Proposed the idea of collecting HECS debts from the dead as a way to boost the budget bottom line: Education Minister Christopher Pyne. Photo: Andrew Meares
Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has floated the idea of collecting student debts from the dead as a way of boosting the budget bottom line.
Mr Pyne told Fairfax Media on Wednesday he had no “ideological opposition” to collecting debts from the estates of former students who died owing money to the government.
Hang on a minute this is merely a suggestion its not any kind of settled policy Heck it hasn’t even been discussed by the coalition parties yet the usual suspects are going on as if its done and dusted policy.
Personally I think that it would be an extremely unpopular thing to do that would cost a motza to administrate and would in all likelihood raise far less revenue than many are suggesting here.
In other words all of those panic merchants who are frothing at the mouth here should just take a chill pill and save their rancor until this idea is more than just a thought bubble. After all we are not talking about the party that gave us the laughable mining tax we are talking about the coalition who take a much more considered view to any changes to the tax regime.
Cheers Comrades
Its burning Leftards!
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Yes, Iain. And who suggested it?
It’s just another attack on the wrong end, regardless of whether or not it becomes policy. If the Govt is really serious about collecting more revenue there are $billions upon $billions out there being hidden (in plain sight) by the big end of town. The big corporations like Westfield for instance. The mining companies and the banks. To “float” this as a remedy without so much as a hint of going after the other end is ideology at work, not responsible governance.
Ray
I have no doubt that Pyne said anything about this was because he was asked a question about this notion by the journalist he was talking to. Pyne answered off the cuff and with commendable candor. If he had given any of the usual whishy washy answers that government ministers are prone to enunciate at such times the headline would have been all about how he was being evasive on the issue.
Please note that he has only said that on an “ideological” basis he has no objection Pyne is a very careful speaker and very precise in his word choices so you should pay attention to precisely what he says remembering that there is quite a gap between ideology and actual legislation to make something so.
Yes I know that you think that we should tax the big companies and Banks at a higher rate but we both know that were the government to do s it would immediately be passed on to consumers in the former of higher rates, rents and charges.
It’s not a matter of taxing the larger corporations at a “higher rate”, Iain. It’s a matter of cracking down on their avoidance schemes. Case in point, it is estimated that Frank Lowy’s Westfield – the large shopping complex owner – has avoided over $2.5 billion in taxes over recent years and effectively only pays 8% on its Australian profits, instead of 30%.
As for Pyne, I’m glad you agree he thinks and talks political “ideology” when it comes to the Govt’s fiscal duties, not rational, balanced and considered economic sense.
Let’s look at Pyne’s suggestion, which I disagree with. The idea that the estates of students could be liable for HECS debts is untenable. How many students die leaving a HECS debt? As HECS cuts in at an income of $50,000 per annum or more, how many of those students die before repaying their debt?
It’s a beat-up. Pyne was correct to agree with it in principle, as that was his opinion, however attacking the Libs over such a minor concern is ludicrous.
Labor had far more thought-bubbles that were acted on and subsequently cost Australia billions of dollars, ie the NBN and the clean energy schemes and other numerous brain-farts that have since come to nothing other than increased cost to the taxpayer.
How is it Ray, that you never used the phrase ‘rational, balanced and considered economic sense’ when commenting on the past six years’ of Labor’s malfeasance?
Keep grasping at straws old chum, you haven’t got a leg to stand on given the record of your favoured budget blowing, deficit delivering Labor Party.
Which says a lot about his “principles”, doesn’t it GD? This is the problem with your precious Coalition: they don’t have any “principles” about the economic and social well being of the poor, the low, middle and even upper middle income earners. Actually they only care about the top 5% or so. And of course about the really big end of town, the huge (obscenely profitable) corporations and turn a blind eye to their blatant manipulation of accounts that sees them avoiding $billions of dollars in taxation, while at the same time offerring them even lower rates of tax! They have this master/slave paradigm way of looking at the economy, a sort-of “entitlement” mentality that says rich people are entitled to ride on the backs of the unrich.
And it’s always been that way with the Liberals, mate. You can carry on all you like about Labor’s spending but at least they act with “principles” for the better good of the vast majority. They even act in your best interests, whereas your precious conservatives are actually working against you, GD. Quite frankly, it beats me why you, or anyone not in the top 5% of earners would want this party in power. I can only put it down to a general disdain (or even envy) of the population, those above and (especially) those you regard as beneath you on the socio-economic scale. You despise the ones below as sub-human while you despise those above because they’re doing better. And those around you, well, at least with the Coalition in power they won’t be able to get ahead of you.
No offence intended, it’s just my “ideological” take on your political stance, GD.
Ray stated:
Sub-human? Come on Ray you can do better than that. You constantly demand I retract statements, well there’s one you should withdraw.
Where are you getting that from? Link? quote?
Ray, acting with principles while driving the nation’s finances into unprecedented levels of debt in an attempt to achieve those principles is not good governance, though it is reminiscent of the Whitlam regime, without the benefits.
btw Ray, when have I ever used the disgusting term ‘sub-human’?
Take a step back, old man, you are losing the plot.
Nope, I’ve only ever demanded your retraction of the accusation that I “spat on soldiers returning from Vietnam”, which is a lie, a slur and is in fact defamatory.
There’s no lies or defamation in what I’ve said, GD, and on the contrary, I think it’s a perfectly reasonable theory to put forward that you have disdain for, um, certain groups (based on your many put downs & mockeries of said groups). And, that being the case, I also think saying you see them as “sub-human” is reasonable opinion and poetic license.
You getting all uppity and angry over that and demanding “retractions” would be like me demanding you retract your opinions of me as a “socialist” or “leftist” (which I dispute but never demand retraction). Have a Bex, old chum, or whatever drug may calm your nerves.
