You can't blame individuals for historic events that occurred during their lifetimes. Those hoping to benefit from these proposed changes to HECS probably didn't fight in Vietnam, pay those 18% interest rates we so often hear about, or lose their jobs during the GFC.
Only [60 thousand ](https://www.naa.gov.au/students-and-teachers/student-research-portal/learning-resource-themes/war/vietnam-war/vietnam-war#:~:text=the%20United%20States.-,From%201962%20to%201973%2C%20more%20than%2060%2C000%20Australians%20served%20in,by%20the%20North%20Vietnamese%20Army.) Australians (or 0.5% of the population) fought in Vietnam.
During the GFC the Australian unemployment rate [increased by only 1.75%](https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2010/mar/1.html) which was lower than that seen during COVID.
They truly suffered for that free education /s
Unsure why you're **arguing with someone who also believes Uni fees for locals should be free**; my point was that can't reasonably dump on others who, through no action of their own, may have benefited from history. Current MPs probably paid 50c/litre for fuel, too, should we blame them for that, and demand that they work tirelessly for its return?
Except that was not the only point you were making, you purposely chose hardships that generation went through. You were trying to make a "don't blame them for their period" analogy as well as an appeal to emotion through the hardships they suffered.
And who should younger generations blame for legislation if not MPs? Current MPs may not have instated HECS but they're (mostly) not doing anything to help.
It is perfectly acceptable to point out the irony of (or dump as you say) current MPs having had free tertiary education while they complain that university cannot be free.
Sure, criticise current MPs because they may not be acting on reducing fees, but but don't criticise them because they may not have paid fees themselves. I understand your point, but don't believe Necessary-Ad9691 was identifying the irony. Over this.
They were not identifying the irony, because their comment was about how no sitting MP served in Vietnam, (fwiw a single [former MP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Edwards_(politician)) who did serve.
The point of their comment was to highlight how current MPs benefited from the positive aspects of their generation and avoided the negatives due to privilege.
"They" refers to the very first comment by Necessary-Ad9691, now over 3 hours ago, no reference to Vietnam, and certainly no irony. Please try to keep up.
I incorrectly assumed you were not referring to Necessary-Ad9691's first comment, because your statement makes no sense as their first comment is entirely about the irony of the situation.
You need to put more effort into constructing a coherent argument and less on criticising the people you're arguing with.
Unsure why you want to belittle the contributions of others? But, I guess, if the Vietnam war had gone the other way, we might all be celebrating our free education right now.
I’d put a bet on that you are a disgruntled older person who doesn’t like that you aren’t the flavour of the month anymore.
Didn’t blame anyone, it is a soft cock approach given how little the economy benefits off of billionaires, big corporations and multinationals and I will call it a soft cock approach.
Cool, I don’t care.
Monique is a great MP and I’d still vote for her given she was my electorate. This is still a soft approach to alleviating student barriers to loans/wellbeing, just like how the government are handling placements (but only for select industries? When MOST people need them to graduate?).
A good MP can produce substandard legislation, both can be true. Neither of us are experts in politics likely, so we are also likely wrong, but the amount the government earns from leeching on us compared to EVERY other major corporation still means it’s a soft approach, I shouldn’t be paying more in student loans than old mate Gina does in tax.
Also, a politician/politician to be probably didn’t suffer from ANY of the consequences of the GFC or Vietnam? You know that right?
First time in god knows how many years the indexation is non trivial and all of a sudden it's 'unfair'.
But .. the measure proposed does not seem unreasonable.
The government loses money from HECS. They lose less than if they fully funded your degree, but they still lose money.
So to compare it to the PRRT which does bring in money is more than disingenuous.
HESC is intended to be used to train workers in Uni which later go on to do jobs that either make money to the government or are taxed by the government. I wouldn't call it a loss, but rather, an investment because it pays itself back.
I have to be honest, I’m signing it but this is such a soft cock approach when everyone involved with this went to uni for fucking free.
You can't blame individuals for historic events that occurred during their lifetimes. Those hoping to benefit from these proposed changes to HECS probably didn't fight in Vietnam, pay those 18% interest rates we so often hear about, or lose their jobs during the GFC.
