Why Poverty?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by chaz wyman »

reasonvemotion wrote:Why Private Education Shouldn't Get a Cent from Government

Catherine Deveny, an outspoken advocate of public education, tells us why she’s so passionate on the topic – and where she believes Abbott and Gillard are going wrong.

‘There is no question of injustice to public schools here,’ Tony Abbott told an independent education forum this week. ‘If anything, the injustice is the other way.‘’ Spoken like a true private school boy.

"People like Abbott assume everyone is rich, white, literate, middle class, straight, fully abled and fully functional, belonging to families with a wife/mother who nurtures and a father/husband who provides. They take for granted the head start provided by those solid foundations, which are not available to all students."

Anyone who drives past schools occasionally (let alone visits them frequently) would agree with Shaun Carney, The Age newspaper, that the ‘education facilities and learning opportunities at government schools are substandard compared with the elite private schools’.

A reader comments on this article and summed it up.

‘Tony Abbott needs to learn what injustice is. Injustice is families in Frankston North who can’t afford to send their children to school with lunch, who can’t afford uniforms, who can’t afford rent in what is already supposedly a low cost housing area.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard was no better at Monday’s ‘Suck Up To Independent Schools So We Get More Votes’ conference. Here’s her two cents:

‘I’ve never looked at a big independent (private) school in an established suburb and thought, That’s not fair’, she said. ‘’I look at a big independent school in an established suburb and think, That’s a great example.’


WTF and they are our elected leaders in Australia.

I would like to add, I did not vote for either.
In the UK all private schools are called "Public", in the US, 'public' schools are state funded.
As you from Australia I'm not sure what your position is here.
Can you clarify?
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by reasonvemotion »

In the UK all private schools are called "Public", in the US, 'public' schools are state funded.
As you from Australia I'm not sure what your position is here.
Can you clarify?

There are basically two sectors. Government (public primary and high schools, including selective ones) and non-government (often called private schools). Within the non-government sector, there are Catholic schools and "independent" schools, which are not part of the Catholic system. The Private school fees range between $20,000 to $30,000 or more per student per annum. These are mainly same sex schools, although in the latter years some of the private schools have embraced girls and boys together.

But hundreds of small independent schools - Christian, Jewish, Steiner, Islamic, non-denominational - have sprung up over the past 30 years.

I think Scotch College and Melbourne Girls Grammar would be the most prestigious and expensive private schools in Victoria. Nothing compared to the history of Cambridge, Oxford and the like in Britain.
bobevenson
Posts: 7346
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by bobevenson »

mickthinks wrote:
bobevenson wrote:
mickthinks wrote:First of all, as I have explained earlier, the only proper tax is a single tax on property.

By "explained" it seems you mean "ordained", Bob. You don't seem to be capable of explanation (or any other form of rational discourse).
It's difficult to believe that somebody from Augsburg would have difficulty understanding my treatise on taxes since it was based strictly on Rheinheitsgebot, the language purity law.
lol QED

If anyone needed persuading that Mr Evenson was incapable of rational discourse, I think this should be proof enough! Those who have been convinced may like to know that the PhiNow forum software will help you to ignore every post he makes automatically. Just go to his profile page (there's a link button at the bottom of each post) and click on the [Add foe] option under his name on the left hand side.
You're obviously not from Augsburg, Germany or anywhere near it since you are oblivious to my facetious "Rheinheitsgebot language purity law" comment. I don't think you're even European, which could be your saving grace.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by chaz wyman »

reasonvemotion wrote:
In the UK all private schools are called "Public", in the US, 'public' schools are state funded.
As you from Australia I'm not sure what your position is here.
Can you clarify?

There are basically two sectors. Government (public primary and high schools, including selective ones) and non-government (often called private schools). Within the non-government sector, there are Catholic schools and "independent" schools, which are not part of the Catholic system. The Private school fees range between $20,000 to $30,000 or more per student per annum. These are mainly same sex schools, although in the latter years some of the private schools have embraced girls and boys together.

But hundreds of small independent schools - Christian, Jewish, Steiner, Islamic, non-denominational - have sprung up over the past 30 years.

I think Scotch College and Melbourne Girls Grammar would be the most prestigious and expensive private schools in Victoria. Nothing compared to the history of Cambridge, Oxford and the like in Britain.
Eh? Oxford and Cambridge are Universities not schools, and are open to all applications on merit.
I think you mean Eton and Charter House etc...

Anyway I'm still trying to fathom what your copy&paste was all about.
Is there an issue about fee-paying schools receiving government support?
In the UK these "businesses" get charitable status with the tax breaks and other benefits that go with it.
Last edited by chaz wyman on Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by reasonvemotion »

Eh? Oxford and Cambridge are Universities not schools, and are open to all applications on merit.
I think you mean Eton and Charter House etc...
No I don't mean those. I mean Oxford and Cambridge as I was referring to the historical values.

