Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Useless Labor Party

Jump to new
Chris Bowen could not run a chook raffle economically if he tried.

He must be computer illiterate to say the least let alone know how to use a calculator and he is the one who wants to be the future treasurer.

His tobacco tax is a repeat of Swanies mining tax when he spent the money he did not raise.

Labor has a bad history of poor economic management and they have not changed and never seem to learn.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bud...e/news-story/6f6ba814b9b919bca5286db73d7b2eb1


Budget 2016: Labor funds for Gonski up in smoke

The Australian
May 3, 2016 12:00AM
Save
Print
David Crowe
Political correspondent
https://plus.google.com/101091338212849916588



An election fight on economic management has erupted over a $19.5 billion funding hole in Labor’s plans to pay for its education policy, ahead of a federal budget that has thrown Bill *Shorten on the defensive over tax cuts for more than two million workers.

Treasury documents, seen by The Australian, reveal a massive gap in Labor’s plan to fund election promises with a steep rise in tobacco excise, showing it would raise $28.2bn over a decade rather than the $47.7bn the opposition claims.

In a dramatic upset on the eve of the federal election, the Treasury estimates forced Labor’s spokesman Chris Bowen to explain his election costings just as he sought to go on the attack against the government over the fairness of its budget reforms.
 
noco said:
Chris Bowen could not run a chook raffle economically if he tried.

He must be computer illiterate to say the least let alone know how to use a calculator and he is the one who wants to be the future treasurer.

His tobacco tax is a repeat of Swanies mining tax when he spent the money he did not raise.

Labor has a bad history of poor economic management and they have not changed and never seem to learn.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bud...e/news-story/6f6ba814b9b919bca5286db73d7b2eb1


Budget 2016: Labor funds for Gonski up in smoke

The Australian
May 3, 2016 12:00AM
Save
Print
David Crowe
Political correspondent
https://plus.google.com/101091338212849916588



An election fight on economic management has erupted over a $19.5 billion funding hole in Labor’s plans to pay for its education policy, ahead of a federal budget that has thrown Bill *Shorten on the defensive over tax cuts for more than two million workers.

Treasury documents, seen by The Australian, reveal a massive gap in Labor’s plan to fund election promises with a steep rise in tobacco excise, showing it would raise $28.2bn over a decade rather than the $47.7bn the opposition claims.

In a dramatic upset on the eve of the federal election, the Treasury estimates forced Labor’s spokesman Chris Bowen to explain his election costings just as he sought to go on the attack against the government over the fairness of its budget reforms.
Click to expand...

Back of the napkin mate:rolleyes: only off by 20 Billion....notice how they always over estimate the tax revenue and then under estimate the cost, that's why they're all unionists and not business people, they couldn't run a successful business so they need to leach off business and lead political parties... :1zhelp:

This country is stuffed though, if the labor party get in, its all over for business (i.e. employers). If the CFMEU and the warfies join, they'll completely root this country into the ground. I was talking to a mate that owns a big construction business here, he was saying that his workers actually get height money, regardless of the fact that his company digs holes, they go down, not up!:banghead:
 
noco said:
Chris Bowen could not run a chook raffle economically if he tried.

He must be computer illiterate to say the least let alone know how to use a calculator and he is the one who wants to be the future treasurer.

His tobacco tax is a repeat of Swanies mining tax when he spent the money he did not raise.

Labor has a bad history of poor economic management and they have not changed and never seem to learn.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bud...e/news-story/6f6ba814b9b919bca5286db73d7b2eb1


Budget 2016: Labor funds for Gonski up in smoke

The Australian
May 3, 2016 12:00AM
Save
Print
David Crowe
Political correspondent
https://plus.google.com/101091338212849916588



An election fight on economic management has erupted over a $19.5 billion funding hole in Labor’s plans to pay for its education policy, ahead of a federal budget that has thrown Bill *Shorten on the defensive over tax cuts for more than two million workers.

Treasury documents, seen by The Australian, reveal a massive gap in Labor’s plan to fund election promises with a steep rise in tobacco excise, showing it would raise $28.2bn over a decade rather than the $47.7bn the opposition claims.

In a dramatic upset on the eve of the federal election, the Treasury estimates forced Labor’s spokesman Chris Bowen to explain his election costings just as he sought to go on the attack against the government over the fairness of its budget reforms.
Click to expand...



Labors' policy has always been that there is no need to be able to fund any proposed policy.