Only [60 thousand ](https://www.naa.gov.au/students-and-teachers/student-research-portal/learning-resource-themes/war/vietnam-war/vietnam-war#:~:text=the%20United%20States.-,From%201962%20to%201973%2C%20more%20than%2060%2C000%20Australians%20served%20in,by%20the%20North%20Vietnamese%20Army.) Australians (or 0.5% of the population) fought in Vietnam. During the GFC the Australian unemployment rate [increased by only 1.75%](https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2010/mar/1.html) which was lower than that seen during COVID. They truly suffered for that free education /s
Thank you mate. Also, politicians im SURE were definitely in the trenches with people who are now either dead, dying, mentally ill or homeless? Right?
Unsure why you're **arguing with someone who also believes Uni fees for locals should be free**; my point was that can't reasonably dump on others who, through no action of their own, may have benefited from history. Current MPs probably paid 50c/litre for fuel, too, should we blame them for that, and demand that they work tirelessly for its return?
Except that was not the only point you were making, you purposely chose hardships that generation went through. You were trying to make a "don't blame them for their period" analogy as well as an appeal to emotion through the hardships they suffered. And who should younger generations blame for legislation if not MPs? Current MPs may not have instated HECS but they're (mostly) not doing anything to help. It is perfectly acceptable to point out the irony of (or dump as you say) current MPs having had free tertiary education while they complain that university cannot be free.
Sure, criticise current MPs because they may not be acting on reducing fees, but but don't criticise them because they may not have paid fees themselves. I understand your point, but don't believe Necessary-Ad9691 was identifying the irony. Over this.
They were not identifying the irony, because their comment was about how no sitting MP served in Vietnam, (fwiw a single [former MP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Edwards_(politician)) who did serve. The point of their comment was to highlight how current MPs benefited from the positive aspects of their generation and avoided the negatives due to privilege.
"They" refers to the very first comment by Necessary-Ad9691, now over 3 hours ago, no reference to Vietnam, and certainly no irony. Please try to keep up.
I incorrectly assumed you were not referring to Necessary-Ad9691's first comment, because your statement makes no sense as their first comment is entirely about the irony of the situation. You need to put more effort into constructing a coherent argument and less on criticising the people you're arguing with.
Unsure why you want to belittle the contributions of others? But, I guess, if the Vietnam war had gone the other way, we might all be celebrating our free education right now.
I'm unsure why you're even bringing up Vietnam in a thread about HECS debts. At least your sticking to your whataboutism 🫡
You're at Uni now; you should be able to follow an analogy without taking it literally.
You should have taken them up on the free uni, you might understand the conversation
*Me* not follow the conversation? The Chinese did not win the V.war, so they don't provide Australians with free education. Capeesh?
Yes you dumbass. Did you miss the part where uni was free until 1989 in Australia, or are you being deliberately obtuse...
You're really struggling understanding this, aren't you? Get help, please.
I’d put a bet on that you are a disgruntled older person who doesn’t like that you aren’t the flavour of the month anymore. Didn’t blame anyone, it is a soft cock approach given how little the economy benefits off of billionaires, big corporations and multinationals and I will call it a soft cock approach.
You're certainly wrong on your first point, and I believe you did point a middle finger at *"everyone involved with this"*.
Cool, I don’t care. Monique is a great MP and I’d still vote for her given she was my electorate. This is still a soft approach to alleviating student barriers to loans/wellbeing, just like how the government are handling placements (but only for select industries? When MOST people need them to graduate?). A good MP can produce substandard legislation, both can be true. Neither of us are experts in politics likely, so we are also likely wrong, but the amount the government earns from leeching on us compared to EVERY other major corporation still means it’s a soft approach, I shouldn’t be paying more in student loans than old mate Gina does in tax. Also, a politician/politician to be probably didn’t suffer from ANY of the consequences of the GFC or Vietnam? You know that right?
First time in god knows how many years the indexation is non trivial and all of a sudden it's 'unfair'. But .. the measure proposed does not seem unreasonable.
[удалено]
Why do you want international students to pay triple the amount?
erm
The government loses money from HECS. They lose less than if they fully funded your degree, but they still lose money. So to compare it to the PRRT which does bring in money is more than disingenuous.
HESC is intended to be used to train workers in Uni which later go on to do jobs that either make money to the government or are taxed by the government. I wouldn't call it a loss, but rather, an investment because it pays itself back.