Considering below was built in the 1800s by comparison to Cambridge and Oxford, seems almost modern.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_College,_Melbourne
tillingborn
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by tillingborn »

bobevenson wrote:First of all, as I have explained earlier, the only proper tax is a single tax on property.
In London we have thugs and brutes from all over the planet, not to mention our own home grown variety, buying some of the world's most expensive real estate. They can afford this because they have fleeced their own people and have scarpered to where they are less vulnerable to a pissed off population. So the money they have 'made' in other countries is invested in property here. Does the UK treasury benefit from this according to Evensonomics? Does the country that generated the wealth get no tax? What would it do to the housing market?
bobevenson
Posts: 7346
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by bobevenson »

tillingborn wrote:
bobevenson wrote:First of all, as I have explained earlier, the only proper tax is a single tax on property.
In London we have thugs and brutes from all over the planet, not to mention our own home grown variety, buying some of the world's most expensive real estate. They can afford this because they have fleeced their own people and have scarpered to where they are less vulnerable to a pissed off population. So the money they have 'made' in other countries is invested in property here. Does the UK treasury benefit from this according to Evensonomics? Does the country that generated the wealth get no tax? What would it do to the housing market?
Again, the only proper tax is an ad valorem tax on property, not just real estate, but anything with intrinsic market value. You're just making a blanket charge against everybody with money buying expensive real estate. If these people actually stole money in some way, that is for the law to handle, but it has nothing to do with taxation.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12259
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by Arising_uk »

chaz wyman wrote:Eh? Oxford and Cambridge are Universities not schools, ...
They're not even that as they are the names of the towns that house the various universities that make-up what people think are the 'Oxford and Cambridge Universities'. Although I think there might be an Oxford University as the old Poly may have renamed itself.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by chaz wyman »

Arising_uk wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:Eh? Oxford and Cambridge are Universities not schools, ...
They're not even that as they are the names of the towns that house the various universities that make-up what people think are the 'Oxford and Cambridge Universities'. Although I think there might be an Oxford University as the old Poly may have renamed itself.
The old Poly is now Oxford Brookes University
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/
Actually both Oxford and Cambridge as two collections of 'Colleges', such as Queens, or Magdelen, still have a overarching structure, in which intercollegiate events and publications are organised.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.ox.ac.uk/
tillingborn
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by tillingborn »

bobevenson wrote:Again, the only proper tax is an ad valorem tax on property, not just real estate,
What do you do if it turns out that all the people you thought owned the dark blue squares on the Monopoly board actually rent them off some bloke in the Cayman islands?
bobevenson wrote:but anything with intrinsic market value.
Who decides the value? If there is a government approved value put on things, how does the free market survive?
bobevenson wrote:You're just making a blanket charge against everybody with money buying expensive real estate. If these people actually stole money in some way, that is for the law to handle, but it has nothing to do with taxation.
I'm not suggesting anybody broke the law, either by bringing money into the country or getting it in the first place, but I'm not sure which law agencies you think would have the jurisdiction to get it back if that were the case. If you don't tax people's earnings, are they not free to invest their money where you can't reach it?
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by reasonvemotion »

They're not even that as they are the names of the towns that house the various universities that make-up what people think are the 'Oxford and Cambridge Universities'. Although I think there might be an Oxford University as the old Poly may have renamed itself.

That is interesting comment above. I have had the occasion to visit Cambridge and was absolutely fascinated with its antiquity. We have nothing like it here. As the University does have its own Coat of Arms, which I believe is entirely different to Cambridge's Coat of Arms, I always thought of it as a separate entity from the city.

I think Cambridge is a city not a town.
bobevenson
Posts: 7346
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by bobevenson »

tillingborn wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Again, the only proper tax is an ad valorem tax on property, not just real estate,
What do you do if it turns out that all the people you thought owned the dark blue squares on the Monopoly board actually rent them off some bloke in the Cayman islands? The property is not going to run away, and somebody owns it. That's the person who pays the tax.
bobevenson wrote:but anything with intrinsic market value.
Who decides the value? If there is a government approved value put on things, how does the free market survive? Everything has got a range of market value that can be certified by a third party.
bobevenson wrote:You're just making a blanket charge against everybody with money buying expensive real estate. If these people actually stole money in some way, that is for the law to handle, but it has nothing to do with taxation.
I'm not suggesting anybody broke the law, either by bringing money into the country or getting it in the first place, but I'm not sure which law agencies you think would have the jurisdiction to get it back if that were the case. If you don't tax people's earnings, are they not free to invest their money where you can't reach it?
Law enforcement agencies around the world get involved in fraud and larceny. Only property within a particular country can be properly taxed by that country.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12259
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by Arising_uk »

reasonvemotion wrote:That is interesting comment above. I have had the occasion to visit Cambridge and was absolutely fascinated with its antiquity. We have nothing like it here. As the University does have its own Coat of Arms, which I believe is entirely different to Cambridge's Coat of Arms, I always thought of it as a separate entity from the city.

I think Cambridge is a city not a town.
My apologies to you and chaz,
It does appear that the colleges clump together and call themselves a university. My experience was coloured by knowing some who went and they always used to refer to their colleges rather than the generic.

RvE - you are right, cities as they have cathedrals but again I'm coloured as I'm a Londoner and the rest appear towns to me. :mrgreen:
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by chaz wyman »

Arising_uk wrote:
reasonvemotion wrote:That is interesting comment above. I have had the occasion to visit Cambridge and was absolutely fascinated with its antiquity. We have nothing like it here. As the University does have its own Coat of Arms, which I believe is entirely different to Cambridge's Coat of Arms, I always thought of it as a separate entity from the city.

I think Cambridge is a city not a town.
My apologies to you and chaz,
It does appear that the colleges clump together and call themselves a university. My experience was coloured by knowing some who went and they always used to refer to their colleges rather than the generic.

RvE - you are right, cities as they have cathedrals but again I'm coloured as I'm a Londoner and the rest appear towns to me. :mrgreen:
Apologies for this avalanche of pedanticism, but the qualification of "City" and a town with a cathedral no longer holds true.
Brighton&Hove is now a city and there is no Cathedral in sight.
bobevenson
Posts: 7346
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Why Poverty?

Post by bobevenson »

Excuse me for asking, but what do the last two posts have anything to do with poverty???
Post Reply