A multi-year addition of about NIS 7 billion to the budget of the higher education system

75 תגובות

1. There are political slogans here. Much of this will go to Ariel University, which is not recognized by UNESCO for higher degrees, and therefore not by the MLA for higher degrees, to Bar-Ilan, which gave Lapid a master's degree without a bachelor's and without a matriculation and almost a PHD if someone didn't shout. There is a lot of applied scientific research in our son, in microbiology and there is no need to mention theoretical research in physics and mathematics where beautiful things happen in the world without us.

2. Jewish,
   The idea at the base of the GMC is wonderful and it means that the members of the community guarantee each other. Secular life, for the most part, has lost the ability to express honest expressions of solidarity that are not mediated by the state (for example, a progressive tax on the one hand and welfare services on the other) and this is terrible. In my opinion, the principle of solidarity is a crucial principle for living together that liberalism and capitalism have murdered, but this does not change my essential argument that the ultra-Orthodox, certainly as a community, have benefits that the state provides, whether directly or with a blind eye.

   good year and happy holiday

3. Shmulik,
   Regarding the Gamchim, the articles of Merav Arlozorv are quite exhaustive, so I will add only a few words:

   GAMH usually does not lend more than thousands of dollars per person, when it is backed by several guarantors.
   An ultra-Orthodox person who needs a large amount will usually have to borrow from a number of Gamahim.
   If the borrower did not repay the loan, it will be collected from one of the guarantors. You will agree with me that if you signed a bond of two thousand dollars for a family member or friend, and he didn't pay back, and they turned to you, you would probably be able to meet the bond without financially collapsing. It's not pleasant though. But not bad. The friend or family member would also feel discomfort, and most of the time will also pay you back.

   The GMC had to write off very little of its capital each year, when for the most part, it would be financed by new deposits and donations.

   An ultra-Orthodox joke tells of Delfon all his life rolling money between the moneylenders, borrowing from them and returning his old debts to others, and so on. At the end of his days, he called all the managers of the Gamachim from whom he borrowed, and gathered them by his bed and said to them: "All my days I have been rolling my debts among you, from now on you will continue the work of rolling alone"?

4. Abnormal.

   Your response is full of insults towards people and groups, but in the end you only embarrass yourself.

   I have never claimed that I represent any religious body, or serve the will of religious bodies.
   I'm just trying to defend only the truth as I see it
   If you believe I was wrong, you are certainly welcome to present your arguments in a rational and orderly way, instead of making fun of yourself.

5. Shmulik
   Even so, they take over the country - in education, the government, the judicial system. At least let them die less secular in wars... That's really all I care about. The only thing that is sacred in my eyes is human life (contrary to the opinion of the evasive ultra-Orthodox...).

6. just a jew
   What do you think about the subject of the Gamahim?
   http://www.themarker.com/news/1.3080265
   http://www.themarker.com/news/1.3081739
   Whatever it is (I do not deny that the idea is beautiful as long as it is not used for money laundering, etc.) this is another example of the policy of turning a blind eye that the state maintains in front of ultra-Orthodox society

7. Just a Jew
   You may be Jewish, like Nissim, but you're really just...
   Do yourself a favor and speak for yourself. You do not represent any religious body. You sound like a reformist, mercifully. And you do not serve any will of the religious bodies. You are babbling here about things that are not true (related to the religious population) - and thus, playing into the hands of the most wretched.

8. Miracles,
   We enjoy telling about recruiting ultra-Orthodox, but I have a nagging question:
   Given that the Halacha and the rabbi will always take precedence over the census, how soon will a religious coup occur in Israel if all the ultra-Orthodox are recruited?
   It's a when did you stop beating your wife kind of question but I still prefer to put it that way

9. Child benefits is another example. It can be thought of as money received by an ultra-Orthodox family (a pair of parents) that discriminates against secular couples: let's say the average secular has two children and let's say that's what the state was willing to subsidize. Haredim would stop having children (this is statistically proven when you look at the change in birth rates that occurred after Begin's appeal to the ultra-Orthodox parties). So if it helps you understand my point, it will be worded like this: the ultra-orthodox street receives excess budgeting compared to the secular street. The orthodox idea in a different formulation. This is what I have been trying to argue for many, many comments

10. I would love an answer to why you keep comparing Abrakha to students? It is clear that the comparison is only at the accounting level, and what other comparison can be made in this discussion?
    The fact that you continue with the comparison shows me that you have not internalized the argument: every Haredi can be a student but not every student can be an Avrach. This means that these are unique funds. Note that I am not talking about their contribution to the economy, the spirit, the country, the army, but only proving that these are unique funds simply by virtue of this argument.
    your reply?

11. Jewish,
    My insistence is not for nothing, on the contrary, it is the essence. Your view is narrow and biased because at the end of the day, an exemption from payment is the same as receiving funds if the exemption is unique.

    I can agree with some of your arguments and argue with others but I find it pointless if you refuse to accept my substantive argument.

12. A.
    Just a righteous Jew. The upper class will fill the universities, while people who have no choice will enlist in the army. The quality of the army will decrease and it will be very sad...

    Of course there should be revolutions in the army. It is an inefficient body, like many large bodies in the country.

    And regardless, as long as the ultra-orthodox do not mobilize, the state will fade away. If you don't see this happening today then you are really blind. The secular cease to be suckers. A lot of good people get up and go to countries that value them.
    If you think there is a long line for fire fighters - take a look at the line at the US Embassy...

13. A.

    In a professional army:

    1. Do you think there will be enough soldiers in case of all-out war?

    2. Won't a professional army mean that mainly lower quality people will come, for whom no one is waiting outside the army?

