Hard News: The odds, and the simply odd
168 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
So, hang on a sec, previously both parents could be working full time on the minimum wage (thus earning 47,000 gross), and their kids wouldn't be eligible for a full student allowance?
-
B Jones: - In a word: yes. Very generous, huh?
-
But really, it's a bandaid until a fully workable programme on how to actually reduce mounting student debt is found.
I'm not sure how the models would work out, but it would possibly reduce overall debt for about 10 years. It would certainly do a lot to hold it steady.
The current debt repayments will be based on higher average loans, and larger number of debters, than any future debts (because less students will take out loans, and those that do will have lower average loans because of no living cost component).
I'm not sure if it would go down, but until the balance had shifted over about ten years for more 'post change' debtors in the system than 'pre change', people like me with higher loans would be paying back, while less people would be taking out loans.
-
The threshold isn't the measure of private benefit
Maybe not in theory, but thats exactly what it is in practice. How else are we to interpret the point where we have to start paying?
Kyle: and certainly as we move even further into mass tertiary education, its a distinction we should just give up on, just as we have for secondary school.
-
So, hang on a sec, previously both parents could be working full time on the minimum wage (thus earning 47,000 gross), and their kids wouldn't be eligible for a full student allowance?
And it certainly was the case (not sure if it still is now) that those parents could be separated, living in different houses etc, and their income would still be added together. National Party Student Loans 1992: A fascist regime.
-
Kyle: and certainly as we move even further into mass tertiary education, its a distinction we should just give up on, just as we have for secondary school.
Ironically, as numbers into tertiary education exploded in the 1990s, we moved the other way.
-
-
*grin* DPF, at least, is predictable. I thought this'd be portrayed as a fiscally irresponsible bribe, and there he is (today we have also had bonus outraged splutter about Xmas crackers. Or something).
-
The insertion of the "public/private benefit for tertiary education" juxtaposition in the public dialogue will be one of the most significant lasting impacts of the 1990 - 1999 National government. It shows no signs of going away.
Kyle, I know the point you're making but how do you ration public investment? The educational benefits of early childhood education are huge and yet its not fully/universally funded.
Personally, I can only make sense of this debate in context. The current arrangements mix public- and private funding for education services differently therefore every additional investment is going to be measured against the alternatives. You could assess the value of universal allowances by comparing it with additional investment in ECE, special ed or industry training (you might not want to measure it in terms the impact on enrolments however).
I opposed user-pays in higher education for years and years and years. I still think that National's reforms were a disaster and not just 'cause the sequencing and pacing were appalling. Shock and awe stuff. However, how do you avoid the moral hazard? How do you ensure that scare public resources are allocated fairly. What about the fact that poorer kids start missing out at Year 9? ACT says vouchers but then they've got no evidence for this, just blind faith.
Personally, I still support universal allowances but not as my number 1 priority.
-
After that, they need to find some way to address the structural inequity caused by generation debt. There will be 20 years of students who will have been forced to borrow for their education, and whose life paths (house, children, whether they stay in the country) will have been altered because of it. But that's probably at least one or maybe two elections down the track.
Yeah, I've often wondered that if we are going to see a major political seachange, it will be (effectively) my generation, once we all start to properly settle down and get homes and maybe families or whatever. Then the battleground on how to deal with student debt really becomes an issue, if it isn't already.
Over the last nine years, we've had a Labour Government who have tried not to make it too much worse, rather than trying to actually solve it. Mind you, questions of affordability aside (and there are questions), this universal allowance scheme could be a right move forward.
-
Yes, DPF and co. are doing their resentful conservative routine. Again.
When I was over there taking a peek, I was struck by how much dogwhistling your base into a lather over the culture wars now suddenly looks so tired and irrelevant. Shower heads? Christmas Crackers? Tuck shop pies?
Good grief.
-
bonus outraged splutter about Xmas crackers.
That one is quite funny, it seems the things that go "bang" in a Christmas cracker are (and probably always have been) classified as fireworks & are therefore governed by importation of explosives regulations.
I keep imagining freak christmas cracker accidents ruining everyones' christmas festivities.
-
Over the last nine years, we've had a Labour Government who have tried not to make it too much worse, rather than trying to actually solve it.
Actually, I think that's a little unfair. The fee maxima had a dramatic impact on debt levels and there was an interest/repayment change that was significant too. I think Labour's tried hard to make National's dog-of-a-scheme work...HECS is nowhere near as bad as what National introduced!
-
Shower heads? Christmas Crackers? Tuck shop pies?
Look, while a large proportion of the Kiwiblog regulars may be a little, you know, "differently abled", there's no need for name-calling.
-
The word I had from someone in the Green Room was that Hooton was wound up even before Peters arrived, saying "when is that little &%$# going to turn up" or words to that effect. The same someone said it seemed like he was "on something", but I'm sure that wasn't the case, he was just clearly agitated or excited about the upcoming spat - interesting observation though.
-
Kyle, I know the point you're making but how do you ration public investment? The educational benefits of early childhood education are huge and yet its not fully/universally funded.
