The Australian Government will apply a 20% reduction to all student loans as at 1 June 2025, before indexation was applied, to reduce the debt burden for those with a student loan.
Has anyone seen their HELP debt reduced?
20% Reduction off Outstanding HELP Loan Debt
Comments
Another one at taxpayers expense.
Nothing is FREE
And how is this fair for all those students that did the right thing and paid off thier debt?
Better education = better jobs = higher pay = higher taxes. Educated people bring industry and innovation to the country. An educated population should be #1 priority for any country.
Education should be free.
I say this as someone who paid off their full HECS debt in full with no discounts too. If you want to get angry about this, direct it at the boomer generation who pulled the ladder up behind them in the first place.
A barista with an arts degree doesn't earn any extra money!
A rare correct statement by Dr Phil, I don't think you're contradicting him.
If money was unlimited, I'd agree with free education. Unfortunately a lot of money gets wasted on arts degrees though.
I'd suggest free education for specific courses according to planned skill needs.But now you're a sucker for paying off your debt.
The correct approach should have been to reduce the price of specific courses (which seems to be happening, but all the $$ should have been put into this. e.g. only a few postgraduate courses are eligible for CSP.)
Better education = better jobs = higher pay = higher taxes
While it is true on the individual level, I can't think of how it will work on the macroeconmics level. There might be more people geared up with tertiary educations, but it's not that suddenly there will be more higher paying jobs. We might end up with more qualified uni-grads looking for jobs that aren't there. On the other hand, jobs require less qualifications don't get filled, so we will either need to (1) import more migrants, or (2) pay more to those low-qualification jobs.
We might end up with more qualified uni-grads looking for jobs that aren't there. On the other hand, jobs require less qualifications don't get filled, so we will either need to (1) import more migrants, or (2) pay more to those low-qualification jobs.
After they find out the jobs aren't there, what jobs do the qualified uni-grads end up doing in that scenario? Is that the (2) scenario where they say "I'm overqualified for this job so I would only do it if you increased the pay"?
@Crow K: A lot of them are too good to do an ordinary job and remain unemployed whilst living in their parents house well into their 30s. Then when they finally bite the bullet and get a shitkickers job they complain that they can't afford a house and blame everyone but themselves.
@JIMB0: What % of uni graduates would you estimate refuse to get a job and instead spend over a decade living at their parents place?
@Crow K: 100%. Based off my highly representative sample size of 1. I’m sure I’ve forgotten a few more. And then there’s the ones who skipped uni but perfected the same lifestyle.
@JIMB0: The sample size is too small to be meaningful to the discussion we were having, but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts all the same (depressing as they are).
It must be so sad not being able to contribute to things and also being a burden to those around you. :(
Still, at least we can hope they grow out of it, I guess?
The people who benefit most from this don't seem to have jobs at all though in a lot of cases, let alone ones paying well enough to repay the other 80% of their debt. Shouldn't we be asking why we are flooded with grads with useless degrees while still importing more people.. while also apparently having skill shortages of everything?
USEFUL degrees should be free - things like nursing and medicine, and also keep the requirements quite high so people aren't studying them just because they're free, but also because they are smart enough to complete the degree to a high standard.
Don't just funnel half of inner Melbourne's teenagers into useless Arts degrees and then give them free money for their bad decisions.
Since when is tax spending about being fair?
Tax spending should be about doing what it economically and socially best for the country. In this case, economically those carrying a HECS debt has worn a lot of interest the past few years and increasing rates of education. They are also in some of the least fortunate economic positions, generally young people who are trying to enter an insane housing market.
Yes, there are people who paid off their HELP debt (I'm one of them, boohoo me). It's reasonable to assume that most of them are in a financially better position than those who didn't pay off their debt and therefore are in least need of economic assistance. Taxes aren't about making sure it's distributed evenly but about growing the economy and society as much as possible.
And how is this fair for all those students that did the right thing and paid off thier debt?
I have never and will never understand the “I suffered so you should too” logic.
Everything has passed via parliament, just waiting for the ATO (or whatever authority) to actually add in the 20% reduction in the system.
Good.
Does this apply retrospectively to amounts that have already been paid down?