14. Miracles
    You made me laugh.
    Compulsory conscription helps the poor??
    The military prison is full of soldiers who defected to bring bread to their families. Many of them could be excellent soldiers if only there was a fair wage. And there cannot be a fair wage as long as the army spends on keeping excess personnel and on long trainings for personnel who serve for a short time. And if you think there won't be enough fighters, you should see what line there is of candidates for each position of firefighter (a profession no less difficult and no less dangerous, they didn't just change the name to fire fighters)

15. A.
    You are missing something very fundamental - the very fact that the rising standard of living lowers the birth rate means that the number of poor people in the world will increase.

    Abolition of conscription? So you believe that the lives of the rich are worth more? I thought only the ultra-Orthodox life was worth more. interesting.

16. The conditioning of the children's allowances on the exhaustion of the earning capacity, will both increase the number of employees, and also reduce the crazy multiplication.

17. Miracles
    It's not the worst problem in the world, on the contrary, it's the luck in the world. A high standard of living lowers the number of births.

18. vice versa
    Poverty leads to more births. So you don't have to think about how I make them poorer. Yes, we need laws to encourage work. For example, canceling conscription will encourage work. Then the standard of living will rise. You don't have to do anything about the birth. Just act to raise the standard of living. In my opinion, we are heading for a major transformation in ultra-Orthodox society. Abolishing the mandatory conscription could speed it up.
    Shmulik
    According to your logic, the state should give the most to the rich because they pay the most taxes? Today's law requires the ultra-Orthodox to live in poverty in order not to enlist. And they agree, but the problem is that the country is being pushed back by it. I understand that what you want the most is to see blood and police forcibly dragging young ultra-Orthodox people to prison, but apart from giving you a good feeling, the state will not benefit from this.

19. A. / Just a Jew
    True - the situation is reversed and illogical. And this is one of the most serious problems in the world.
    Therefore, the state must not encourage this situation! The child allowance (marginal) should decrease with each additional child, not increase.
    We need to stop with this stupid "Pro Verbo", and take care of the next generation (even with the mitzvah is beneficial for those who observe it, it is harmful to children).

20. A.

    It's really one of the amazing things.

    You see poor people who keep having more and more children, and you feel like screaming..

21. Miracles
    Logic is a nice thing but it has to stand the test of reality. And he didn't!
    There is an inverse relationship between income and the number of children.
    And it's all over the world

22. I argued with you about receiving funds from the state budget, and you repeatedly return to talking about paying taxes.
    Even Shahar Ilan, in his headline about the ultra-Orthodox who pay less and receive more, understood the difference between the ultra-Orthodox's low tax payment, and a higher budget. If you want to insist and say that if he pays less tax than you, and therefore a large part of his budgeting comes from you, then that means he also receives more than you, I will not argue, because it is a matter of definition.

    Eli Yishai's words, which you quote, clearly dealt with the aspect of payment to the municipality. It also lists: taxes, industry, property tax discounts (reduced payment of tax). If you want to call it receiving a budget, although even from an accounting point of view it is not acceptable, I have no problem, and I will not argue about the definition. Let everyone call it what they want.

    You claimed that most of the allowances go to the ultra-Orthodox, an assertion that you not only did not prove, but even unknowingly refuted your claim to a certain extent, when you provided a link that shows that although a large ultra-Orthodox family receives more than a small secular family, but the calculation according to souls, the situation is probably the opposite.
    As for the allowances for yeshiva regulars, I showed that from an accounting point of view (and only accounting!) the difference between the budgeting of yeshiva and universities is in the name, "supporting yeshiva students" versus "higher education".

    A large part of your reference is to the municipalities, "the secular Beit Shemesh finances the ultra-orthodox Beit Shemesh". I agreed with you as mentioned that ultra-Orthodox pay less tax (even if your title is a bit extreme, I know many ultra-Orthodox in Beit Shemesh who pay tax), but does the municipality budget for them the most?
    The largest city that also has the highest concentration of ultra-Orthodox and non-Orthodox in the country is Jerusalem.

    The number of city students in educational institutions is divided between 3 streams. The general, the Arab and the ultra-Orthodox.
    The number of students is: 63931 in general, 98659 in Haredi, and 105212 in Arabic.
    https://jerhinshnatonout.jerusalem.muni.il/pages/index_manhi.aspx?year=2016

    What about the budget?
    Here the situation is exactly the opposite.
    The smallest general education whose size is about a quarter receives a little more than 50% of the budget - 389,598,000 and much more than the ultra-orthodox education whose number of students is much larger but receives only 29,208,000.
    You will get the same situation in the culture and leisure sections.
    https://www.jerusalem.muni.il/Municipality/municipalbudget/Budget2016/Documents/RegularBudget.pdf
    There is no detail regarding other sections, such as cleaning up neighborhoods, but from the situation in some ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, which garbage trucks hardly enter, I would guess that the budgeting picture is not much different.

    You argued against the constant budgeting of Yeshiva and Abrakha. I agreed with you about the futility.

    You may also be right that this is a type of unique funds, because a secular cannot be admitted to yeshiva. But he also won't be able to be admitted to a Christian school, and you won't claim that a Christian gets more money than a secular one, despite the discrimination.

    In conclusion, I argued that ultra-Orthodox receive no more than the same x/y - the state/municipality budget divided by the number of its citizens. I definitely agreed that the ultra-Orthodox fund a reduced proportional part of that x - state/municipality budget, and therefore, for God's sake, stop bringing evidence for what I disagreed with.

    If you want to disprove it, feel free to do so by data that disproves it.