The trick is to promise big spending policies just before being ousted from government and then claim that the Coalition are making cuts to that policy when they can't fund it when they (the Coalition) are in power.
 
dutchie said:
Labors' policy has always been that there is no need to be able to fund any proposed policy.


The trick is to promise big spending policies just before being ousted from government and then claim that the Coalition are making cuts to that policy when they can't fund it when they (the Coalition) are in power.
Click to expand...

What cuts are those? Apparently nothing good gets through the senate so I'm confused?
 
CanOz said:
. I was talking to a mate that owns a big construction business here, he was saying that his workers actually get height money, regardless of the fact that his company digs holes, they go down, not up!:banghead:
Click to expand...

And he would know whatever the rorts, his competition is also a reluctant, but obsequious victim too. That he would no doubt add profit to the higher cost and pass it on to the developer is never mentioned. The fact that he owns a big business says that he knows the rules and is successful because of them.

The eba and unions can be infuriating because of the inconvenience, but moreso the impudence of someone telling you what you can and cannot do ....just like the state licencing, the federal rules, the developer who wont pay, the Australian Standards the BCA, the certifiers, etc.
 
How it pans out will depend on how well the government can argue the economic merit of its corporate tax cut.
 
Well here we go, Labor throw more money at Teachers, whether they can teach or not.

“We will fight this as an education election. We will put the funding on the table to make sure every teacher in Australia gets the recognition and the support to back up what they do every day.” He has promised to implement full Gonski funding if Labor is successful on the predicted poll date of July 2.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...n/news-story/aa692a3de5c0598c6a511b0612808812

I hope they throw as much money, towards every other worker,

It isn't as though the teachers, are asked to re invent the wheel, jeez why not just sack the ones who can't teach?

It would happen in every other facet of industry, if you are a plumber or a sparky get on with it, if you can't achieve the outcomes you're toast.
 
sptrawler said:
Well here we go, Labor throw more money at Teachers, whether they can teach or not.

“We will fight this as an education election. We will put the funding on the table to make sure every teacher in Australia gets the recognition and the support to back up what they do every day.” He has promised to implement full Gonski funding if Labor is successful on the predicted poll date of July 2.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...n/news-story/aa692a3de5c0598c6a511b0612808812

I hope they throw as much money, towards every other worker,

It isn't as though the teachers, are asked to re invent the wheel, jeez why not just sack the ones who can't teach?

It would happen in every other facet of industry, if you are a plumber or a sparky get on with it, if you can't achieve the outcomes you're toast.
Click to expand...

agreed
 
sptrawler said:
Well here we go, Labor throw more money at Teachers, whether they can teach or not.

“We will fight this as an education election. We will put the funding on the table to make sure every teacher in Australia gets the recognition and the support to back up what they do every day.” He has promised to implement full Gonski funding if Labor is successful on the predicted poll date of July 2.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...n/news-story/aa692a3de5c0598c6a511b0612808812

I hope they throw as much money, towards every other worker,

It isn't as though the teachers, are asked to re invent the wheel, jeez why not just sack the ones who can't teach?

It would happen in every other facet of industry, if you are a plumber or a sparky get on with it, if you can't achieve the outcomes you're toast.
Click to expand...

Sure, sack teachers that don't perform, but if you only pay peanuts then you get monkeys.

Good teachers deserve to be rewarded, same as anyone else.
 
SirRumpole said:
Sure, sack teachers that don't perform, but if you only pay peanuts then you get monkeys.

Good teachers deserve to be rewarded, same as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Well from what I have seen, teachers start at about $80k. Now they work monday to friday from 09.00 to 15.30 with an hour for lunch. That makes 5hr 30 minutes, lets say 6 hrs, 5 days x 6 hrs = 30 hrs/week.

Now lets remove the twelve weeks leave/ year i.e 52 - 12 =40 weeks.

Now 40 x 30 = 1200 hrs/ year, i.e $80,000/ 1200 = $66/ hr.

If they are on $100,000 =$83/hr.

That is just rough figures, but there are things like student free days etc, I don't think they are paid too bad.

Just my thoughts.
 
sptrawler said:
Well from what I have seen, teachers start at about $80k. Now they work monday to friday from 09.00 to 15.30 with an hour for lunch. That makes 5hr 30 minutes, lets say 6 hrs, 5 days x 6 hrs = 30 hrs/week.

Now lets remove the twelve weeks leave/ year i.e 52 - 12 =40 weeks.