Yes, but no one argues "well there's a private benefit to early childhood education, so the kids/parents should have to pay".
It's entirely valid to say "there's limited money, so we need to prioritise". Absolutely lets have that conversation. That's a debate about more funding for students or more funding for something else. Or more funding for students and more taxes.
Private/public benefit basically only appears in tertiary education because it's bagging 'rich varsity brats' who don't need government support anyway. Which is both not the case, and not fair. It's language settling the political debate rather than need, benefit, principles, etc etc.
-
more Rolling Stone on "mad dog Palin".
Sarah Palin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the modern United States. As a representative of our political system, she's a new low in reptilian villainy, the ultimate cynical masterwork of puppeteers like Karl Rove. But more than that, she is a horrifying symbol of how little we ask for in return for the total surrender of our political power. Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she's the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV — and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.
channeling H.S Thompson
-
Not quite Thompson-territory, but I'm happily reminded of Transmet.
-
This looks irresponsible and election-bribey.
Eddie: It would if we actually had serious media scrutiny. Here's my crystal ball looking fifty eight minutes into the future: What an act of strategic genius, now here's the student politicians and usual suspects who think it's a work of genius. Any hard questions about what it's going to cost (really) and how it's going to all be paid for (really)? Don't be stupid.
-
When I was over there taking a peek, I was struck by how much dogwhistling your base into a lather over the culture wars now suddenly looks so tired and irrelevant. Shower heads? Christmas Crackers? Tuck shop pies?
Well, Tom, nice to see that all our economic problems are the fault of rich pricks like John Key and not over-extended debt junkies whose votes are being pandered for without shame. But I guess there's some psychotic dog-whistling that isn't so bad after all.
-
Over the last nine years, we've had a Labour Government who have tried not to make it too much worse, rather than trying to actually solve it.
Actually, I think that's a little unfair. The fee maxima had a dramatic impact on debt levels and there was an interest/repayment change that was significant too. I think Labour's tried hard to make National's dog-of-a-scheme work...HECS is nowhere near as bad as what National introduced!
Oh, don't get me wrong- it's not as if they've done nothing. But I prefer to see it as a "holding pattern," if you will- keep the status quo, just brush away some of the nasty edges that really sting. Certainly, making the loans interest-free was a small mercy (cards on the table time: my loan is looking like it's upwards of $25,000), and this could be another means of addressing the problem. But you do wonder whether a more fervent overhaul is later needed.
Nearly everyone has accepted that tertiary education will no longer be "free." Where the real issue lies is how it's going to cost us, as well as how much.
-
"Nearly everyone has accepted that tertiary education will no longer be "free." "
Btw- I meant "free again." I mean, it hasn't been free to anyone since the guys in parliament were finishing Uni! And it would be utterly unfeasible today.
-
Eddie: It would if we actually had serious media scrutiny. Here's my crystal ball looking fifty eight minutes into the future: What an act of strategic genius, now here's the student politicians and usual suspects who think it's a work of genius. Any hard questions about what it's going to cost (really) and how it's going to all be paid for (really)? Don't be stupid.
Have to say, I agree it'd be nice if there were more coverage on the whole picture too- as in the costs as well as the benefits. But I won't hold my breath.
-
I assume Labour have (hopefully) learnt from their gamble back in 2005 where they were less than totally accurate about the actual cost of the interest-free loan package.
If I'm right in thinking that the cost in this year's Budget was $300m, then they were bang on.
On the general point of the allowance, I think we are seeing a philosophical shift, to the universality of a few key public benefits. Phil Twyford is the chair of Labour's policy council -- check out this interview with him in the herald:
"I think there is a strong argument for universality of some social provisions. They become a social good, a collective good that everybody has a stake in. I believe the extension of early childhood education is one of the most important developments since primary and secondary schooling became universal.
"Lack of quality early childhood education has been a woeful gap. If it's accessible to everybody they have a stake in maintaining it and ensuring it is high quality."
All the usual objections apply, and John Roughan will doubtless be horrified, but removing targeting also removes various costs and distortions. And then you start to count the upside.
-
Re the polls: My own observation on polls is that for years the Colmar-Brunton poll favoured National by 6 to 8 points.
Then, the (overtly pro-National) Fairfax Media group began publishing polls that tend mirror the C-B poll result.
Then, the (overtly pro-National) Herald also published the Herald-Digipoll that also mirrors the C-B poll.
But Roy Morgan and the TNS polls tend to provide quite different results to the other three.
The Roy Morgan poll has been consistently the most accurate over time. The C-B poll (and now its mirrors) have tended to favour Naitonal by 6 to 8 points right up to the day we vote.....and then they (may) narrow toward the actual result - presumably in order to reain some tiny measure of cred in saying they 'called" the election.....never mind they were way out of the park for the other 2 years and 11 months.
The C-B poll bias to naiotnal is a matter of public record for several elections now.....roughly -> ever since Labour became the leading party in Government.
This isn't written about much in the press because they are all owned by the media commissioning the polls....and Fairfax and APN favour National.
The ListenNBR once wrote a story about the flakey polls, but as far as I know, have not done so since APN bought them.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.