23. Jewish,
    No. I think I have established my claims. If you don't accept my students' argument, so be it, but you didn't explain why. If you accept it, here it is because yes, there is a unique allocation for the ultra-Orthodox.
    If you don't accept the fact that the secular Beit Shemesh funds the ultra-orthodox Beit Shemesh, it is the proof that the ultra-Orthodox get more, so be it, but this is the proof. If I finance someone, they get more than me. There are more ultra-Orthodox seculars and still most of the allowances, income supplements, property tax discounts, etc. go there

24. I have never disputed this claim.

    You can read my previous posts, and see what I did share about.

25. Just a Jew
    Logic says that the number of children you have depends on your income, not the other way around. A person who brings children into the world without being able to give them what they need is a criminal.

26. Right.

    I have no problem comparing families of the same size.

    My problem is with a comparison between the budgeting of a large ultra-Orthodox family and the budgeting of a small secular family. Obviously, a larger family will be budgeted for the most, for exactly the same reason that 8 seculars will be budgeted for more than 4 seculars.

    The study that Shmulik cited compared the budgeting of an ultra-Orthodox and a secular family, while ignoring the differences between the number of people.

27. Just a Jew
    Seculars do not have a unique budget, ultra-Orthodox do. What do I care about the family size of this or that Haredi? If you want to be fair, compare the budgets of families of the same size. And if you want to be really fair, compare the state's budget versus the contribution to the state (ie: military service).

28. Miracles,

    It is clear that a budget for an ultra-orthodox city will also reach its residents.

    To be honest, I referred to an "Orthodox city" by referring to an Orthodox family.
    Shmulik cited a study that claimed that an ultra-orthodox family budgets more than a secular family. The problem with this comparison is that an ultra-Orthodox family has more souls, so I asked for a comparison that would only test an ultra-Orthodox person and not any other group of ultra-Orthodox.
    It is clear that if you compare budgeting for a secular city with that of an ultra-orthodox city of the same size, then the comparison is relevant, just like a comparison between an ultra-orthodox and secular family of the same size. Since, on average, the size of families is different, it is advisable that we perform the test directly, person to person.

    You asked about secular budgeting.
    Honestly I don't know.
    I checked data that only compares between ultra-Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The Ertalian group of "non-Orthodox" consists of secular, religious, and non-Jewish minorities. I don't know how the budget is divided between them.

29. Just a Jew
    Do you think that secularists receive "the state budget divided by the number of people living in it"?

30. Just a Jew
    Are you claiming that the benefit given to an ultra-orthodox city does not go to its residents?

31. My friend, so that we don't have a deaf conversation, I would appreciate it if you would upload your message again, but in it only claims that prove that on average an ultra-orthodox benefit from the state budget more than the state budget divided by the number of people living in it. Not value claims, not discrimination claims, not how much an ultra-Orthodox family receives, and not how much an ultra-Orthodox city receives, but only one that refers to an ultra-Orthodox person (man, woman, child), and in numerical terms, does he receive on average more than x/y that we defined earlier.

32. What do you gather for?
    About the poor who receive 1.1 billion shekels that have no secular equivalent. I showed why their allowance is not equal to the unique allowance they receive. You stand out about the argument and bring up a seminar for girls, but a seminar for girls is equivalent to a degree in teaching, isn't it? Therefore it is not our concern. A Christian school also cannot be used as an argument in your favor because at most it is another example of religious discrimination. Therefore, this allowance is discriminatory based on everything I wrote. Your previous argument which I initially chose to ignore must now be addressed. It is not about difficulties in admission due to lack of learning versus extreme learning, but about institutions that discriminate against everything that goes against the values ​​of liberalism. An oriental look is accepted into the institutions of Torah Judaism. On the other hand, the allowance for students is made because the state is an object of life and as I wrote, anyone can be admitted to these institutions provided they meet objective criteria that are known in advance. It is true that only recently many more educational institutions have been added, which is gratifying, but it does not change my principled claim: you must not compare students to the priests. It is based on cheap demagoguery. Therefore, here before us is a unique amount that is allocated only to the ultra-Orthodox, with a difference of religion, race and gender. I understand that you do not agree with this claim because in your answer in the paragraph about Shahar Ilan, you again continued to compare students to Abrakh, but as I have shown, this comparison is not valid.

    On the orthodox Beit Shemesh which relies on the secular Beit Shemesh (as a concept). How does that not prove they get more? In every receipt of exemptions, income supplement, property tax discounts, "building permits" they star. You may not like Shahar Ilan, but you did not contradict the Taub Institute regarding the allocation to an ultra-Orthodox family. Well? This is another benefit for the ultra-Orthodox. Their family is large because the secular public (Begin) made it possible. Child allowance is one of the most discriminatory laws that exist because it was clearly built for the ultra-Orthodox. Roll your eyes and say that we can all be Reshef Levy, but that's not true. If we all had that many children, the country would collapse. This is a claim in my favor and not against me. By the way, I wasn't talking about children of school age, I really don't know what's going on there, but it really doesn't matter because soon the absolute majority of the children will be in an ultra-Orthodox religious education system

33. I have no problem with the claim that those who contribute less will receive less. She made a claim on the value level, which one can certainly agree with.
    I have a problem with the claim that Haredi get more, because it is factually incorrect.

    Women study in seminaries for girls, with a lot (too much) of religious studies.
    Is there discrimination in not admitting a non-religious person to a religious institution?
    I'm not sure. Even Christian schools of the "unofficially recognized" type that are budgeted for by the state, can refuse to accept someone who is not a Christian. I don't think this is considered discrimination on religious grounds.

    But even if there is, it does not make them more recipients mathematically, and my discussion was about this, whether, as I defined it, they receive more than the total budget divided by the number of citizens in the country.