No. That's why you don't pay off your HECS.
Only if you have a balance as at 1 June before they applied interest.
Don't be silly, those that have done the right thing should be punished.
I didn't realise they were punishing people as well, that's pretty awful. What is the punishment?
Paying more than people who didn't pay off their debts.
@brendanm: I'm not following, why is a help debt reduction a punishment for people for don't have a help debt?
Is it equally a punishment for people who never went to Uni in the first place?
@Crow K: People that paid off their debts before this 20% reduction, have had to pay more money than people who did not pay off their debts before this 20% reduction. Hope this helps.
Is it equally a punishment for people who never went to Uni in the first place?
How is the 20% reduction funded? Money has been borrowed, then spent at learning institutions. Now 20% has been taken off this total amount owed. Where did this money come from, or where did it go?
People that paid off their debts before this 20% reduction, have had to pay more money than people who did not pay off their debts before this 20% reduction. Hope this helps.
Not really, isn't that just bad luck?
If you buy a hotdog at the hotdog store right when it's closing and as you're leaving the store you find a coupon for a free hotdog from that store for that day only, who exactly is punishing you in those circumstances? The store? The street? The coupon itself?
It's just bad luck (or if you're Alanis Morrisette, "ironic"). There isn't a punishment.
How is the 20% reduction funded? Money has been borrowed, then spent at learning institutions. Now 20% has been taken off this total amount owed. Where did this money come from, or where did it go?
Oh, so because the money came all taxpayers, but it's only being applied to Uni-attending taxpayers, it's a punishment for non-Uni attending taxpayers. If you're a tax payer who paid taxes but then the money isn't being used for you that's what the punishment is.
I think I understand your argument now, but that's not a punishment either?
Not really, isn't that just bad luck?
No
If you buy a hotdog at the hotdog store right when it's closing and as you're leaving the store you find a coupon for a free hotdog from that store for that day only, who exactly is punishing you in those circumstances? The store? The street? The coupon itself?
Oddly enough, a hotdog and a binding agreement to take on a debt, and then pay it back, are actually very different things. The fact that you have tried to equate the two shows how little idea you have.
Oh, so because the money came all taxpayers, but it's only being applied to Uni-attending taxpayers, it's a punishment for non-Uni attention taxpayers.
Oh, so it doesn't come from thin air? I'm having to pay for a baristas arts degree, or a 20% reduction of some career students $100k+ loan? The same people that paid off their HECS debts, like they agreed to, who missed out on a taxpayer funded 20% discount, now also have to pay for everyone else's discount as well? Sounds amazing.
Oh, so.it doesn't come from thin air? I'm having to pay for a baristas arts degree, or a 20% reduction of some career students $100k+ loan? The same people that paid off their HECS debts, like they agreed to, who missed out on a taxpayer funded 20% discount, now also have to pay for everyone else's discount as well? Sounds amazing.
I don't want to be the bad guy that breaks to you how the tax system works and how this just something adulting covers but yeah, I didn't invent the system but that's what it does. Sorry today had to be the day you learnt that, and from me?
If it helps, it affects me too, I have to pay for a fire brigade service with my taxes and they're putting out fires all over the place that have nothing to do with me
Neither the government nor the fire brigade is punishing me when it does this, but I can now understand how if you don't know how things work it might appear that way.
@Crow K: You're just going to ignore the bit where you compared a legal contract to a hotdog?
I don't want to be the bad guy that breaks to you how the tax system works and how this just something adulting covers but yeah, I didn't invent the system but that's what it does. Sorry today had to be the day you learnt that, and from me?
People chose to take these debts on. They can repay them
If it helps, it affects me too, I have to pay for a fire brigade service with my taxes and they're putting out fires all over the place that have nothing to do with me
You're doing it again. My barista having an arts degree is not the same as fire fighters helping the entire community.
I'm actually all for HECS debt being cut further or even wiped completely for certain degrees. Ones that actually benefit the whole community, in fields we actually need people in.
People chose to take these debts on. They can repay them
Sure, but then you have to extend that argument to R and D grants and all the other ways the govt works alongside the private sector. It's a non-starter.
You're doing it again. My barista having an arts degree is not the same as fire fighters helping the entire community
Why would it have to be the same?
