Seeing it as a reallocation of money is probably just as bad as seeing them as cuts. If it's reallocation of money as you say, then the way they reallocated money is severely warped against the Australia's best interests, that is, education, health and arguably research. Personally, I think reducing funding to education and health is never the right choice, unless it is severely over-funded which it was far from.
It's not so much a reallocation of the Government's money, it's a reallocation of who is responsible for paying that money. Perhaps from the Government perspective spending is being cut, but from the view of the entities receiving that money, they would still be receiving money, except this time they generate it from their own business activities in the private sector. The universities will be able to use their own discretion of how to charge students, and depending on how that goes, they may receive less, the same, or more money, but really that is an issue for the universities themselves. You would think though that most universities would aim to receive more.
As for the chaplain system, given that Australia is and should be a secular state, I personally think it is unacceptable to fund religious (and perhaps, vested) interests. As for the religious people, I would certainly argue that they are a minority - if you don't go to church/temple/mosque (etcetera), per week, you really shouldn't be calling yourself religious. I know many people that label themselves as "Christian" but they themselves say that they "don't worship or pray to a god", don't go to church and even say "it's just how [they] were raised up".
I agree. Like I said I don't think politics should involve themselves with issues of religion at all. My dismissal/acceptance of the issue was mainly due to the fact that I consider other issues to be higher in the pecking order.
The cut to company tax to help the rich. Then the GP co-payment to make the poor worse off.
The family benefit thing, screws up lower class. Earn or learn for unemployed teenagers just ridiculous. Increased retirement age. No payment for 6 months unemployed. I can go on and on.
Indirectly --> contractionary effect on the economy which we don't need right after PMV manufacturing industries are leaving our nation and unemployment rates are going to surge.
Hmmm OK, I'll try to address your points in order:
1. I think you will find that the company tax cut has been omitted from the budget.
2. If a person is in general financial distress, part of the GP co-payment can be refunded by the GP if they see fit. Plus, especially if a patient has ongoing and chronic illnesses, they wouldn't have to pay at all. I suggest you watch the latest Q&A episode, Joe Hockey explains it in a bit more detail.
3. The National Commission of Audit recommended its abolishment, but I think you'll find that the Coalition isn't following through with this.
4. Labor also held this view long before the current Budget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0UJGwj3c8E (the exact words are actually mentioned around 1:18). Obviously, this isn't a specific policy per se, but even so, what else is there for young people to do apart from earning or learning? If people who are able to contribute to society choose not to (there are of course those who can't; the sick, disabled etc.), then that's their choice, but they should expect to live with the consequences.
5. I think what you mean is an increased pension age; people can retire at any age if they so desire (although many people would of course wait until an age which they can receive a pension). More access would likely be given to superannuation earlier on if one decided to retire, especially if they are in physically demanding jobs.
6. For each year that you have previously worked, you lose one month off that period. There are more elements to it as well, again, watch the last Q&A episode if you are interested.
7. Can't say I'm too familiar with that last point, perhaps you can expand on that.
On the whole I understand where you are coming from, and let's face it, no political party is perfect, but I think if you do research beyond the sensationalism that the mainstream media espouses, I think you'll find that a lot of the policies/budget choices aren't as bad on the surface as they may seem. They're making some tough choices given the circumstances they believe themselves to be in, but the sky is by no means falling.
1. That's like saying that my tax money shouldn't go to hospitals because I don't use them, that's simply a ludicrous statement.
2. I spoke to an exchange student from the US, he said that the teaching quality there exceeds the teaching quality here because they lack job security - those that are given poor feedback are essentially kicked out and hence, academics are forced to ensure quality teaching in the class. Perhaps, that's a better route to take. If anything, the teaching position should only be given to those with a reasonably track record - the academics that are mediocre teachers should be kept in research.
3. You're making an assumption that higher fees will increase teaching quality. If anything, a university cares most about its prestige and that comes from research - and that's where the money will go.
4. Which will probably be research.
5. There is not a single benefit of chaplains, especially when compared to other means like a professional social worker. Feel free to argue this but I will destroy you.
1. Firstly I just want to point out that the context behind that remark was in response to Rythen's original point, which I interpreted to mean why shouldn't we tax people with well paid jobs in general
directly for a personal education debt that may not be theirs (if I was wrong in what I gathered from this let me know). But in any case, your example would not be a suitable analogue for this situation. At least given our current system, there is a difference between paying for the upkeep of a service everyone has the potential to use (hospitals), and paying for the education of an individual. Ideally hospitals would run from the private sector and not be reliant on taxpayers' money, but that's an argument for another day.
2. Fair point.
3. But where's their main source of revenue going to come from? Sure research is probably what will help the prestige, but under a system where universities would be receiving less and less support from the Government, their revenue is going to come from the students. So in order to secure that revenue stream, they will have to devote some of their funding towards teaching. And then that becomes a source of competition as well between more universities. The greater the quality of their teaching staff, the greater the number of students are who wish to apply there, and the greater the opportunities for universities to thicken their revenue stream.
4. See 3.
5. I never condoned chaplains, I dismissed them as a non-core issue. But I would agree with you that social workers are probably a more viable alternative, that's not to say chaplains aren't 100% useless though.