34. True, but he doesn't deserve x/y but much less because he contributed much less. That's why their share of the pie is higher.
    He did not contribute much less because he is disabled, old, a child or sick, but because he does not want to and has a system that allows him.

    There is no logical problem and you are wrong in your analysis regarding the admission conditions, or you are sulking and rolling your eyes to such a degree that you need to call an ophthalmologist. Whereas for a university/college, *anyone* can be admitted. Not everyone but everyone who meets an objective criterion set for each institution regardless of gender, religion, religion, religion, religion, race, ethnicity, ethnicity, nationality or whatever you want, when the studies and matriculation exams that must be met in order to reach the appropriate agreement , is funded by the state and those who choose not to study the core studies do so on their own accord, not really everyone can be admitted to the yeshiva themselves. Women cannot be admitted to yeshiva, secular people cannot be admitted to yeshiva... Do I really need to continue with this line? Why is it important to the argument? It is important to my argument because I draw the comparison to students and if there is no comparison to students, then the 1.1 billion shekels they receive this year is money that demonstrates that they receive more than the average student.

35. First, it is impossible to claim on the one hand that the ultra-Orthodox are a society of learners, that everyone stays to study in a yeshiva, and on the other hand to claim that it is not, that special conditions are needed to be accepted.
    Beyond the logical problem, it is also factually incorrect.
    Until the 90s and the opening of the colleges, only a few could be admitted to the institutions of higher education.
    With the ultra-Orthodox, the situation was the opposite, and has not changed since then. Anyone can be admitted to the yeshiva. The only limitation is perhaps that he has to be religious, and that's not really either, he can be admitted to meetings for converts.
    He may not be admitted to a specific institution that is his first priority, for relevant or irrelevant reasons, but he will always be able to be admitted to any session.
    This is the idea of ​​the learning society, that everyone will learn. No?

    But that was just a side note, actually I don't understand why you keep barging into an open door. All in all, I argued that if the state budget is x, and the number of Israeli citizens is y, then the ultra-Orthodox enjoy, on average, a budget of the order of x/y. This. That's all I claimed.

    I never claimed that an ultra-orthodox contributes like a secularist. Nor did I say that a budget for Avrach is worthwhile for the state, or appropriate. More than that, I agreed with you that it wasn't. I just don't understand why you keep arguing with me about things I've never denied.

    Regarding the link to Shahar Ilan's article.
    The man has been leading an anti-Orthodox agenda for years, and even heads such an organization.
    His claims are simply biased.
    He also claimed for years, you can read in his book, that an ultra-orthodox student is budgeted more than a secular one, which the Knesset investigation I sent you refutes, and even claims the opposite. You can also go into the details of the Ministry of Education, and see the distribution of the allocation of money between the sections, and the proportion of ultra-Orthodox students out of the rest of the population, to understand how much the person is scrambling.

    In all that has to do with receiving budgets, the only thing I agree with is that an ultra-Orthodox household is budgeted more, that's clear, there are simply more people there. For the same reason that two people are budgeted for more than one person, and three people are budgeted for more than two. He cites the Taub Institute, which states that an ultra-Orthodox household benefits from allowances of 3256 compared to 2000 in a secular household. In my estimation, the difference between the size of the households is even greater, so it shows the opposite.

    Regarding his claim regarding abrach allowances, I have already answered you that the yeshiva and kollelim budget is given as an allowance to yeshiva and abrach students, as opposed to university budgeting as part of the higher education budget.

    To illustrate how much he distorts data and takes things out of context, you can read in the table he presents that the apartment prices of ultra-Orthodox people have increased by less than the general population, and he even presents it as a benefit. But later we read that the reason is that ultra-Orthodox move to the periphery where the prices are cheaper. Where is the benefit? If the secular residents of Tel Aviv move to the outskirts, it will also be possible to report a decrease in apartment prices for seculars in the same way.

36. It does not matter that it is not permanent, but who finances the state and who benefits from the funding.
    If the ultra-Orthodox goes to the doctor at my expense, because I pay health insurance and he doesn't, it's as if he got money from me to go to the doctor and pay for the health insurance. I can continue to write this example and just change the profession and I will be right every time, so in short I will write that the secular Beit Shemesh finances the ultra-Orthodox Beit Shemesh. This is what Eli Yishai said. Whether indirectly or directly, they get more of the pie proportionally. Their longevity is not autarkic but it depends on me and that means they get more than me proportionally after whatever offset you want

    I also can't understand why they repeatedly compare the haberach to the student. The whole assumption is that a country needs higher education to survive and not collapse. Most of the subjects at the university are those in which the students who graduate, in turn, contribute back to the economy at a much higher rate than if they were not in their turn, through the skill they acquired. With the Habrachs it is exactly the opposite so that there is no justification for funding them at all, certainly not in the crazy amounts that are done here in Israel. You are welcome to complain about the faculties of literature and Yiddish that the state funds, but even if we ignore the critical need in the humanities and social sciences, otherwise we will be left without a soul, there are not so many students in these faculties and in any case, these students need to continue to support themselves whether they make direct use of the knowledge purchased or indirect use. Therefore, I am an unbeliever compared to students completely and not an acceptor. The only reasons that can be compared is that the two sectors are about the same age (plus or minus the army) and for some reason everyone starts from a general assumption that the State of Israel *must* support this enterprise (I gave up some adjectives and other superlatives) and this is a mistake. In addition, *anyone* can be a student. I will write again *anyone* can be a student. True, not everyone can be a medical student in Hebrew, but there is no principle preventing anyone from being admitted to higher studies. Not everyone can be admitted to a yeshiva/kollel, but it requires a very certain length of life, family and tribal affiliation, and therefore this is another reason why it is forbidden to compare these two sectors

    Higher education is an issue that does not need to be justified. I hope you agree with me on this point
    Abrach studies does not exist in most countries in general and in Western countries in particular. Most of the western countries live in a higher quality of life than ours and this means that learning abrach is not a necessary condition for a standard of living. This is another reason why it is forbidden to compare the sectors and in fact the state has to justify taking money (1.1 billion of it) and giving it to the poor (unique money that I have no chance in the world to enjoy). The only justification is political justification, but this is exactly the claim: they get more than me - a political shell that supports them and not me

    Also, I found the following link
    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4610532,00.html

37. This is not a zero sum, because if ultra-Orthodox had good professional training, and participated more in the work circle, the whole pie would be bigger.

