brb joining this church
The key things to remember is that the secular party isn't an official political party and those policies were just the views of one member, but also that the idea was that if you broadened the tax base to include things like churches and many private industries that currently receive massive tax breaks then you'd be able to lower everybody's taxes while still getting more revenue. Of course the real situation is more complicated than that and the reason I resigned from the party was many disagreements over non-platform issues. I didn't disagree with this one because it was written by an economics proffersor (or some kind of person highly qualified in economics, so he obviously knew more about it than me, although obviously not as much as Texta).
Lol. Well if it was written by a Proffersor (sic) then it must be the right thing to do. Also lol at another dummy spit. Has there ever seriously been any "problem" you haven't solved by taking your bat and going home?
The Australian Secular Party isn't an official political party because it's so far out of the mainstream that they can't meet the official requirements to register as a party. As it turns out, their economic views represent an extreme right wing viewpoint that would make even our mainstream conservative party put on tie dyed t-shirts and protest. If their policies were ever implemented they'd go along way to perpetuating the divide between rich and poor, increasing unemployment and limiting our economic growth.
The Australian Secular Party isn't an official political party because it's so far out of the mainstream that they can't meet the official requirements to register as a party. As it turns out, their economic views represent an extreme right wing viewpoint that would make even our mainstream conservative party put on tie dyed t-shirts and protest. If their policies were ever implemented they'd go along way to perpetuating the divide between rich and poor, increasing unemployment and limiting our economic growth.
-
PoisonTaffy
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1003
- Joined: 23 Jun 2007 15:42
- Location: Israel, center
- Contact:
-
PoisonTaffy
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1003
- Joined: 23 Jun 2007 15:42
- Location: Israel, center
- Contact:
Sorry double post. The amount given to charity box is pretty interesting as well. It reinforces my beliefs of how important it is to discriminate between which charities you give money to, because some charities make your money go a lot further than others. For example giving money to blind dog charities means that it will go to paying the $30,000 AUD it takes to train a dog so that it can help one person for about 5 years. Alternatively that amount of money can provide clean drinking water to some 15 villages (at a very conservative estimate), saving the lives of probably literally hundreds of people, and with some pretty significant flow on effects.
In general I only give money to human rights, third world poverty and environmental charities (and the IFPA). For people personally involved other charities may seem like serious issues, but I just think we should have more important priorities than curing cancer or preventing animal cruelty. Lets fix the big problems before we worry about the small ones - especially when you consider how grossly under funded our efforts at fixing those problems are. The total global foreign aid over the last 40 years has amounted to something like an extra 40 cents per person living below the poverty line per day, which means at best they'd be living on $1.64 a day in USD purchasing power parity, and that's on the assumption that all the aid money goes to the people who most need it. In reality many countries, including Australia, given their foreign aid to their own companies - for example the Australian government has given something like $200 million in foreign humanitarian aid to BHP - one of Australia's largest mining companies - so that it can continue mining in Papua New Guinea. The flow on effect benefits to the people of PNG seem very limited. The poorest people don't get any of that money or the benefits of it at all. I'm sure many other nations are similar.
In general I only give money to human rights, third world poverty and environmental charities (and the IFPA). For people personally involved other charities may seem like serious issues, but I just think we should have more important priorities than curing cancer or preventing animal cruelty. Lets fix the big problems before we worry about the small ones - especially when you consider how grossly under funded our efforts at fixing those problems are. The total global foreign aid over the last 40 years has amounted to something like an extra 40 cents per person living below the poverty line per day, which means at best they'd be living on $1.64 a day in USD purchasing power parity, and that's on the assumption that all the aid money goes to the people who most need it. In reality many countries, including Australia, given their foreign aid to their own companies - for example the Australian government has given something like $200 million in foreign humanitarian aid to BHP - one of Australia's largest mining companies - so that it can continue mining in Papua New Guinea. The flow on effect benefits to the people of PNG seem very limited. The poorest people don't get any of that money or the benefits of it at all. I'm sure many other nations are similar.
Totally irrelevant to Australia though.Jeremy wrote:Here is a very good graph illustrating Ollie's point that governments aren't necessarily spending their money on the right priorities. Not completely related perhaps, but a pretty effective use of graphical information.
As way of example; here's the 2005 breakdown of spending by the NSW State Government:
- 25% Education and training
26% Health
10% Police & justice
7% Community services
16% Roads and transport
1% Environment & conservation
2% Primary industries
3% Arts
1% Infrastructure, planning & natural resources
9% Other
Yes, that's because health and education are both state based issues, while the secular parties policies are aimed federally. States get their money for those issues from the federal government, and in most states their internal reporting, enquires etc. has suggested that they are underfunded. Hence the Labor Party's increase of funding to those areas since getting elected federally. State budgets are completely different to federal budgets, as I'm sure you know.
Yes, but it's how that money is spent that is the question;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 659938.htm
There is an excellent book by Chris Bonner and Secular Party associate Jane Caro called "The Stupid Country" about how inefficient and wasteful our education spending is.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 659938.htm
There is an excellent book by Chris Bonner and Secular Party associate Jane Caro called "The Stupid Country" about how inefficient and wasteful our education spending is.
