one of those feel good cash injections that the Libs do with income taxes which both sides now wield to win over their side. Right leaners fall for the tax scraps they get fed under the guise of 'cutting income tax' while left leaners fall for the 'Labor is for education' HECs scraps. It's a good thing that it provides temporarily relief to the relevant cohort who benefit for it at that singular time point…but it's not a long term plan for the education sector. Peter Duttons 'I'ma cut foreign students' is the same thing - it's just whistling to his own crowd and will be a temporary measure.

    What I would like to see from Labor is a plan to address our skills shortages from within. If you're truly pro education you will restart the trade schools and tech colleges and put more of them in regional Vic who are traditionally anti-university education. You will fund the TAFEs and alternative pathways to university with priorities made for local students.

    And what I would like from the Liberals is an actual economic plan beyond "stop immigration and cut income tax" because neither of those things are a long term plan.

    TLDR; both sides are cooked, vote independent or whoever does the best for your local community and has a plan beyond a soundbite/facebook post/reddit circlejerk.

    • +2

      Yeah we werent all up in arms when tradies got instant asset write off's and went out and bought massive utes for their business.

  • -1

    Man the bootlicking in here is hilarious

    • -1

      Sites like OzBargain and reddit attract people of a certain mentality. You’ve got to accept it for what it is.

  • +1

    Is it buying votes, yes. Should HECS and education (all levels) be overhauled, also yes.

    But who is it hurting? I can't think of anyone who is being hurt by this policy, and it's helping a lot of people who have dead end degrees (see earlier line about overhauling education).

    • +1

      What do you mean? Money doesn't come from nowhere.

      • Who is being hurt by this policy? What are the negative implications?

        The only downside I see is the pricks are holding people with HECS debt hostage by saying they'll only do it if re-elected

        • Well yes I agree with the second part.

          But I mean surely writing down the loans means less money in government budget which means less money for someone else - who that would be, and would that be a 'good' alternate use of the money I do not know.

          If there truly were no harm, why only forgive a portion of the loans? Why not all of them? Why doesn't the government pay off everyone's loans as well.

          • @CaptainJack: Not trying to sound like a prick but I think you should look up how governments get their money and what role the government budget actually plays. It's too complicated for an ozb reply and honestly I'm not equipped to confidently explain it.

            The only negative you found is it could take money from someone else (that's not how it works anyway). That reason could be given for everything the government does.

            If you want to oppose government spending there's plenty of corrupt contracts, subsidies and tax breaks you can point to. But a relatively cheap policy that actually helps people who need it is a unicorn these days.

            • @BadAtNames: You don't sound like a prick, but its not an argument especially if you're not equipped to explain it (no offense).

              Is the point you're trying to make is that the downsides are minor or at least so spread out over the many that they will be lost in the noise of all the other government inefficiency and waste? Whereas the few with forgiven loans will receive tangible benefits? Fine - I think we are roughly agreed on that.

              That's different to saying there are no downsides. Please answer this: if there are literally zero downsides, why forgive only a portion of the loans? Why have loans in the first place?

              • +1

                @CaptainJack: there's a big difference between understanding something, and having a good enough understanding to then teach someone else. Something I wish the internet acknowledged more. Having an engineering bachelor doesn't make someone an engineering professor but it does make them knowledgeable enough to be an engineer. I'll give it a go explaining it anyway and hopefully from there you can look up the relevant things from trusted sources.

                Government money doesn't only come from taxes, taxes are essentially a currency value control measure and population behaviour measure (high taxes discourages behaviour, tax relief encourages it).

                Government money isn't a finite pool, they literally print it or give out bonds all the time. There's detail around who "they" are but essentially the government ask and they get it. No one has ever gone to make a medicare claim and medicare say "sorry, we've hit our budget for the year".

                Too much money printing creates too much currency and devalues it against other currencies and/or causes inflation as people have more to spend. Too much borrowing can create too large an interest bill to service that can create a spiral. This is where taxes are useful.

                What this means is this policy isn't taking away from anyone, they didn't take this money out of the hands of an orphan and give it to a broke uni student. If this policy was too big (to answer your why they don't forgive all loans) we could say that the government is going into too much debt unnecessarily.

                It could also have impacts on how the economy runs if debt it always borrowed by a citizen but then paid back by the government. In this case, the government is making a great investment, education, it's worth it for them in the long run to encourage behaviours that allow for Australia to have a highly skilled workforce.

                The government spends billions of useless shit, why is spending it on useful shit such a big debate? The answer is it's an easy divider for people, Labour knows this would cause debate and, for some, be a swing vote issue. The Libs know they can win some votes by opposing it. What will be interesting is if the Libs come out with a counter instead of just opposing it, this would mean their research shows there's more to gain by trying to get the uni debt vote than opposing it. They're probably running the number on that as we speak.

                • +1

                  @BadAtNames: Thanks for having a go. I think we more or less agree, there is a just a question of at which point the downsides become too large to justify.

  • +5

    The country is getting less skilled every year (except for skilled migrants), I think government should do whatever it can to encourage education.
    The free Tafe courses last year were great

    • I don't think there's a skills shortage, there's a shortage in businesses willing to pay for those skills, except for migrants who are likely to accept a lower wage.

      • +1

        The unemployment rate would disagree with you. Most skilled people who want a job, have a job

      • From what I see Aussie workers are more thinking short term, like drive a water cart at a mine site in a declining industry rather than skill up and get in on an emerging one like renewables.
        I can't argue with it, especially when I talk to teens. It's a hard sell to convince someone to get a $40k engineering degree when a basic course and induction can make you six figures before you hit your 20s…

        I get that we should pay for the skill/job, but in reality for my industry (manufacturing) and trying to run a business in our region the incentives to do smart/skilled work just aren't there 😔

        I'm part of groups trying to help people transition from digging up dirt to move into tech jobs, but it's always a problem for "the future". Give it a few years and all these out of work miners will start cursing immigrants for "stealing our jobs" even though the reality will be they have been in Australia for 10yrs and just planned better than you did

        • Yeah you're right it is, it might depend on the industry. I'm from an IT background and there's just way too many people, a lot of them recent migrants. What you see in IT is 200 to 300 people applying for entry roles, half of those are migrants with masters in IT/Engineering.

          I've got a Neighbour who runs an aged care business and he admitted only hires migrants to do aged care jobs since they would accept close to minimum wage.

  • +7

    Geez the comments in this thread demonstrate both the profoundly regressive devaluing of education and knowledge and the “eff-you got mine” attitude that is so pervasive in modern Australia.

    Shameful and worrying for our future.

  • +4

    NO!

    We need to make it more difficult to study so that as few people as possible do it so that the population can get more stupid and less analytical so that they are more likely to believe the lies and conspiracy nonsense peddled by the right side of politics. The last thing we want is an educated society

    Case study: USA

    • The horse has bolted by tertiary education stage

      you need to solid education in the primary and secondary age bracket….australia does that fine, no problems there.

Login or Join to leave a comment