    A state budget is not fixed, but a function of the national product. In poorer countries, the budget is lower.

    It is very important to have a discussion about the extent of the contribution to society.
    As I already wrote, he should be polite and without derogatory names, but also without hiding the facts.

    It's just that I never argued with you about the low contribution of the ultra-Orthodox, but only whether they receive more. As I understand it, you claimed, like many others, that the ultra-Orthodox receive more (in the simple sense of the word. Not that they pay less, but are budgeted more), much more, per Adam, a claim that I do not agree with.

38. I do not agree that this is not the discussion but this is exactly the discussion.
    To make it convenient to think about the zero sum, think about the annual budget. If most of it comes from the secular public, then the minority comes from the ultra-orthodox public. The ultra-Orthodox receives more from him since the ultra-Orthodox hardly makes any money. It's like he got money from me. I can't understand what is not understood here?

    Why is their contribution to the state irrelevant if they, under the cover of laws, do not have to help the state budget?

39. Shmulik, you wrote "I can't understand how you don't understand that if they are in the declaration maintaining longevity at my expense, in the declaration there are laws that protect them, in the declaration there are laws whose sole purpose is to do good to them, that this is a de facto money transfer unique to them, they get more.
    They live at my expense, I pay and they enjoy. It's a zero sum game

    By the way, the fact that they don't think they are living at my expense is because they are living in a non-existent reality. Show them the link I gave you."

    When I said it's not a zero sum game, either you didn't understand what I meant, or you don't understand the meaning of a zero sum game.

    A zero-sum game, meaning that whatever side A loses, side B gains, no less and no more. Therefore it is called "zero sum" because if the result of side A is minus X, then the result of side B is plus X.
    https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%A7_%D7%A1%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9D_%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A1
    War is not zero sum, not because the winner does not gain at the expense of the vanquished, but because the vanquished's loss is greater than the vanquished's gain. Sometimes, both sides lose, even if one is more damaged.
    The fact that the ultra-Orthodox contribute less reduces the profit of the citizens of the country, more than the profit of the ultra-Orthodox. In a society that has more highly educated people working, everyone benefits. This is also true for the other issues related to their lifestyle.
    I didn't mean of course that you don't lose from it, but the opposite.

    And in our case, the citizens of the country, earn their living mainly from two types of sources, labor and private capital, and state budgets. I'm not talking about the fact that you necessarily get an allowance, but mainly about defense budgets, police, education, health, infrastructure, welfare, culture, etc.

    On average, an ultra-Orthodox receives the same amount from the state budget (although he contributes less, but that's not what the debate is about), but receives much less through work, and to some extent from capital as well.
    There is a gap in income between him and another citizen.
    A certain part of the gap was closed by transfers from abroad, while the rest was not closed!
    He lives at a much lower standard of living than you.
    In ultra-Orthodox cities or cities where almost all of the residents are ultra-Orthodox, the municipality's budget per inhabitant is very low.

    If there are laws that work for his way of life, they are not laws that allocate more to him, but the way of transmission.

    For example:
    In 2015, there were 306,000 students in Israel, and the higher education budget was 9.45 billion.
    A simple calculation brings up an average budget of nearly NIS 31 per student per year.
    This means that a student was budgeted for a high amount, but for several years, when the money was not transferred to his account, but mainly for his lecturers.

    On the other hand, an ultra-Orthodox student was budgeted for a much lower amount, but for many years, when a significant part of the money ended up in his private account.

    One can of course talk about the economic benefit of this type of budgeting, but that is not what the discussion is about.

    I only showed that the law did not increase the budget, but changed its use.

    Other laws, such as property tax discounts are of the type of reducing the tax payment, something I have never argued about.

40. I can't understand how you don't understand that if they explicitly maintain longevity at my expense, explicitly there are laws that protect them, explicitly there are laws whose sole purpose is to benefit them, that this is a de facto money transfer unique to them, they get more.
    They live at my expense, I pay and they enjoy. It's a zero sum game

    By the way, the fact that they don't think they are living at my expense is because they are living in a non-existent reality. Show them the link I gave you

41. I definitely saw the link. I read it even though it was published.

    But again, it deals with economic contribution to the state, something I never argued with you that the ultra-orthodox contribute less, so it is irrelevant to the debate. I was only arguing whether they get more, and you repeatedly try to prove that they pay less tax.

    When talking about whether ultra-Orthodox receive more or less, it is not fair to refer only to a certain age, but to the entire age range.

    Unlike education budgets, for example, which the ultra-Orthodox enjoy less, allowances are the "strong side" of the ultra-Orthodox.
    Even budgets for military age and above, if universities are budgeted from a budget (not allowances) of the higher education section, the yeshiva benefit from a support section, and the money is given to them as a "student allowance".
    Therefore, even if ultra-Orthodox receive slightly more allowances, it does not mean that they receive more in total.