No country in the western world avoided “unprecedented levels of debt” over the same period, GD. You do realise that Australia’s level of debt is the envy of all other countries, don’t you? Or are you unaware of the state of the world’s global financial affairs of late?
And the “benefit” to you is, you still have a business and you’re not busking for falafels on the streets of Western Sydney. You also weren’t taxed to the hilt to pay for it like your “There’s a debt crisis” lying PM intends to do.
That’s a bit like saying ‘the homeless man envies the bloke in the boarding house’. The fact that other countries are further in debt is no reason to continue along the path that Labor and the socialists want us to.
We are already paying a billion dollars a month in interest for Labor’s debts. It’s time to rein in excessive spending, welfare largesse and sheer waste on futile global warming schemes.
It’s not a bad “boarding house” though, is it? Australia is not exactly broke or struggling to pay its debts. To listen to you or, more correctly, to listen to you blindly echoing the crap that Abbott, Hockey, and that Terminator/Nazi Finance Minister put out, you’d think we’re in deep shit. Of course there needs to be a (long term) plan to reduce debt and return to surplus but the overall economic picture in Australia is fine and quite manageable. It’s just that your lot want to make the wrong people pay and give more to those who should be contributing.
Ray
By way of response to your argument can I share with you just how liberating it was for my wife and I to finally pay off our mortgage? No longer do we have to see our money going to service a large and enslaving debt, we could have chosen to go bigger or flasher in the house department, or we could have decided to get a newer car, heck we could even decide to spend on more productive things. The pertinent thing is that by lifting our burden of debt we just have so many more choices. The same thing applies at a national level. Small or large a debt enslaves the nation and restricts what can be done for the people, and what do we have to show for that debt? Useless monuments to Gillard’s misunderstanding of education necessities in almost every school, a large network of detention centres, a nation wide network of poorly insulated houses Oh and a vast collection of now aging Plasma TVs bought with that $900+ cheques sent to us all by your blessed Kevin.
Iain, that’s the wrong way to look at it. Your mortgage was not “enslaving” you, it was:
– Giving your family a home
– Motivating you to work & earn more money
– Forcing you to be diligant and budget conscious
– Teaching you discipline
– Giving you more self respect (by your ability to manage it)
– Giving you something to do, like build cars, mow the lawns
– Allowing you to be part of a community
– Providing a stable family life
– Protecting your children with a safe environment
– Providing you with a plot of land where you could grow your own food to feed your family
– Giving you a worthwhile goal in life (to be debt free)
– Giving you independence
– Making you a better man
– Increasing your financial worth
– Providing for your retirement
– Leaving something of value for your children to inherit so they have a better life
In short, Iain, going into debt to buy your home was most likely the best decision you ever made. Congratulations.
As for the $200 billion that labor added to Australia’s debt (it was $60 billion when they came to office, $258 billion when they left), all of that was incurred for the right reasons too. Much like the list above.
And to continue: Australia’s gross debt is approx $13,000 per head of population. And when you consider that it is the Australian people who will eventually repay it, even if our population doesn’t grow that won’t take too long to wipe it out (once the conditions are more favourable). Nor need it cause any hardships. What your lot are doing though would see those on lower incomes pay more than their share, while the likes of Frank Lowy & Gina Rinehart pay next to nothing.
Shorten Labor is looking good..
So when do you propose the government rein in spending?
When do you propose the government curtail excessive welfare payments?
Had not the Abbott government stopped the boats, when would you have suggested they call a halt to illegal arrivals?
All these questions and more for leftists with more ideals than answers.
Governments (Liberal or Labor) don’t “rein in spending” to reduce the deficit and debt, they decrease the growth of it so that revenue can catch up and eventually overtake it. To actually reduce the size of overall government spending programs by any significant degree can be recessionary and cause revenue to fall creating an even bigger deficit and debt. You don’t get this, do you?
Immediately. This is not a problem peculiar to any side of government; you might recall Labor made some fairly big reductions to the ridiculous baby bonus scheme (which was middle class welfare gone nuts introduced under Howard). They also made some fairly drastic reductions to single mother pensions. The Coalition talks tough about welfare “entitlement” but all they’ve come up with is to hit pensioners and young people while proposing a massive paid parental leave scheme, which is middle & upper income welfare on freakin’ steroids, mate.
As I’ve said, GD, economics is clearly not your strong suit.
When Rudd did, just before the last election.
How is the government hitting pensioners?
It’s not as generous as the one currently paid to public servants including your ABC. Have you ever expressed concern about that?
See the title of this post?
Perhaps you’re “getting overly excited about things that probably won’t happen”.
“Getting excited”? No, you asked the questions, GD, so I simply answered them. I appreciate that my clear explanations went right over your head but why keep going and proving your total lack of understanding of matters economic beyond all doubt?
“How is the government hitting pensioners?” Gee, I don’t know, GD, maybe you need to refer to the draft budget and their decision to change the rate of annual increases (downwards) from in proportion to min wage increases to in line with CPI. That is “hitting” the pensioners and quite hard. Something about putting the eligibility age up to 70 as well, I believe. Oh, and pensioners drive cars (some of them) so they’ll be paying the extra petrol excise too.
“It’s not as generous as the one currently paid to public servants including your ABC. Have you ever expressed concern about that?”: I’m against all such lavish schemes – what makes you think otherwise? Are you suggesting that Abbott’s plan to blow $5.5 billion per year on his scheme for everyone is okay because one sector – a much smaller one – has a similar scheme? That’s like saying one small wrong and one big one makes a right.
Give up on tackling matters economic, GD. You don’t have a handle on it.
Maybe Andrew Bolt can fix the problem. snigger-snigger.