Funding for Australian schools

We have a huge problem in Australia, the division of funds for public vs wealthy private schools. Currently, there is a movement to diversify funds from wealthy privates schools to needy public schools. However, some people still believe wealthy private schools should receive government funding.

There are two types of students in private schools. 1. From wealthy parents. 2. From poor families struggling to meet school fees.

  1. Since wealthy parents pay more taxes, should some of their taxes be returned as spending on their children?
    If people believe the rich are paying too much. Then instead of spending money on their children, why not give the wealthy people a tax cut.

  2. Poor families sending their kids to private schools.
    Instead of sending their kids to a public school. I can not understand why poor families send their kids to a school that’s beyond their monetary means.
    Assume, private school education is better than public education
    The fact is, everyone want a better education for their kids. But no everyone can afford it. If the poor parents want better education, then they must be prepared to pay more for it.
    If they can’t afford it, then don’t ask public funding so they can send their kids to a private school.
    Why should their kids be treated more special than someone else’s kids? If one poor parent’s kids get subsidy, should all poor parents get subsidy?

I.e everyone wants a BMW. I can’t afford a BMW, therefore everyone else has to buy it for me.

If the poor parents say their kids are gifted, then how come they don’t have a scholarship?

  1. A tax cut is a way of transferring control of funds from the government to the people. When government takes a cut from people’s paycheck, they redistribute this money throughout the various forms of government institutions/agencies/social programs. That is why there are public schools. That is one form of re-distribution. Now, handing back the money to you, would allow you to spend it anyway you want, government loses control of spending that money.

  2. Your BMW analogy is a poor one. Education is supposed to be one of those rights/freedom/benefit that are meant to equalize people’s chance of improving their lives. Now, if you believe that rights should be equal for everyone, shouldn’t a right to “quality education” be accessible to everyone. The problem is, there really is no such thing as equality in many things. And poor people see this. Wouldn’t you question the system that promotes unequal educational opportunity?

An elephant should carry more load than a camel because it is an elephant. Just as everyone should work to their capacity and consume what they neeed. Social idealism.

Then an elephant deserves to eat more and have a better life than a camel.
The problem arises when the camel see it as equal to an elephant and wants to enjoy the lifestyle of an elephant.
A poor kid want to have the same start as a rich kid. Idealy, if people are free of their prejudices it should work. Because rich people will see the poor kids as their own, and will treat them the same.

Pinnacle of Reason

The problem, again, with the analogy you use—elephant and camel—is that, this is purely the “use” of labor of an otherwise unpleasant plight of these animals.

Having a decent job in any society is a form of privilege, but for some reason, we keep insisting that it is mere work in which someone provides his time and effort, like a penitence. The more importance and prestige and money we attach to a particular job, the more it is a privilege than mere “labor”.

If you are going to attack the premises of the examples I give, and instead of seeing the principles behind the example, then I will not argue with you. There is no perfect example. I am willing to explain the Principles, but I can’t give you the perfect example.

“anyway rich people can buy more stuff than poor people” - really, how long did it take you to figure that out?

I am not looking for a perfect example. You can go ahead and explain your principle in a straightforward way—without having to resort to absurd metaphors or analogies. I see what you are trying to say. I have seen this before and it is vulnerable to attack because you are making the same mistake of oversimplifying the economic and social inequalities of people. There are variables in societies. A careful analysis is a much more humane way of judging than what you are giving here.

Private schools are called “private schools” for a reason, because they “private”.

They are an alternate route for those who do not trust the government monopoly. Any attempt at funding private schools will be nothing more than an attempt to farther that monopoly, the government has no right to get involved with the affairs of a private school. If a child doesn’t have the money to go to a private school, then so be it, the private school has every right to ask for money before allowing attendance, they are their own private company.


X is an elephant, explain why X ‘should’ do anything.

Also, isn’t the true value of a thing or a service a result of the effort used in creating or rendering said thing or service? How valuable would commercial bankers be if there was no food, for example, or even, no lowly little construction workers to build banks?

Not saying that an elephant doesn’t put in any effort, but he would have no crops to carry if some poor dumb ox didn’t plow the field.


sorry for oversimplifying things. I was using it as an example to attack whitelotus. I understand that effort does not always lead to success. People are disadvantaged. But if people want certain things, they must try to overcome their disadvantages. Everyone is different, so I can’t say my disadvantage is greater than yours, nor less than yours. But that is the way things are. The rich and poor are on the same moral platform, and none can claim moral superiority. At the end, it all comes down to people’s prejudices against people other than the person himself.