    But no less important, the fact that even if they received a little more in total, that is not the issue, you can find differences between other population groups as well. The problem with the news is the low economic contribution, and especially the survival of the country as a developed country, or even as a country in general, as their proportion in the population increases. And this is what the public discussion should deal with, politely, and without derogatory names, but without hiding the truth. And instead we are exposed to bad accounting.

    And regarding what is taught or even the spirit of things:
    An ultra-Orthodox believes that the leaders of the ultra-Orthodox public will obtain budgets for yeshiva, inclusive and ultra-Orthodox educational institutions. But he does not think that it is different from the budgets of universities, high schools and "secular" schools. The majority of the ultra-Orthodox are also sure that they pay no less tax than the secular ones. For them, they are entitled to budgeting, like any other citizen.
    Even my attempts to argue with my ultra-Orthodox friends about the extent of their financial contribution were met with responses like "We ultra-Orthodox buy a lot of apartments and pay a lot of tax on them", "We are making billions in foreign currency" and so on.
    Most of the claims are ridiculous (among the billions that are swindled from abroad. Part of my family does it with considerable success.), but they reflect the thinking of the majority of the ultra-Orthodox. They don't think that the seculars are the donkey meant to support them.

42. In my opinion we are talking on parallel levels and I do not agree that you have shown what you claim. vice versa.
    This link http://m.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=855935 Tells the whole story. This rare moment of frankness is an admission of the secular donkey. I didn't say that, but Eli Yishai. This is true for Beit Shemesh, it is true for Bnei Brak and it is true for all of Israel.
    The 1.1 billion that Abrakh receives is small money.

    You drag the discussion to the age of the children and I almost never discussed the school age. I only referred to this because you mentioned that there is a gap in favor of the ultra-Orthodox children, but it narrows the more children there are (and by God, there is a limit to what the secular Beit Shemesh can do for the ultra-Orthodox Beit Shemesh). So you actually agree with me that an ultra-orthodox child gets more but not as much as before or not exactly as we thought. I was mainly talking about my military age and the north.

    Regarding what is taught or not taught, come on. I don't mean that there is a teacher who comes in and tells the children: "There is a secularist and he finances you. Come back 20 times" (actually, we recently saw delusional content talking about the superiority of the religious one compared to the secular donkey, so I really have no idea what is being taught there). It is one of those things that is absorbed from the air. The leaders of ultra-orthodox society will get us budgets. Where do they come from? from the sky?

    So just so that we can get together because we are already treading water, you are welcome to continue thinking as you thought before, just confirm to me please that you saw the link with Eli Yishai's words.

43. Even if we don't budget for the children in Holon, there will be more money for the children in Bat Yam.
    The only question is whether there is inequality in budgeting, which is not at all clear, as I have shown.

    I think the game is not zero sum, because for example the budgeting of institutions that do not teach a core, harms the future of all of us in general, and the national product of the country in particular. Even child allowances which are not even conditioned on the exhaustion of earning capacity, in an overall view - cause damage.

    Studying sacred studies instead of math and English is not a financial benefit or bonus for anyone. Not the Talmud Torah teachers benefit from this, and of course not the student who does not receive appropriate training.

    Many of the abrachs who leave the kollel for military courses, do so for financial reasons, although some of them received or can receive an exemption even without remaining in the world of Torah. Certainly, the government funding for a soldier is much greater than that of a total cow, and for justified reasons.

    By the way, the claim that an ultra-orthodox is educated, that the secular should be the donkey that financed him, is simply not true.
    Of the two of us, I went through the ultra-Orthodox education system. And that is not what the ultra-Orthodox student is taught, unequivocally. And in general, the comparison of the secular to the donkey in the ultra-Orthodox consciousness was made by Sefi Rachalevsky in his book "The Messiah's Donkey", a book published in the nineties and causing a great stir. I read the book, and it has many references and sources, except for the main claim in his book which is not supported by any citation or reference, and for good reason.

    A typical ultra-orthodox believes that he does not contribute less than a secularist financially. It is admittedly an incorrect claim in itself and even ridiculous, but this is what an ultra-Orthodox believer believes in and educates his children.

44. just a jew
    I argue that this is a zero sum game. If someone is budgeted more, another is budgeted less and this is done by creating a discriminatory system of laws. In a family with ten children, the children are budgeted for only a little more than the children in a family with two children (for example, if I understood you correctly). Nice, exactly the same delusional system of laws that does not support the secular but the ultra-Orthodox. If you have children, you probably know that the first child is much more expensive than the children that come later.

    It seems to me that I didn't compare a school soldier, but rather stated that the heifer who didn't enlist can work in the dark (a lot of people do this because the enforcement is a joke) and the soldiers can not die.

    You spoke about the education system at the high school level (if I understood you correctly), so it is important for me to point out that exemption from core studies is also a huge bonus for this public. I am educated from the age of zero to be a contributing citizen and they are educated from the age of zero that there is a secular donkey that should finance them because they are a superior race. You can come and say that it is ridiculous because they are condemned to poverty, but it turns out that they are not really interested. They will build illegally, have children for the most part (the truth, well done. I have three and it looks like a million) and will be financed by the taxes by receiving exemptions from property tax, income supplementation and education allowances. What is wrong?
    Do you remember Eli Yishai? He was once asked about the separation of Beit Shemesh into a secular city and an ultra-Orthodox city. Do you remember what he answered in a rare moment of candor?
    http://m.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=855935

45. I never claimed that it was a zero-sum game, nor did I claim that it was fair or profitable for the company. I totally agree with you on this.

    I only claimed that he gives less, probably much less, but does not receive more, certainly not significantly.
    For the claim that he no longer accepts, I have attached two references.
    1. The Knesset's investigation into the relatively low budgeting per student and class in ultra-orthodox education.
    2. A study by Momi Dahan, that an ultra-Orthodox family receives more allowances, but the gap narrows the most when talking about the allowance per capita. In my opinion, one of the reasons for this is a relative minority of elderly people in the young ultra-Orthodox society, and therefore also few pensions for the elderly, which are higher than a child's pension.