Now 40 x 30 = 1200 hrs/ year, i.e $80,000/ 1200 = $66/ hr.

If they are on $100,000 =$83/hr.

That is just rough figures, but there are things like student free days etc, I don't think they are paid too bad.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

SP, in all fairness, I live next door to a primary school teacher now in her early 50's....She is off to school each morning at 7.15 am with less than 15 minutes drive......She arrives home around 4 pm but she tells me her day has not ended as she then prepares her next day of school at home.

She often tells me the trauma she goes through with children who do not want to accept discipline in the class room and how they disrupt other children and how one or two tell her to get f****d...

Who would really want to be a teacher under those conditions.
 
sptrawler said:
Well from what I have seen, teachers start at about $80k. Now they work monday to friday from 09.00 to 15.30 with an hour for lunch. That makes 5hr 30 minutes, lets say 6 hrs, 5 days x 6 hrs = 30 hrs/week.

Now lets remove the twelve weeks leave/ year i.e 52 - 12 =40 weeks.

Now 40 x 30 = 1200 hrs/ year, i.e $80,000/ 1200 = $66/ hr.

If they are on $100,000 =$83/hr.

That is just rough figures, but there are things like student free days etc, I don't think they are paid too bad.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

This table indicates that teacher's pay (NSW) starts from around $48k and that $80k is actually pretty close to the top pay scale.

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/do...nts/19612StandardsbasepayFAQsNovember2015.pdf
 
sptrawler said:
Well from what I have seen, teachers start at about $80k. Now they work monday to friday from 09.00 to 15.30 with an hour for lunch. That makes 5hr 30 minutes, lets say 6 hrs, 5 days x 6 hrs = 30 hrs/week.

Now lets remove the twelve weeks leave/ year i.e 52 - 12 =40 weeks.

Now 40 x 30 = 1200 hrs/ year, i.e $80,000/ 1200 = $66/ hr.

If they are on $100,000 =$83/hr.

That is just rough figures, but there are things like student free days etc, I don't think they are paid too bad.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

I agree that teachers should be paid very well. I know a retired math and science teacher. He just recently retired. He is an avid fly fisherman, so we had lots of time together and we talked allot about his teaching. He was very well qualified, had a great work ethic and was passionate about his job and very aware of the net effect of it on the future of the kids and the country. He didn't work 40 hours a week, as through the week he was busy almost every evening doing preparation or marking tests/essays etc. He was working a solid 60 hours a week during school sessions.

Teachers are allot like Sr. Managers/Leaders in my view. There are some outstanding ones, ones that will go on to lead divisions, plants or organisations. They respond well to incentives and thrive on being the best and measure their own success by how well their people are doing. They get excited to see people 'get it' and learn to do things in new and exciting ways. They're almost magic in the way they engage their people and they're the kind of leader that "you just want to work for".

There are also some managers that are really hopeless, they're not happy in the their roles and that is felt by their people. Their people become unmotivated, disengaged and the performance of the team towards their plan fails consistently. Organisations have choices with these managers/leaders. They can move them, retrain/move them, or let them go if they can find out what they're really good at. The higher performing leaders will be remunerated differently in good businesses, otherwise they'll look for work elsewhere. I was fortunate enough to be remunerated very well as my team met/exceeded the plan. Had i not been , i had offers from across the business to run other plants in other regions.

With teachers its the same, there are outstanding performers that are very self motivated. There are poor performers as well. I agree though that there needs to be differentiation between the high performers and the ones that consistently fail to perform and their students are suffering for it. I was also at the mercy of one such teacher when i was in my high school years. I was lucky to have one of the best math teachers in the province for my year 9. He was tough but fair. He made it fun to learn, he loved his students and was crazy about math, especially algos. I did very well in that class once i realized that he expected his homework done!! When i went to year 10 though, i had a horrible teacher for maths that took 0 interest in his students. You could tell he had no passion for the subject. He would just roll up and then give us tons of stuff to do out of the textbook without explaining it. I failed math that year. He was fired 5 years later after parents complained their kids, who were once great math students, were failing his classes.

Teachers need fair evaluations to ensure they're performing, teaching the correct subjects, remaining passionate about the job, totally engaged in the role. I'm not sure this is done everywhere. The good ones need to rewarded differently to the ones that are not performing.
 