If the poor want the same education as the rich, why don’t the poor just ask the rich to treat him the same? After all, if the rich hadn’t moved forward, the poor wouldn’t feel he had been left behind.


but private schools take pressure off public schools. When private sector takes on public duties, it should be supported by public agencies.


“explain why X ‘should’ do anything.” - precisely. hear that whitelotus.
GCT, imagine a situation in which a person can do everyone’s job using machines.

Gotcha ! :slight_smile:

Why should we abolish artificial advantage, and not un-artificial advantage. Why should a smarter kid have a better life than a stupid kid? Aren’t they all kids?

pure relativist BS. disadvantages are objective: if you have no arms and an identical twin of yours has one arm, you are more disadvantaged than he. This relativism crap arises because people become confused with the range of different advantages and disadvantages people have. it becomes complicated to gauge degree of disadvantage between an intelligent person with missing limbs and a physically complete yet slow-witted person, and that’s just including two variables. the spiel about ‘overcoming one’s disadvantages’ is libertarian BS. people are held back by a range of factors which inhibit success, and which no amount of (honest) effort will overcome, not least the unfairness of the (hidden or obscured) caste system within society. a person with good connections has an overwhelming advantage over a person with no connections.

that is not necessarily true. an egalitarian society, by these standards, would be considered a society of the deepest prejudice. striving for equality doesn’t necessarily entail depriving the rich or gifted: there are many different forms of equality, such as equality before the law, equality of opportunity, sexual equality, racial equality, that i believe are perfectly legitimate.

explain how this would be acheived. it is imperative that you do before we discourse further.

here again you are viewing education as a privilege rather than a fundamental right, which i believe it is and which the social theorists (such as Adam Smith) would agree, i think (i may be wrong). this position is corporate cronyism, rather than free-market capitalism (which i don’t believe works anyway)

sorry, please clarify: is this the way you think things are, or is it the way you want them to be?

the labour theory of value is the weakest part of Marx’s thought. you communist :laughing: .

this is very correct. so correct, it makes me do the bum dance.

could it be because the public school system in australia is horrendously underfunded and consequently understaffed, underresourced, and inferior in terms of education? private school is one of the few ways parents from poor social backgrounds can hope to re-balance the unequal system. Latham’s policies were geared towards making private and public schools equal in quality of education, to resolve the very problem you are describing.


you are full of BS. everything is relative. everyone is different.

“an egalitarian society” - who determines what is egalitarian? wake up!

the point about rich moving forward just shows that people are different, the rich want to benefit their own kids, and they have a right to do so. The reason rich does not help the poor is because the poor is too different from the rich.

who said education is a right?

re-balance the unequal system?- when is anything ever equal?

and why should egalitarian principles be restricted to the law, race or sex?

If you are serious about dismantling barriers, why stop at artificial barriers? Who not make everyone the SAME!!!

As long as people are different, there WILL be prejudices. The reason the poor feels left behind is because RELATIVELY, the rich moved forward. Now, i have NO idea as to how to restrict the rich from moving forward.

By making public and private the same, he’s taking the privilige of the rich and give it to the poor. Without the rich’s consent, that’s theft.

I mean, if the rich send their kids to martial art practice. Should the poor ask for government assistance so they can send their kids to the practice too?

I went to a public school, but now I am doing commerce at UNSW. I am poor, but I am not complaining.
The poor complains that the rich pays too little taxes, but when the poor becomes rich, would the poor be WILLING to pay the extra taxes?

We are NOT equal in this world, but we are equal before God.

again with this relativist stuff. by your logic, distinctions do not exist, and noone can say ANYTHING objective. this is a clear paradox. difference does not entail relativism. for example, is a murderer more evil than a philanthropist, or are they merely ‘different’? what you propose makes discussion impossible, it is pure sophistry. the ‘who determines’ bit is easy: if you read your social contract theorists, you would recognise this argument, courtesy of john rawls:

that little number is known as ‘the veil of ignorance’ (NB: i may have incorrectly recalled it, but i think i got the gist)

this is fascism, pure and simple. in any case, i am only interested in equality before the law, which the subject of this debate comes under. everyone has the right to be treated equally under the law (psst: that’s from the UN charter on human rights).

well, perhaps, but have you considered the possibility that the economy, law, and bureaucracy are structured in such a way that the rich are already stealing from the poor? is that concept so absurd?

i don’t see what Latham is doing as restricting the movement of the risch so much as enabling the poor to move forward at a greater pace, so they don’t get stepped on.

then why not before the law? :confused:

I’m starting a new post called " on egalitarianism"