Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think all of the disenfranchised should be eligible for the team, like gurly crybabies
Well according to Tom, that would put Dan Carter in the team. And I'm sure most of the team won't complain about that, for numerous reasons, but some people are going to be saying 'Ring In!'.
-
The less well off ain't 'debt averse'. If only. Take a look around the main drag in Otahuhu or Newtown. They're full of loan sharks. They're lending to people who are already in debt - that's what's behind all those TV ads offering to rationalise people's debts into one package.
I was talking about debt aversion in relation to tertiary education. Tertiary education is debt at a relatively high level, with no immediate prospects for paying it off, you can't sell it if it doesn't work out, and there's no guarantee that you'll make it through. It often requires a commitment of three or four years, and often comes with other complications such as moving to a different city or living away from your family at a relatively young age. I'm sure hire purchase companies and loan sharks do very well in that area on other sorts of debt.
There was a study done by the New Zealand University Students Association about five or six years ago on the topic, which talked to seventh form school leavers, which categorised their responses into school decile from memory. As the students came from less well off schools, debt concern became more and more of a reason for not attending tertiary education.
One of the biggest hurdles to higher education for the less well off is not debt-aversion: the trouble is too many of them leave school without basic literacy or numeracy skills.
Oh yes, financial issues are only half the problem. But you can't solve literacy issues at the tertiary level - it's incredibly hard once they're adults. As you note, these need to be solved much earlier.
And if you did magically solve the literacy problem in NZ, you'd have more people studying at the tertiary level, so you'd have to invest more in it.
-
Kyle..... I would loooove to see more money in HE and I would love to see wider access to all income brackets (I'd like to be paid better too). But I do think educational investment needs to go further down the tree. The students I teach are for the most part nice people, but many of them work more than they have to in order to buy stuff they don't really need. Some of them are quite literally on holiday until it is time to get a job. They quite genuinely lack a commitment to education.
Yeah I agree that's a problem, and as you note, by the time they're in tertiary education, their life habits and culture is set pretty hard, and difficult to change.
But some people would argue that if we charge students for their education, they're going to respect it more. I work at a university, and that's not necessarily the case. The student loan is an illusion in front of a bunch of them, making it appear that their education is free, when in reality the debt comes back to bite them (and us) later in life.
But the most curious thing about tertiary education is that political dialogue gets applied to it that you wouldn't dare apply anywhere else.
Imagine a political party coming out with a policy of charging high school students $4000 per year as that will increase their commitment to education. Or primary school? You can't imagine anyone to the left of the Libertarianz having that policy, no sane political party is going to suggest it.
All the time I hear politicians talking about future income benefits of a tertiary education. "If you go to university you'll earn X thousand dollars more over your life time."
If I break my leg, and it gets fixed in hospital, that doctor has vastly improved my future income benefits, particularly if my job involves some sort of physical activity. I don't pay to have my leg fixed on that basis however. The doctor doesn't get a cut of my future income, or charge a flat rate of $2,000 for the job.
If I spend six months on the dole, while trying to find a job, that income has kept me alive and allowed me a (hopefully) lifetime income vastly greater. Why do we say to the student, you should go into debt while you prepare yourself for your increased future income from tertiary education, but not say that to a beneficiary?
The discourse around the funding of tertiary education has been captured by new right, individualist idealists, and the whole sector, and the media, and the community has bought it.
-
<quote>Problematic: I have the athletic ability of an amoeba<quote>
I can confirm this. Danielle was the person who quite happily accepted detention for 'forgetting' her PE gear every single day in high school. Lesser of two evils I think was her theory.
-
How about a cut in GST? It is a regressive tax and a product of the 80/90s neo-liberalism.
GST is a flat tax, that stuff about it being regressive is waffle. It's a flat percentage, not adjusted for your income etc.
The only good thing about GST is that it catches everyone. There's a big hole in our tax system for people who own their own businesses and get a horrendous tax dodge by claiming that their primary home, vehicle etc, are all 'places of business' and therefore can be written off against income.
GST catches them, for all its other failings. I'd like to see it removed, but you'd need to change the business tax laws to catch everyone. And that would be horrendously unpopular.
-
Can't argue about the doctors visits but why should I pay for your kids to go to University? There are plenty of low income working class families who have little hope of their kids getting a University education (ah, yes, but anyone can saddle their child with a lifetime Student Loan, right?) so why should they forgo more money in their pocket now just so you can have a little sumpin' extra to subsidise your middle class academic fantasies?
1. The people who will benefit most from reducing the cost of tertiary education relatively, are those who have the desire and ability to go there, but not the financial ability. This is overwhelmingly kids from lower income families, who are 'debt averse'. That is, their parents cannot afford to pay for them, but their economic background makes them less likely to be willing to rack up big student loans. They therefore don't attend. Middle/upper class white kids, don't face this as a problem anywhere near as much. They either can pay their way through rich parents, or they don't have concerns about $30,000 student loans. Middle class kids always have, and continue to attend tertiary education in record numbers.
2. There's a much higher requirement in the job market for tertiary education, for jobs that previously didn't require it. Jobs that 'working class kids' could get twenty years ago after dropping out of school, now they'll compete against kids who have completed diplomas and certificates and degrees, for the same job. We need 'working class kids' to get these qualifications now, and it's proven difficult enough with issues in families, economies, crime, unemployment, the earlier stages of the education system, without putting $4,000 price tags at the front door.