Not the same overall good, but also not the same overall budget? We know for a fact the govt already sponsors the art community via the Opera and so on, so it is a given the govt already applies taxes to fund individuals to pursue arts?
I'm actually all for HECS debt being cut further or even wiped completely for certain degrees. Ones that actually benefit the whole community, in fields we actually need people in.
Yeah, but you're not The Decider who knows what the community needs and furthermore, wouldn't any degree that doesn't get the help cut being more of that "punishment" rhetoric anyway? We are punishing dentists because engineers get a help reduction etc?
Sure, but then you have to extend that argument to R and D grants and all the other ways the govt works alongside the private sector. It's a non-starter.
An R+D grant has nothing to do with a HECS debt.
Why would it have to be the same?
The people paying (the taxpayer) should benefit. Everyone benefits from having firefighters. No one benefits from my barista having an arts degree, except the university that made a heap of cash.
Not the same overall good, but also not the same overall budget? We know for a fact the govt already sponsors the art community via the Opera and so on, so it is a given the govt already applies taxes to fund individuals to pursue arts?
Actually producing art provides value to the community. The barista having an arts degree does not improve the coffee, does not improve anything in the community. It is wasted money.
Someone getting a degree in a massively oversaturated area, then failing to get a job in that area and having to do uber east instead, does not benefit the community. Yet the taxpayer has still given them a 20% cut to their HECS debt.
Yeah, but you're not The Decider who knows what the community needs and furthermore, wouldn't any degree that doesn't get the help cut being more of that "punishment" rhetoric anyway? We are punishing dentists because engineers get a help reduction etc?
I don't need to decide. Are there a shortage of doctors and nurses? Is there is an even bigger shortage regionally? Incentives these things. People that choose to do a Mongolian basket weaving degree can pay their own way.
The people paying (the taxpayer) should benefit. Everyone benefits from having firefighters. No one benefits from my barista having an arts degree, except the university that made a heap of cash
If you want to go off like the cranky sitcom dad that says all arts degrees are a waste and stuff, be your true self. But it's a ridiculous stereotype and it doesn't match reality. Thank God you're not The Decider.
I don't need to decide. Are there a shortage of doctors and nurses? Is there is an even bigger shortage regionally? Incentives these things. People that choose to do a Mongolian basket weaving degree can pay their own way.
You tell 'em, cranky sitcom Dad.
The problem with this line of thinking is Gina Rinehart becomes PM, becomes the Decider and figures out the only HELP reductions come from degrees required by the mining industry et bloody cetera.
This discussion began with you complaining about "punishments" for people who went to Uni finding out every uni person after a certain date with a help debt got a discount. You might argue it's a "punishment" but at least the punishment was applied evenly across everyone? Now you're arguing for the merits of selectively "punishing" subsets of the uni population based upon what you think are worthy degrees? Punishments are great when they're for the people I specifically ridicule?
Make it make sense.
Now you're arguing for the merits of selectively "punishing" subsets of the uni population based upon what you think are worthy degrees?
Randomly changing the terms of a written contract as a vote buying exercise, which negatively affects people who did the right thing.
Knowing upfront about an incentive to get people into positions that we need to fill.
One of these things is not like the other.
@brendanm: But the people who paid the full price for their doctor and nursing degrees did the right thing, Brendan, doesn't this new "oh the community needs this" help incentive discount idea you're suggesting just punish our poor hard working doctors and nurses who paid the full price in the past?
Yes, this is your original argument turned around and pointed directly at you. You can argue against your own logic at will now.
@Crow K: Lol. Something changed after agreeing to it, VS a new policy people can agree to if they choose.
@brendanm: Not sure what this "agree to it if they choose" nonsense you're pulling out of your hat is, but I think we can safely assume the people who got the 20% reduction in help agree to it, which places us in exactly the same position you rode in here with.
"People who already paid off their help debts are being punished because other people got a 20% discount"
Swap "people" with "doctors" swap "other people" with "future incentivised doctors".
This is your own argument. You should not be confused by your own argument.
Not sure what this "agree to it if they choose" nonsense you're pulling out of your hat is, but I think we can safely assume the people who got the 20% reduction in help agree to it, which places us in exactly the same position you rode in here with.