    You are of course entitled to argue that if they pay less tax, then in the end they have more left in their pocket. I referred according to the accepted accounting rules, which differentiate between income and a minority of expenses.
    It is not just about dry accounting, but also about the denial of common and erroneous claims, for example about a relatively high budgeting of an ultra-Orthodox student over a secular one. Or of a higher budget for a yeshiva student than a soldier, a claim that borders on the ridiculous, even though I do not dispute the soldier's most important contribution to society.

46. just a jew
    1.1 billion, allowance laws, income guarantees, conscription, Bnei Brak... these are examples of discrimination in his favor. Whole systems of laws that were specially designed so that only a certain sector would benefit from it and survive thanks to them. During the time of Eli Yishai, Atias and his friends, apartment tenders were tailored so that only if you have 3 children, you could enter the eligible lists. I think that this scandalous criterion has already been abolished, but surely the Law on Arrangements and the Budget is full of more sweets like this.

    Also in general I do not agree with your claim because it's all a zero sum game. If the ultra-Orthodox pays less than me, then I pay more and finance his failure to pay, because the 1.1 billion NIS does not grow on trees, and it is as if he received money from the state, at my expense. There is an exemption from conscription and the right to continue a protected life, which is the opposite of a death certificate. He tacitly accepts the right to expand his house without paying property tax and other taxes. How is it not getting more?

    It's a shame that no one cares about my sector (it's the productive, pays the income tax, the health tax, national abolition and VAT)

47. By the way, regarding your claim about the expansion of apartments in Bnei Brak, you are right that it is indeed reflected in a tax loss for the state.
    I do not disagree with the claim that ultra-Orthodox on average contribute less economically to the state. The only debate was whether they get more.

48. The reason for the survival of the ultra-orthodox society's lifestyle (and I am not referring to its religious belief, but to economic habits, and not being drafted into the IDF, etc.), even though it is contrary to the will of the majority of voters, is the voter's order of priority.

    Although the majority of voters believe that yeshiva students should be recruited into the army, and the budgeting of educational institutions should be conditioned on the inclusion of core studies, but this is only one of the important issues for them, certainly not more important than their political view on the future of the territories, and other issues. For the ultra-Orthodox, on the other hand, it is about "being killed and not passing away", and they are ready to kill themselves for it - metaphorically of course.

    It's all a matter of priorities.

49. just a jew
    The report is about the dogs barking and the convoy passing. There is no desire in the political system to change the situation. Sexual assaults by rabbis: If a journalist other than Amnon Levy reports on it, Amnon Levy will issue a contract. Scary to deal with.
    On the face of it, it seems to me that we have exhausted ourselves a bit. The important point for me to convey is that there should not be such a sector and the very fact that such a sector exists tells the whole story. Why does the state encourage a large number of children at the same time as an inability to earn money? Existence of such a situation is only possible by harnessing the entire political system in favor of the sector that, without the help of the state, simply could not exist (recruitment, child allowances, income security, and a family budget to name some of the cogs in this tremendous machine)

    Nevertheless, I will explain the Bnei Brak phenomenon because this is another example of discrimination in their favor. If I close a balcony or build me a housing unit, the entire legal system of the municipality and the state will pounce on me, and rightfully so. Starting with electricity and fire extinguisher exceptions that endanger lives and ending with property tax, property tax, property tax and other charges that need to be paid. No one in Bnei Brak pays for the extras he adds to himself. He needs more space, there are new children, but money to pay the municipality and the state? in a dream at night This is discrimination in their favor. The municipality does not dare to do its job. The state does not exist. Everyone knows and does nothing.
    Here it is in a slightly more toned down form (I was happy to find out that at least the municipality has a balanced budget. Nice)
    http://www.ch10.co.il/news/301403/

50. A,
    Well, I'm on the rant streak.
    So before they are mobilized a full recruitment. Why only we die?

    How old are the yeshivas? I mean, how long have there been tens of thousands, if not more, of people whose teachings have been nurtured?

51. (continue because it was accidentally sent in the middle)
    There is no doubt that it will lead to a drastic reduction. Of course not for the closure of all yeshiva, but it is also really not my life's dream that all yeshiva will disappear. In my opinion, success can be expected for the move also because it connects to a trend that is already happening today, and it is also not a forceful or coercive move, so I think it will have a great impact. What's more, even if every Haredi only went to work two years earlier, it would have a very large effect on the economy.

52. Shmulik
    I didn't mean about you personally, but in general about the commenters here. But the answer is yes, a little belligerent.

    Just a Jew.
    I enjoyed reading your comment.
    Even if it is impossible to predict the future, it cannot be ignored that such a move will have a huge impact. And there is no doubt that he will lead

53. There is nothing more beloved by journalists than reporting on the budgeting of yeshiva students. Well, maybe except for a report about a yeshiva rabbi who sexually assaulted his students.

    It will usually be reported as many times as possible.
    In the coalition negotiations - "the ultra-Orthodox demand a budget for the Abrakhs", after the signing of the agreement, before the first reading of the state budget where they are supposed to receive additional budgeting, after the reading, and likewise before the second and third reading and after that"
    On the other hand, in the years 2003-2004 in the coalition with Lapid Sr., and a decade later in the coalition with Lapid Jr., yeshiva budgets were sharply cut (not for nothing they like to show the increase from 2014 when the yeshiva budgets reached their lowest point). There were zero reports of the cuts.
    Just read newspapers.