CanOz said:
I agree that teachers should be paid very well. I know a retired math and science teacher. He just recently retired. He is an avid fly fisherman, so we had lots of time together and we talked allot about his teaching. He was very well qualified, had a great work ethic and was passionate about his job and very aware of the net effect of it on the future of the kids and the country. He didn't work 40 hours a week, as through the week he was busy almost every evening doing preparation or marking tests/essays etc. He was working a solid 60 hours a week during school sessions.

Teachers are allot like Sr. Managers/Leaders in my view. There are some outstanding ones, ones that will go on to lead divisions, plants or organisations. They respond well to incentives and thrive on being the best and measure their own success by how well their people are doing. They get excited to see people 'get it' and learn to do things in new and exciting ways. They're almost magic in the way they engage their people and they're the kind of leader that "you just want to work for".

There are also some managers that are really hopeless, they're not happy in the their roles and that is felt by their people. Their people become unmotivated, disengaged and the performance of the team towards their plan fails consistently. Organisations have choices with these managers/leaders. They can move them, retrain/move them, or let them go if they can find out what they're really good at. The higher performing leaders will be remunerated differently in good businesses, otherwise they'll look for work elsewhere. I was fortunate enough to be remunerated very well as my team met/exceeded the plan. Had i not been , i had offers from across the business to run other plants in other regions.

With teachers its the same, there are outstanding performers that are very self motivated. There are poor performers as well. I agree though that there needs to be differentiation between the high performers and the ones that consistently fail to perform and their students are suffering for it. I was also at the mercy of one such teacher when i was in my high school years. I was lucky to have one of the best math teachers in the province for my year 9. He was tough but fair. He made it fun to learn, he loved his students and was crazy about math, especially algos. I did very well in that class once i realized that he expected his homework done!! When i went to year 10 though, i had a horrible teacher for maths that took 0 interest in his students. You could tell he had no passion for the subject. He would just roll up and then give us tons of stuff to do out of the textbook without explaining it. I failed math that year. He was fired 5 years later after parents complained their kids, who were once great math students, were failing his classes.

Teachers need fair evaluations to ensure they're performing, teaching the correct subjects, remaining passionate about the job, totally engaged in the role. I'm not sure this is done everywhere. The good ones need to rewarded differently to the ones that are not performing.
Click to expand...

Agree with that, there are some very good teachers and there are some poor ones, same as any profession.
The good ones usually move up to become leaders, the poor ones stay at their level of incompetence, as with most professions.

Teaching is a bit like motivational speaking, if the presenter isn't interested in their job, no one listening will be interested in what they have to say.

It is a job that is more about personal engagement and presentation, rather than technical ability. IMO

I was offered a TAFE teaching job after I retired, I asked the senior lecturer at the interview how much time is required to write the lessons.
His response was, the modules are already written, you just present it, as long as you know the subject matter it is 90% presentation.
 
Barnacle Bill is dreaming again.....Nothing to be gained from his education rhetoric for 80 years.....Lies ..lies and more lies.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...d/news-story/f024076108270fd0a0400945ee580674

Parents frustrated by their children’s (and in some cases their children’s teachers’) inability to spell will be underwhelmed by Bill Shorten’s faux promise that Labor’s promised $37.3 billion spending splurge on schools would produce an economic dividend — in 2095. Such a ludicrous, extravagant plan not only defies fiscal reason, it fails to address the pressing shortcomings of our education system.
 
noco said:
Barnacle Bill is dreaming again.....Nothing to be gained from his education rhetoric for 80 years.....Lies ..lies and more lies.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...d/news-story/f024076108270fd0a0400945ee580674

Parents frustrated by their children’s (and in some cases their children’s teachers’) inability to spell will be underwhelmed by Bill Shorten’s faux promise that Labor’s promised $37.3 billion spending splurge on schools would produce an economic dividend ”” in 2095. Such a ludicrous, extravagant plan not only defies fiscal reason, it fails to address the pressing shortcomings of our education system.
Click to expand...

If you are going to quote from subscriber only publications would you at least say who wrote the article.
 
noco said:
SP, in all fairness, I live next door to a primary school teacher now in her early 50's....She is off to school each morning at 7.15 am with less than 15 minutes drive......She arrives home around 4 pm but she tells me her day has not ended as she then prepares her next day of school at home.

.
Click to expand...

She sounds like a farmer friend of mine.:xyxthumbs

My father in law was a headmaster, he gave it away, because teachers were finding the only problem with the job, where the kids.
 
Top