When people signed up to a HECS debt, they agreed to pay back the entire amount plus indexation. There was no discount. There was no bonus. People who paid off their debts like adults did not know that they could have just deferred it, got a 20% discount, then paid it off.
If people take on a degree to become a doctor knowing that if they work regional for 2 years after completion they will get a 50% discount to their HECS debt, that's fine. Everyone knows where they stand. It isn't some random change for now reason, against what they signed up for.
You take on the debt, you agree to pay it, then pay it.
@brendanm: Yeah, I think you will find everyone who signed up to pay back whenever their help loan was will indeed be bound to pay back whatever their loan was, including if it had a surprise 20% reduction that they were not aware of when they signed up.
Everyone knew where they stood both before and after the announcement, that they would need to pay back their loan, whatever it was.
If you get issued a $10 late fee at blockbuster which matches their terms and conditions, and then the manager makes it a $5 fee because it's his birthday weekend, he hasn't punished the people who paid the $10 fee the weekend before
Yeah, I think you will find everyone who signed up to pay back whenever their help loan was will indeed be bound to pay back whatever their loan was, including if it had a surprise 20% reduction that they were not aware of when they signed up.
They should be bound to pay back the entire loan, with no 20% reduction.
The government can give me a 20% reduction on my home loan. Sure it doesn't provide a direct benefit to society, but that doesn't matter. Sure I agreed to pay a certain amount when I took the loan out, but who cares about that. The taxpayers can pay for it, because why not? I'll spend the extra money on trinkets and that will help the economy overall.
The people paying (the taxpayer) should benefit. Everyone benefits from having firefighters. No one benefits from my barista having an arts degree, except the university that made a heap of cash.
Actually producing art provides value to the community. The barista having an arts degree does not improve the coffee, does not improve anything in the community. It is wasted money.
I think I see the problem, you've invented a person that doesn't pursue the activity that they got the degree in. A mechanical engineer who got a barista job would be equally wasteful. But of course it's easier to mock the arts degree because "poets wearing berets and people weaving Mongolian baskets (laugh track goes here)"
I guess if you want to take it as a given that someone who pursues an art degree never creates any art then you would win many arguments in your head.
But obviously these are bad faith takes, and wouldn't be meant to be taken seriously.. right?
I think I see the problem, you've invented a person that doesn't pursue the activity that they got the degree in. A mechanical engineer who got a barista job would be equally wasteful. But of course it's easier to mock the arts degree because "poets wearing berets and people weaving Mongolian baskets (laugh track goes here)"
The difference being that the arts degree student can't get a job that relates to their degree, that's why they are a barista. Plenty of work for mechanical engineers, so they aren't baristas.
But obviously these are bad faith takes, and wouldn't be meant to be taken seriously.. right?
A bit like your hotdog comment I assume 😂. Your hypocrisy while maintaining your "holier than thou" attitude is quite impressive.
Don't you have some lattes to make?
The difference being that the arts degree student can't get a job that relates to their degree, that's why they are a barista. Plenty of work for mechanical engineers, so they aren't baristas.
I think anyone who starts from a position that a degree is entirely for getting a job and only returns value to the user and overall community via job earnings has missed the point to such an extent they are incapable of participating in the adult discussion. That's my fun take anyway.
Don't you have some lattes to make?
Oh no, audience, he has cast me in the role of the barista and himself as the Chad. Guess the things I've been saying are irrelevant, and Brendan is great at understanding arguments.
I think anyone who starts from a position that a degree is entirely for getting a job and only returns value to the user and overall community via job earnings has missed the point to such an extent they are incapable of participating in the adult discussion. That's my fun take anyway.
I never even mentioned earrings, not sure where you pulled that from. The value to the community is someone providing a worthwhile service, that can only be provided by someone who has done that degree. Nurse, doctor, accountant, engineer etc etc. People can make art without a degree, arts degrees seem to mainly exist as a money maker for unis for people who don't know what degree they want to do, but think they have to go to uni or they've failed at life.