-
Blue_turnip
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
- Location: Melbourne
That's a fairly ridiculous story. The fact is that since the Rudd Labor Government came to power there has been literally hundreds of billions of dollars more committed to education across Australia. There is no school in Australia that hasn't received significantly more federal funding thanks to Labor.Jeremy wrote:Yes, but it's how that money is spent that is the question;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 659938.htm
There is an excellent book by Chris Bonner and Secular Party associate Jane Caro called "The Stupid Country" about how inefficient and wasteful our education spending is.
For most of us, the idea that a Government would increase funding to all schools except for ones with a certain religious affiliation is unthinkable. We live in a democracy where people are welcome to practice any religion they like without discrimination. Kids deserve a fair go irrespective of what school they go to or what religion their parents practice.
Luckily most Australians reject the schizophrenic libertarian/fascist policies of fringe organisations like The Australian Secular party.
For almost all countries in the world, apart from Australia, schools that receive 40% to 60% of their funding from the government would be called "government" or "public" schools and not "private" schools. Australia is fairly unique it's position of having a separation between "private" and "public" schools - both of which are government funded. This started because of essentially black mail from the Catholic Church during the Whitlam government and has continued.
It is incredible that schools such as these Exclusive Brethren schools receive the majority of their funding from the government, yet have very few criteria on which they are expected to teach. It's perfectly fine for them to teach that creationism is science and that "darwinists" are fascists - the typical Godwin's Law that we see Kester once again falling upon. In almost every other country in the world, schools that receive a large portion of their funding from the government are not called "private" and are not allowed to teach whatever they feel like.
So when you say; "For most of us, the idea that a Government would increase funding to all schools except for ones with a certain religious affiliation is unthinkable. We live in a democracy where people are welcome to practice any religion they like without discrimination," do you think that it's discrimination that almost every other country in the world says to schools - "If you want to teach specific things that are not supported by our government, or the majority of people, that are radically religious, we're not going to give you any money" that they're discriminating against religions? Is that a bad thing for the rest of the world to be doing, and Australia is the only country to be taking the morally correct approach?
Of course the other issue is that the countries whose education systems are ranked the best - Finland, Canada etc. and also the country that has improved their education system the most in recent years (Poland) have all done so by having strong government control over who attends all schools (without a private/public divide) and by mixing people of different cultures and different socio-economic backgrounds. Indeed even in Australia, in Melbourne the school that was ranked the highest in terms of students going on with further education afterwards wasn't a prestigious private school - but a lower socio-economic public school, that also happened to have a good mix of backgrounds and status.
Australia's school system is flawed in funding all schools, but putting lots of restrictions on some of the schools it funds and not others - by creating this largely fictitious divide of "public" and "private."
The "fairly ridiculous story" is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that our government would fund schools that teach false "science" and that democracy is wrong and that it's a sin to vote in elections. Kevin Rudd was right to attack the Exclusive Brethren in opposition. It's just a shame he's not prepared to do anything about it now, like deciding that it's not appropriate for governments to fund "private" schools while giving them almost a free reign as to what they're allowed to do with the money. Of course it's just one example of the $6,000,000,000 or so that the government gives in funding to schools that are allowed to teach what they like.
What possible benefit is there to Australia or society in sending people to schools that teach things that are simply not true? Wouldn't just sitting them in front of a television be just as good an education, but a lot cheaper?
It is incredible that schools such as these Exclusive Brethren schools receive the majority of their funding from the government, yet have very few criteria on which they are expected to teach. It's perfectly fine for them to teach that creationism is science and that "darwinists" are fascists - the typical Godwin's Law that we see Kester once again falling upon. In almost every other country in the world, schools that receive a large portion of their funding from the government are not called "private" and are not allowed to teach whatever they feel like.
So when you say; "For most of us, the idea that a Government would increase funding to all schools except for ones with a certain religious affiliation is unthinkable. We live in a democracy where people are welcome to practice any religion they like without discrimination," do you think that it's discrimination that almost every other country in the world says to schools - "If you want to teach specific things that are not supported by our government, or the majority of people, that are radically religious, we're not going to give you any money" that they're discriminating against religions? Is that a bad thing for the rest of the world to be doing, and Australia is the only country to be taking the morally correct approach?
Of course the other issue is that the countries whose education systems are ranked the best - Finland, Canada etc. and also the country that has improved their education system the most in recent years (Poland) have all done so by having strong government control over who attends all schools (without a private/public divide) and by mixing people of different cultures and different socio-economic backgrounds. Indeed even in Australia, in Melbourne the school that was ranked the highest in terms of students going on with further education afterwards wasn't a prestigious private school - but a lower socio-economic public school, that also happened to have a good mix of backgrounds and status.
Australia's school system is flawed in funding all schools, but putting lots of restrictions on some of the schools it funds and not others - by creating this largely fictitious divide of "public" and "private."
The "fairly ridiculous story" is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that our government would fund schools that teach false "science" and that democracy is wrong and that it's a sin to vote in elections. Kevin Rudd was right to attack the Exclusive Brethren in opposition. It's just a shame he's not prepared to do anything about it now, like deciding that it's not appropriate for governments to fund "private" schools while giving them almost a free reign as to what they're allowed to do with the money. Of course it's just one example of the $6,000,000,000 or so that the government gives in funding to schools that are allowed to teach what they like.
What possible benefit is there to Australia or society in sending people to schools that teach things that are simply not true? Wouldn't just sitting them in front of a television be just as good an education, but a lot cheaper?