No. When I went to school I learnt woodwork and metalwork. I learnt to be handy at home at least. It could have gone on to a trade if I had chosen. My grand kids can use a computer but at everything else they are useless. There are not enough TAFE places but most teenagers have not been exposed to trades, they just try for grades to uni and by then it is too late to interest them in trades. These sort of things should start at high school.
Labor Tax Policy, where is it?
- Thread starter The Mint Man
- Start date
No. When I went to school I learnt woodwork and metalwork. I learnt to be handy at home at least. It could have gone on to a trade if I had chosen. My grand kids can use a computer but at everything else they are useless. There are not enough TAFE places but most teenagers have not been exposed to trades, they just try for grades to uni and by then it is too late to interest them in trades. These sort of things should start at high school.
chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
Dude.
I repeated the post about 3 effen times.
I'm not going to do it again. It was in, I think, the Labor v Liberal thread.
On that issue...
Why have we got another thread...???
We already have the Election thread, and the labor v lib thread, is labor good for the stock market, etc, etc...
If this thread only focused on tax policy, then thats fine...
but this seems to be more a thread on how labour doesn't have a tax policy... so surely this could merge in with the election thread.
Why have we got another thread...???
We already have the Election thread, and the labor v lib thread, is labor good for the stock market, etc, etc...
If this thread only focused on tax policy, then thats fine...
but this seems to be more a thread on how labour doesn't have a tax policy... so surely this could merge in with the election thread.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,183
- Reactions
- 17,171
Very strongly agreed.
It wasn't long ago that roads were just assumed to be publicly owned by Australians. The entire concept that they would be privately owned by foreigners just wasn't something anyone had ever needed to think about. We had perfectly good roads back then.
Likewise back in the 1980's we had more than enough water for the cities. Now every capital city except Hobart (not sure about Darwin) has a situation bordering on outright crisis. That's a consequence of decisions made, or more importantly NOT made, in the 1990's.
Electricity is much the same. A decade ago all was well and the generation side at least was practically bulletproof in every state. Fast forward to 2007 and it's been stretched to the point where one or two minor problems occur and the lights go out. The only real exceptions being Qld and Tas which, surprise surprise, didn't follow the "tomorrow will take care of itself" mantra of the past 15 years despite (in Tasmania's case at least) all manner of rather blunt threats directly from Howard over the issue.
Hospitals are another one. The Commonwealth, not the states, is the primary tax collector and thus is the level of government in a position to make a decision to increase funding. All the states can really do is take from one area (eg roads) to prop up another since they have limited ability (under the constitution) to raise sufficient revenue. Given the advances in medical technology and an aging population, it's ridiculous that the Medicare levy isn't increasing.
Tax cut? Just give me anything that's left over once the basic infrastructure on which we all depend is fixed. Bottom line is I won't be paying any tax at all, since I won't be earning any money, if the grid goes down, the transport system doesn't work or I'm stuck waiting for serious medical treatment. The vast majority of Australians, especially those in the cities, would be in exactly the same position.
Even agriculture doesn't work without ability to transport the produce (noting that fuel refining doesn't work without electricity which doesn't work without water.) We all depend on critical infrastructure in some way and it's what separates developed countries from the Third World.
And that's without mentioning the environment. $50 billion would build one hell of a lot of renewable energy just as it would do an awful lot with roads, water, hospitals and so on. The ONLY reason not to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions is because doing so is expensive. That always was the only real argument against it since there's an awful lot that can be done with presently available technology and it's been that way since the 1980's when the issue first seriously arose. So on one hand we're crying poor whilst on the other we've got cash to throw around at, well, practically anything except something of long term benefit to the country.
Water pipes in Qld and WA? Solar hot water in every home? Fix the railways and the roads? Decent healthcare for EVERY Australian? All worth doing and all being stopped by nothing other than lack of money. And yet we've got plenty to throw around...
- Joined
- 7 May 2006
- Posts
- 1,051
- Reactions
- 0
Chops,
You need to make yourself more clear when you said that you posted it before. It sounded like you were saying that you posted it in this thread, I think everyone else would agree on that. Perhaps you could consider providing a link in the future or at the very least a name of the thread and post number. makes things alot easier
The other threads are more about who you will vote for or who you think is going to win, with polls attached.
This is a thread focused on tax policy and I dont think it should be merged with the other threads. Tax and economy policy will be a hot issue in the lead up to the election, this will be a good place to talk about those issues.
Cheers
come on all you howard lovers, all those who think, 'better the devil you know', all those who think the vaunted liberals have done such a great job with the country's finances.
reply to chops post! refute it.
speak out against what chops and i have said.
are we wrong?
come on now, defend your man!
treasury is rich, but the country is poor.
we wont really feel it, but our grandkids certainly will.
you wanna talk about the effin economy? take asian purchases out of the equation, rather take em back to '94 levels, and see how well the economy is going.
some of you people cannot see the forrest for the trees. you disgust me.
reply to chops post! refute it.
speak out against what chops and i have said.
are we wrong?
come on now, defend your man!
treasury is rich, but the country is poor.
we wont really feel it, but our grandkids certainly will.
you wanna talk about the effin economy? take asian purchases out of the equation, rather take em back to '94 levels, and see how well the economy is going.
some of you people cannot see the forrest for the trees. you disgust me.
- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
Howard's deficit
the opportunities for cyclical cynicism are endless
the opportunities for cyclical cynicism are endless
its brilliant.... on the 7:30 report, they played clips of the 96 election..
1. Howard saying he's not going to be rushed into releasing his tax plan
2. Keating running adds saying the liberals are inexperienced and can't be trusted in govt
funny stuff... the same things repeated, now just with the sides switced...
the best thing to take of all this, is that in 6 weeks it will be over, and life will go on...
- Joined
- 3 March 2007
- Posts
- 574
- Reactions
- 1
Is Howard a nut? Giving tax cuts when inflation is almost rampant?
Give tax cuts and more people will keep spending and before you know it our interest rates will be at 10%.
If anything tax rates should be increased so we stop spending and stop sending house prices through the roof!
Give tax cuts and more people will keep spending and before you know it our interest rates will be at 10%.
If anything tax rates should be increased so we stop spending and stop sending house prices through the roof!
The other threads are more about who you will vote for or who you think is going to win, with polls attached.
This is a thread focused on tax policy and I dont think it should be merged with the other threads. Tax and economy policy will be a hot issue in the lead up to the election, this will be a good place to talk about those issues.
Cheers
Finally you have said something I agree with.
Bull$$$$ its not addressing the problem at all .apprenticeships need to be made more attractive for both employer and apprentice. Not more half assed shop classes. Wasting resources on every school this way is stupidity.
chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
Yeah. There is absolutely no point in being an apprentice. Just slave labour...
- Joined
- 15 March 2006
- Posts
- 469
- Reactions
- 0
Maybe it is about keeping 15 and 16 year-olds that have no interest/aptitude for academic pursuits in senior school and progressing in relevant training; rather than leaving school as babies and hanging around train stations etc?
Apprentices in recent times (as far as I have been told) are mainly "trained" as cheap labour-hire substitutes and have very limited skills/training compared to the past.
Pity the poor tradesman when this current property mania comes to an end.
Wasting resources?. Learning french and art were a waste of resources in my time but I have never regreted learning how to solder, weld or make a dovetail joint. I agree that apprenticeships should be made more attractive but if you don't create interest in the early years then it will not happen. (In my case it would not have been much good retiring with a big shed and not knowing what it was for.)
I'm all for pumping money into the education system ,just not wasting it on white elephants. Or in this case dumbing it down for a short term fix. What next... paddock out the back for the farmer shortage? Given the failure rate I've witnessed for blokes in the trade I don’t see how this would benefit anyone, except employers being flooded with cheap exploitable labour.
Once the mining boom ends the trades will fill out again on their own.
- Joined
- 15 March 2006
- Posts
- 469
- Reactions
- 0
I guess I have a dim view of the ability of 15 yr olds to deal with the adult reality of going to TAFE and getting a job?
From the experience I have, kids at 15 and 16 are better off getting these skills in a school environment.
Anyway what would a person who has only worked on an individual contract know? This issue is a drop in the bucket compared to the horrible pork barreling being rolled into marginal electorates to firm up the 'Battler Vote' for dishonest John.
How much have we spent on illegal invasions and keeping refuges on Xmas island and Nauru for political purposes?
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
No
I think I came of a little harsh there! I tend to associate all the less fortunate with my no-hoper of a brother. Hopped up on drugs, hardly working a day in his life; getting money for nothing from the government, makes me sick.
I do agree that the health care system needs improvements - but, a lot of people are struggling these days in a lot of aspects ; isn't it more fair to ease their burden, allow them to live richer lives - and to let caring be a voluntary decision, and not mandatory?
Nyden, you raise a genuine dilemma in terms of welfare. Yes, there are many out there like your brother,making no effort to change their own situations and expecting the rest of us to look after them. Those who simply don't want to work. Into this category we can toss many young women who prefer to continue reproducing rather than consider working. It no longer surprises me that many of these young women put the child into child care (taxpayer subsidised)as soon as it's a few months old.
But on the other hand, there are far more genuinely needy people who for whatever reason - mental illness, physical disability, victims of violence etc - who deserve our compassion and support. Some of these people have lives which are indescribably sad and lonely.
So logistically, it's pretty impossible to have individual payment assessments for all of these people. Hence the disparity and lack of fairness we see in the present system. I can't see any government coming up with a genuine solution to the problem. At least this government has moved to penalise people who repeatedly abuse the system and flout the rules.
I understand your reluctance to have your taxes prop up people who are simply not making an effort. I feel the same. But I hope to never be part of a society that deals with those people by penalising the others who most need our help and support.
Hmmm most of my friends and I went through tafe at that age just fine. And none of my apprentices have ever had a problem. I don’t agree with this policy and think the money could be better spent. Half of your post is waffle about John hating that I've already read before.