I'm The Decider who decides the value given to society by degrees and the arts degrees are just money makers for Unis taken by people who don't want make arts and even if you wanted to make art you wouldn't need a degree anyway
Glad that's settled then.
Or it would be if you were the Decider, but as I have said before, thank God you are not.
Are you intelligent enough to understand saying "trust me bro arts degrees do not provide value to society" is not a compelling argument?
@brendanm: Bad faith garbage, from Brendan???? (Disbelief, shock)
How about science bro, did science exist before science degrees?
Does that affect any of the previous discussion?
@Crow K: I take it you can't tell me what benefit an arts degrees gives a barista then? I suppose it may help doing those little pictures in the froth, is that part of the degree?
@brendanm: It gives the same benefit any study of the arts does, I suppose? Develops the mind, cultivates a sense of society, explores philosophy, all that stuff? Humans are constantly creating art, it's part of our lived experience. Just because you don't need a degree to do art, that doesn't mean it's pointless to study it.
If you want to pretend to be a knuckle dragger who goes "man don't need art man don't need history" or whatever wild stereotype you're being today, be my absolute guest.
As I said before, thank God you're not The Decider.
If you want to pretend to be a knuckle dragger who goes "man don't need art man don't need history" or whatever wild stereotype you're being today, be my absolute guest.
I literally said the opposite.
Still not sure how that helps the barista, or why my tax dollars should pay for it.
@brendanm: Luckily for everyone else, your inability to understand the purpose of art is not a good argument for whether or not it should receive government funding.
I think the major flaw in this latest iteration of your argument is you're working off the basis that people necessarily get arts degrees TO get a specific job, when some of the value of the study is the stuff I already mentioned. They improve themselves, and this then improves whatever they do.
We benefit from studying history because it teaches us about human nature and how events unfold, we don't study history to apply for a job driving a time machine.
@Crow K: Sure. If they want to learn about themselves, they can pay for it.
Still waiting for that 20% off my mortgage.
Still waiting for that 20% off my mortgage
If you're trying to convince me a 20% discount on education holds no value for you, you're doing a good job
@Crow K: If it applies to someone doing it only to learn about themselves, why not to me. The taxpayers should pay for my every whim. The 20% actually applies to me via my wife and son. I still think it's stupid.
@brendanm: This isn't a magic spell where if you wilfully misunderstand how something works for long enough then reality shifts and suddenly you get the thing you want.
It's just been decades old boring stereotypes (arts students weaving Mongolian baskets) and absurd arguments ("punishments" if you don't get a 20% discount, and what about my mortgage hey right).
I'm not the guy who can push a button and make your bad takes come true. All you've convinced me is you don't understand how any of this works and you are either incurious or incapable of exploring why.
Still, you gave those arts degrees baristas in your head a really hard time, hey? I'll bet they hated that!
@Crow K: I understand how the entire thing works. Politicians wanted to buy votes, gave a 20% discount to the people who will allegedly have the highest earning potential, while everyone else pays for it. Makes complete sense.
The wilful misunderstanding but is hilarious, Mr Hotdogs 😂
@Crow K: yes it is. I might have chosen to study if I'd known there were going to change the rules.
Government policy changes should have a future start date. Only an unstable government changes the rules mid-game.
"I might have chosen to spend several years studying if I was going to get a 20% discount in a few years"
Seems a bit multiverse, but while we are at it, I heard doctors get free pens, maybe you might have chosen to be a doctor at the same time and get the 20% discount AND the free pens as well?
Government policy changes should have a future start date. Only an unstable government changes the rules mid-game.
Can you give me an example of a government that only makes policy changes after announcing the future date the changes happen on?
only makes policy changes after announcing the future date the changes happen on?
what??
Just to be clear, I'm saying that sensible governments future date changes. e.g. from 1st July, this is the new rules.
@SlickMick: Yeah ok, can you name for me a government that hasn't made an announcement that applied immediately or retrospectively?
@Crow K: sure, but it's almost every change: e.g. CGT. If you bought before the 80s, doesn't apply.
If they want to remove the 50% discount, it should apply for purchases from a particular future date. But you never know with the mob we're stuck with atm.@SlickMick: Okay so we have acknowledged every government sometimes applies rule changes that are instant and/or retrospective.
