They examined over 160 things?
Maybe it factors in the average income in the city so maybe perth comes out more 'even' as many people here earn more?
I just don't get it.
Also Dublin has traditionally been one of the most expensive places to live for years and they aren't on the either.
Then there is this one from last year. Hard to know what to believe
The problem with comparing Australia with countries like Sweden is that we have such a different environment. Huge land mass, geographically isolated, "newer"...the list is endless. Just the difference in the amount of infrastructure needed would be staggering.
Anyway, yes, I feel our system does need a total overhaul but a lot of the problems also come from the attitude from the "average" person too.
I have big issues with this "our education should be free" thing...I feel, that people should people should value it enough to contribute where they can. In years gone by, most parents would have some sort of volunteer role in the school...but in many cases this has just disappeared and at the same time, schools are being expected to do so much more! Then people complain about paying fees that they can clearly afford. If more people who could afford to put something in did, then the pressure on others would be reduced. I have heard clearly (and openly) wealthy people refusing to contribute because they know "such and such family won't be"...makes me annoyed.
The school start bonus is one i am iffy about. I think I would prefer to see that money issued to the school and then they could provide the materials or use it for elective fees/excursions or the like....still towards the families things, well, the childrens things...but not paid directly to them. Most public schools have uniforms available pretty cheaply now, in the local best and less/ big w etc. If you can afford to CHOOSE private, you have to accept that the uniform/book/fees price that goes along with that choice.
We have just swapped from private to public, based on the best choice school for our son. I am staggered by how cheap it is lol
Our school does a set price for books...$90 for year 3. They don't send them all home...they just have them in the store room. The kids are all given all the stationary they need...and if they run out/break etc they replace them. No wastage etc etc. Same with books...so the kids that write less might use less books and the ones that write loads will use a few more...but, no big deal and I am sure it evens out. I am also sure that if someone was struggling or on a HCC, they would not need to pay. No stigma, no kids missing out or having "low quality" stuff compared to their classmates...in my mind perfect.
The annual fee is $300 and I spent about $250 on uniform (for the lot because starting a new school we had nothing) and $100 on trainers. I could have got 2nd hand uniforms but I wanted to leave them in case someone really needed them and I could have got cheaper shoes but my son is a runner and I want his feet supported. My personal choice there and I am happy to pay that. I could have easily got the uniform and shoes for under $150 total.
I know with multiple kids it can add up...but then uniforms can also be handed down/ text books too / possibly shoes if in good condition.
So, I guess my question would be...do people get the bonus and then not pay the school fees? I guess I would love to see this money being invested back into the schools...yes, supporting the families that need it...but also not ignoring the fact that by boosting the schools, it will boost our whole society. By still having it means tested would mean schools in low income areas would benefit more and I am all for that too.
It is a very complex issue and one that is not going to be sorted over night or in 1 election. The people at the top are not going to support the radical overhaul our system needs and the people in the middle don't have access to all the information and none of the power...the people at the bottom have less power again but at least have prob more knowledge of the real issues than the middle.
We are "middle class" but don't have heaps of spare money. We would love to move but cannot afford to but can afford to not worry about every cent. We pay a lot of tax and do try and claim back what we can but it is never much. I don't see "my tax dollars" as paying for any thing in particular...I appreciate cheaper medical bills, I believe in public education, i like that I can drive around the country on roads in decent condition and that we have police/ambulance etc etc etc
I don't know the answers....but I know axing 1 benefit to rename it as another is not it. I hate the liberals...and not that fond of labour anymore either. The power needs to lie with the swing vote and the minor parties. Somehow, we need to get rid of the "us and them" mentality and I don't know how that is ever going to happen.
I would assume it changes every year. We didn't even make the list before but we have climbed right up there. I'm not sure how they work it out, but I would assume they factor in wages aswell?
I certainly don't believe helping low income families is a waste when we are looking at the above example. If a high earner is entitled to significant funding for something that is a want, how is it wasteful to fund a *need*?
I don't think PHI can be lumped in the same category as other "wants". It takes massive pressure off the public system, which everyone contributes to.
I think the 168k cut off is extremely generous and fair and I believe, too high.
mama and her little bearxxx (06-02-2013)
I'm fairly sure after $168k they are still getting *some* of the rebate, just not the entire lot. It cutting off completely is at a huge rate. Perhaps they should just get a better job and plan better rather than expect taxpayers to fund their lifestyle choices (btw I totally don't mean that, but these are all things which are said about low income earners when one of their benefits/rebates are cut).
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!