Out of interest did posters schools have woodwork , metal work, or mechanics?
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,183
- Reactions
- 17,171
About to interview potential apprentices so I'll comment.
TAFE is only part of it. An apprentice will typically spend about 800 days on the job and 120 days at TAFE. They'll get most of their theory and a bit of practical training at TAFE but virtually all of their experience on the job. If you don't have both the TAFE and on the job experience then you don't have an apprenticeship and you don't produce a tradesperson. That's how it is for the electrical trades at least.
What needs to happen is for apprenticeships to become more attractive for the employer AND the apprentice. As it stands today, it's an expense for the employer that, if done well in terms of training the apprentice, isn't necessarily profitable. For the apprentice it's entering into a 4 year contract with very low pay, even lower status and an uncertain outcome as far as training is concerned. That's not the way to attract the best apprentices and make them the best tradespeople.
In most cases it's a choice between making it good for the employer or good for the apprentice, but not both. Since the employer has absolutely more influence over the outcome than does the apprentice, the end result is sub-standard training in order to minimise the cost and maximise the productive output of the apprentice unless the employer has some motivation to put effort into training other than immediate profit.
My own experience is that teaching apprentices some life skills (let's face it, they're generally straight out of school) and giving them the best training you can provide does make life rather hard for the boss / supervisor but it pays off in the long term. It comes down to respect on both sides and works well once you get it going. Requires a lot of effort from the boss / supervisor though and it's not cheap.
Trouble is, most small contractors don't even know if they'll have ongoing work for themselves in 2 years time so they aren't going to commit to pouring a fortune into training someone who, on a net basis, will contribute nothing to productivity until at least second year and needs to be employed for 4 years to complete their training.
For smaller contractors especially, the range of work they have is also a major problem. There's no point training a plumber to only fit out new houses where nothing ever goes wrong. Even worse to train an electrician that way when much of the employment available for tradespersons requires sound fault finding skills (something many in the trade seriously lack IMO).
In theory, group training is a solution to the broadening of experience problem. But it just doesn't work to send your apprentice elsewhere for 3 months in 2nd and 3rd year to broaden their experience when you're a small business with work that needs doing today, not next year. It's even worse when you end up still paying their wages when they're working for someone else (because nobody will take them otherwise in some situations), especially if that someone else is a rival contractor bidding for your work.
Giving them them proper projet management experience is another one - small contractors can't afford stuff ups so won't take the risk. And many supervisors in larger organisations are too worried about covering their own backside so won't take the risk either. Done properly it works however but again it's anything but easy.
Another one is the attitude of other tradespersons to training apprentices. Some see it as a case of the less competition, the better. Hence they won't go out of the way to train anyone unless forced to and even then they're more likley to use them than train them. Others have the totally opposite view and will go to extraordinary lengths to train apprentices. That comes down to personal attitude.
NOTHING about training apprentices is easy if the aim is to maximise the potential of the apprentice. And that's without mentioning all the hassles that come with the reality that they are commencing an apprenticeship at the same time they're commencing with cars, money, alcohol and the opposite sex.
Much of this comes down to the uncertainty of work in general these days. A large organisation doing its own work on its own assets knows with reasonable certainty how busy their tradespeople will be in 2 years time. A large contractor can reasonably assume they'll have some work even if they don't know what it will be.
But a smaller contractor where the office is a folder kept in the glove box and a laptop on the back seat has no such certainty. And with the changes of the past 15 years such contractors are now doing a much larger share of trades work than was once the case. That's the ultimate cause of the problems we have today IMO. Such contractors traditionally employed people trained by large business and government. Now they're expected to do the training themselves and they just aren't set up for it (and can't be expected to be).
There's nothing wrong with small contractors, but big business, utilities and government always have been better placed to take on the risks associated with a 4 year committment to training. That's a situation well understood where I worked back in the mid-1990's when the outsourcing, privatisation etc mantra was in full swing across the country. We knew exactly what was coming with a shortage of tradespeople as it was so blindingly obvious to anyone who thought about it. The mechanism of training was being substantially dismantled so the outcome wasn't hard to foresee.
Simply funding TAFE courses isn't the answer when 87% of the apprentice's training and experience is gained working for an employer.
Free tools for apprentices are a help, but that's somewhat bureaucratic and I find myself feeling as though I've become a union rep just to get the damn $ out of them on behalf of the apprentice.
Lots of things need to happen to fix the situation. The status of tradespeople is one - recognise the reality that they're in that part of the population which has a formal qualification and not in the "dumb" part that doesn't. (I'm not saying anyone is dumb, just commenting on public perception).
And get away from this obsession with doing whatever is cheapest today. We'd never have trained a single apprentice in anything if everyone took that view. At the very least government needs to lead by example on that one. The lowest tender isn't necessarily the best and in some cases no tender (ie employ your own people including apprentices) is cheaper anyway.
Oh, and stop the attempts at dumbing down the apprenticeship system. That's not the answer unless the question was how to make things crash, flood or burn down.
Similar threads