And now you're saying it's a sign of a unstable government if it does that.
So, connecting the dots, are you telling us all governments are unstable? Or would you rather we just trash the current govt for not reaching a standard you've invented that has never been met before?
Okay so we have acknowledged every government sometimes applies rule changes that are instant and/or retrospective.
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. This is a terrible move. It makes the government look unstable and untrustworthy. Before you invest in your education, you now need to consider what else they might change.
you're saying it's a sign of a unstable government if it does that.
Absolutely I am.
connecting the dots
I don't know what dots you're seeing
This is a terrible move. It makes the government look unstable and untrustworthy. Before you invest in your education, you now need to consider what else they might change.
Isn't that an argument that can be applied to any change a government makes, no matter how far in advance its announced and no matter what area? Because anything MIGHT happen so WHAT IF it does oh no THAT'S UNSTABLE etc?
@Crow K: I don't know why you're having trouble grasping this, or is this a game you're playing?
People need to have all the rules before they make a decision, whether to undertake a course, buy an investment property or establish a mine.
If you change the rules afterwards, you can't be trusted, and everyone will be wary to ever trust you again.No problems with changes - just allow plenty of time so people don't have to abort plans they already have in place.
People need to have all the rules before they make a decision, whether to undertake a course, buy an investment property or establish a mine.
If you change the rules afterwards, you can't be trusted, and everyone will be wary to ever trust you again.Okay, but people buying an investment property don't know what the future interest rates and market returns are? I mean, what's the corporate tax rate going to be in fifteen years? Don't you need to know that right now if you want to buy a factory in a company?
And everyone knows that rules are subject to change over time, so that means it would be impossible to know the rules in advance?
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying.
Sorry, we will try this again, I really want to understand this.
What aspect of the government announcement is creating the instability? I thought it was about announcing a change but not giving enough notice about when the change takes effect, but we already discussed that so that can't be it.
announcing a change but not giving enough notice
Okay, we're getting there. It's not about length of notice, so much as not applying to any transactions that have already taken place.
This policy is applying to people that already did or didn't undertake a course.
The correct approach would be for it to apply for any courses commencing from 2026.Okay, we're getting there. It's not about length of notice, so much as not applying to any transactions that have already taken place.
This policy is applying to people that already did or didn't undertake a course.
The correct approach would be for it to apply for any courses commencing from 2026.So Alice decides in 2024 to do a degree and Bob doesn't, then in 2025 it's announced there's a discount for degrees, that creates instability in the system because Bob was tricked?
I think society has come to accept that having a liability / debt balance is subject to future changes in rates. RBA rates announcements apply to all debt, not just future loans etc?
@Crow K: Now I know you're trolling, so last reply from me.
Bob missed an opportunity. Rules were changed after the event, to advantage Alice, and Bob is now unemployed because he couldn't afford the debt and didn't know it was going to be reduced.
The instability (is that the word I used??) is because no one knows what other rules are going to change. Maybe they'll increase the interest rate, or reduce the amount to be repaid each year, or the time allowed to repay, or whatever else.
A stable government would only change rules for future arrangements, so everyone knows that when you enter into an agreement, it isn't going to change after you sign. Like the way everything else works in functioning societies.Reviews into super kept telling gov if they want people to invest in super, they have to keep it stable. Not continue to change the rules.
I'm not sure what happened when they tried to introduce new taxes to existing miners, but iirc they retracted that one with their tail between their legs when they realised it made Australia seem like a 3rd world country to invest in. Not because of the tax, but because it applied to existing projects.Hope you had fun.Bye.
The instability (is that the word I used??) is because no one knows what other rules are going to change. Maybe they'll increase the interest rate, or reduce the amount to be repaid each year, or the time allowed to repay, or whatever else.
You said it made the government look "unstable", yeah. That's the only reason I've been using it all this time.
No one knows what rules are going to change in the future anyway, though, do they? How can you ask for certainty on anything?
A stable government would only change rules for future arrangements, so everyone knows that when you enter into an agreement, it isn't going to change after you sign. Like the way everything else works in functioning societies.
Functioning societies change this stuff all the time? Quarterly interest rate changes, frequent changes to the tax rules based on cases? How about you name some stable societies that don't have new rules that affect existing conditions?