3. 'Middle class academic fantasies' are also known as future doctors, teachers, nurses, lawyers, civil servants, entrepreneurs, engineers, dentists etc etc. If we want to have these people in our society in 20 years, we have to educate them now. If we want them to stay in NZ and not run off to London where they can earn three times and pay off their debt, then not saddling them with the debt in the first place is a good start. If we don't want to pay more for doctors, teachers, nurses etc etc, then not having them pay 10% additional tax on their income to pay off their student loan is another good way to start. Everyone goes to a doctor, everyone sends their kids to be educated by a teacher. Tertiary education is an investment in the whole community.
4. Students are the only NZers that I can think of that borrow money, until recently at pretty high interest rates, to pay rent, eat, electricity, clothes etc. It makes more financial sense, as I advised a number of students when I studied, to drop a couple of courses, become a part time student, go on the dole, and take an extra year for your degree. That's stupid, we encourage people to get a tertiary education because it's good for them and their community, but we provide them with less financial support than someone who's main requirement is to turn up to a day long workshop every six months and apply for a job occasionally.
5. If you want research-led, innovation economy etc etc, most of that happens either at universities, or at places filled with university graduates. It costs to build this intellectual infrastructure. If the government is going to rabbit on about it, at some stage the money has to follow the mouth. A lot of our top researchers go and work for overseas firms because the research sector here isn't funded well enough.
5. Graduates who benefit from their education financially pay the country back because we have a progressive tax system. If they earn more, they pay more tax and fund the next generation of students. And social welfare, health care etc, for people who earn less.
6. NZ is well down the pile when it comes to the amount of money we invest in tertiary education. Government funding only makes up 38 percent of New Zealand universities income compared with 46 percent in comparable Australian universities. In 1980 the government invested $11,293/student, in 2002 $7,367/student (in 2002 dollars). During that same time period, staff/student ratios have increased 50%. Quality institutions doing quality teaching and research cost money.
7. If it's a debate about tax cuts vs expenditure, then it will always be about how much people get back. Low income earners will never get a lot back from tax cuts, because they don't pay a lot of tax. High income earners (who can afford doctors and tertiary education anyway) will always get a lot more back, because they pay a lot more to start with. Tax cuts that reduce the top tax rates are going to benefit the well-off, because those are the ones who pay in those brackets. Changes to the base rates will return piddling amounts of money to low income earners.
As an example, A reduction in the bottom rate (currently 19.5%) to 18.5% would return $200/year or less than $4/week to a person on $20,000. The same % reduction in the top rate, from 39 to 38%, for a person earning $300,000, will return $2,400, $46/week. Of course the $300,000 income earner also benefits just as much from the change in the bottom rate as well, so they get a double hit.
The only 'tax cut' that makes sense for low income earners, more than investing in social expenditure, is one that reduces the bottom rate, but increases a top rate so that the overall tax intake remains the same. Then they would pick up their big $4/week, and not get hit any more when they go to the doctor etc.
-
I find the line about "putting confusion in referees' minds" quite bizarre. The mark of a confident referee is that he will listen to a touch judge and if he disagrees, simply say so and carry on.
I've watched matches a couple of times in rugby where the touch judge has put his flag out, talked to the referee at the stoppage of play, and the referee has clearly seen the original incident, thought it was OK, but then 'had' to do something because the touchie brought it up.
At least, that was the commentators interpretation, and it looked like what happened as well. So, unfortunately, that doesn't always happen in rugby.
Other sports it'd never happen of course. Touch judges know they're small fry, and stick to their job.
-
And you are. Perhaps now isn't the best time to complain at how... oppressive rugby can feel in this country. But that's how it is. I know a more well-adjusted person wouldn't care, but I can't be that person all the time.
Not saying this is you, but there are some people who whom being anti-rugby is a fashion trend. They add it to their over the top makeup, unusual clothes, and 'hide' in alternative cafes where there's no TVs.
I had a period in the mid-90s when I was a raving left-wing student, when I came out all anti-rugby. Missed the 1995 World Cup because of it. Then I remembered that I actually enjoyed watching the game, and I didn't need to take on board any of the trash that went with it, I could view it how I wanted.
And I find adverts for rugby teams much less annoying than some of the products that get sold these days.
-
God, I can only hope the electorate is finally going to wake up to Peters and finally put a stake through the heart of his political career.
With you on that. The crap he was spouting on national radio last night and this morning was just atrocious. How many elections can retirement homes around New Zealand lump us with this moron?
-
That being said, it is well past time the income tax bracket boundaries were readjusted.
Hear hear! I don't have a problem with a fairly hefty surplus. And if there's going to be a smaller surplus, I'd much rather see the amount of money I pay to take my kids to the doctor, and the amount of money it'll cost them to go to university come down, well before there's tax cuts.
But if there are tax cuts, it shouldn't be in the rate. We should have a simple system for moving the thresholds up with inflation. Currently the tax intake increases in two ways - normal inflation, which counters the fact that because of inflation, the tax dollar doesn't go as far, and the movement up the thresholds and therefore higher percentages. Taxes go up every pay increase as a result of the second one.