Even if we stick with the bizarre HELP betrayal concept, so you have people enrolling in (say) four years courses at a constant rate each year, people who signed up in 1 Jan 2024 are locked in to rules until 1 Jan 2028, 1 Jan 2025 people are locked in to 1 Jan 2029 etc … Where is this gap that appears that lets you announce rules that doesn't create the instability you're so worried about?
There's a constant stream of people who will be signing up for things no matter what time you make your announcement, right? And of course not all courses last four years (some are longer) so it can't just be an announcement for four years in the future (which be after the next election anyway?)
It sounds like there's no way to make an announcement that would meet your criteria of a stable government and you have no examples of any government ever meeting this criteria anyway.
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/entertainment/man-that-saved-20pc-deposit-before-paying-off-his-hecs-reckons-albos-(profanity)-with-him/
Oh, I thought this was money owed to that insurance company.
Help is the insurance company.
HELP is the student loans scheme.
So they should. Have discussed this ad nauseam before. It's an unnecessary debt burden and the height of hypocrisy.
Happy to pay for my course. But shove your CPI.
They shouldn't change the rules like this. They've made a real mess of our unis, and this is not part of the solution.
Put this money into expanding CSP. Makes the courses that would address our skills shortages free.
Cutting debt after people have agreed to it just isn't right. It isn't fair to those who might have studied if this discount was available, and it isn't fair to those you have already paid their debt.
It's also not fair that people who didn't have to pay a cent when they went to uni changed it so successive generations do need to pay, but that's life, always unfair to everyone…
Cant argue that as CSP changes every review cycle. What started in the mid 90s to what we have now literally is on the whim of politicians and has zero connection with industry realities.
The whole thing is a mess and you can start to appreciate why people are opting for OS options
Cheapest loan you will ever get, even with the recent high inflation.
Unpopular opinion but the money would have been better spent elsewhere, and that is coming from somone who will benefit significantly.
Easy vote winner and jumping on the train of US policy discussion, which young poeple are obsessed with even though we are not part of the USA.In the 90s you could get a fixed rate loan for the life of the loan in australia, they quickly put a stop to that around the mid to late 90s.
Still exist in the usa and uk though.
Thanks, for the story…
Great, the middle class now has to pay for pathetic degrees that people cannot get jobs from.
Barista is a job.
Washing up dishes is one too.
Not sure a Uni degree helps …
Doesn't matter whether the degree helps or is even used, the taxpayer will happily foot the bill.
With a phd in egyptology you can teach the bachelor of egyptology. You'll become entombed in the oldest pyramid scheme.
Does it help to our (potentially) nascent Nuclear industries???
They could also get a job studying the influence of indigenous LGBTQ artists at a cost to the taxpayer of $1m. Or study the architecture of 10 Australian mosques at a cost to the taxpayer of only $280,000. There are plenty of other groundbreaking research projects like this designed for people that can't get jobs in the real world, that the taxpayer will happily fund.
*unhappily
Great generalisation. Apparently middle class people like myself dont have degrees, HECS or pay tax….
Surprisingly, all 3 can and do co exist frequently
Typical labor.
Should be 100% like the free degrees the politicians got themselves
free degrees the politicians got themselves
YES. And this is the biggest hypocrisy of those cretins. I recall Hockey … biggest of all …
Realise this is unfair on some but as the father of a son who is close to finishing his psychology qual and he has an eye watering amount of hecs debt I’m thankful they are doing this.
At least you accept and acknowledge how unfair it is.
Perhaps it was unfair of them to ban asbestos considering all the people that suffered before it was banned.
My grandmother used to play the piano too.
Distressing indeed.
I like the fact it means I will reach a $0 balance this financial year.
Yet I also recognise it is an irresponsible, stupid and short sighted blatant vote buying policy that further erodes the state of public finances in Australia and encourages people fo further sign themselves up for many pointless degrees at an age when they don't actually understand what it is that they're signing up for.The managed decline of this nation continues.
https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-loan-program/2…
It's passed Parliament but hasn't come into effect yet
A quick Google would've told you that… Money well spent on that education there!