    Are ultra-Orthodox budget-conscious?
    I'm not sure.
    Even of that 1.1 billion shekels, a portion of it is budgeted for yeshiva of the national religious sector, and the rest of it is budgeted for high school aged boys.

    In the study of "data on the distribution of the Ministry of Education's budget to schools by sectors" carried out by the Knesset's Research and Information Center, you can see on page 5 that the budget per ultra-Orthodox student is the lowest compared to the other sectors.
    https://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m03661.pdf
    The reason for this is mainly young teachers without academic degrees whose salary cost is low.
    Also, some boys in the ultra-Orthodox education system study in "exempt" institutions with low budgets.
    And although on average there are slightly fewer children in an ultra-orthodox class, many schools (including the ones I attended) do not have a library, a sports hall, a computer lab, a psychological counselor, and standards that fill them.

    There are also budget items that ultra-Orthodox do not enjoy such as sports. theater.

    Regarding housing, I don't exactly understand how not demolishing apartments that were built illegally in Bnei Brak constitutes a budgetary supplement for the ultra-Orthodox. After all, the demolition of an illegal building is because of the damage to the quality of life of the residents of the settlement. In the same way it can be said that the residents of Bnei Brak are discriminated against, that the municipality does not demolish illegal houses that disgrace the city.
    Regarding the tailor-made construction tenders, I know that there was an attempt to settle Harish with the ultra-Orthodox, but it failed.
    In the end, the housing crisis among the ultra-Orthodox is even more acute, due to a high birth rate.
    Although Deri flexed the housing criteria in favor of the ultra-Orthodox, in practice almost no apartments were built. It got stuck in the treasury.

    Even when talking about allowances, I will quote the research of Professor Momi Dahan from the Hebrew University. The original study is from 1998. Unfortunately, I did not find a more recent study.
    "In a previous work (Dahan, 1998a) it was found that the level of allowances received by an ultra-Orthodox family is greater than that received by a non-Orthodox family, but these disparities are sharply reduced when the number of persons is taken into account."
    http://www.jiis.org.il/.upload/hared%20b.pdf

    The problem is, of course, the economic contribution of the ultra-Orthodox in relation to their size, when this will even decrease in the future and even bring Israel to a catastrophe in the case of an ultra-Orthodox majority or even a non-Zionist majority, because of its transformation into a religious-zealous, undemocratic society, with low scientific and technological knowledge, with actions that are mainly expressed at birth

    PS: "Just a Jew" is just an internet nickname, which may have been inspired by the nickname "Akhd Ha'am" of the well-known writer Asher Zvi (Hirsh) Ginzberg.

54. A,
    Am I one of the brawlers?

    Just a Jew (what does that mean?),
    If you think that Yediot Ahronat will do an in-depth investigation on the yeshiva students or the territories, I'm sorry. The newspaper moved to the right a long time ago and the state newspaper does not want to piss off the readers. The Haaretz newspaper publishes articles on the subject from time to time, but at the end of the day, the subject is unusually complicated with a lot of confidential or hidden and not visible details.

    http://www.calcalist.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3598776,00.html

    When they come to ask how much money Avarach receives, one should look not only at the immediate allowance (on which we agreed: 1.1 billion this year) but at the structure of the laws that were built especially for them or while winking at them (families with so-and-so children, failure to exhaust earning capacity or tailor-made or allocated apartment auctions to the ultra-orthodox market), property tax discounts or non-collection that mainly occur in certain sectors), turning a blind eye (when the hell did anyone in Bnei Brak act against construction anomalies? They close a balcony in Rishon Lezion and the municipality comes to fine or destroy it thanks to aerial photographs it takes). In short, are you at the peace interchange or at the Halacha?

    Let's not forget that the very act of dealing with the issue costs a fortune: the committees that stand up every Monday and Thursday to discuss the bypass laws of the High Court, do the jurists who deal with the issue work for free? The amount of energy expended to enable this criminal enterprise, which if it has to exist has to exist according to the rules of the free market, is unimaginable. A huge culture and exemption (from conscription for example) has taken root here in favor of the ultra-Orthodox that a secular child can only dream of

55. Response to A.

    Everyone agrees that the conscription law, and the postponement given to Torah students, with the stipulation that they are not allowed to work, had a strong effect on the increase in the number of yeshiva students, and the decrease in participation in the workforce, although there were other factors as well.

    But if the conscription law is repealed, will we see a significant decrease in the number of yeshiva students?
    Not sure.
    History is not necessarily two-way.
    If we take Zionism as an example. Anti-Semitism in Europe was perhaps the most influential factor in the creation and growth of the Zionist movement. But this does not mean that Zionism and the State of Israel "need" pogroms in Chisinau in order to exist.

    Even the world of yeshiva after 70 years, has its own dynamics, which is different from the one in 48.

    It is very difficult to predict what the world of yeshivot will look like in the long run, in particular that beyond the differences between individuals, there is also a fundamental difference within the ultra-Orthodox sector, between a student from a dissident Lithuanian background at a Hebron yeshiva, and a Hasidic student at a Gur yeshiva, and between both of them are Spanish from the development towns, and even within the sub-sectors themselves.
    And in general prediction is a somewhat complicated business, as the famous proverb says.

    If we try to predict, based on existing changes, we can see that in recent years the age at which the student receives a full exemption has been lowered, and not just an annual postponement that requires him to remain in the yeshiva during the postponement, and there has also been a significant decrease in the number of total avrachim (married students), although there is not necessarily a correlation Indicates causation, and there may be several other reasons, such as: cuts in child allowances, the increase in apartment prices, which is very significant for the ultra-Orthodox sector, especially the Ashkenazi - who sanctified the custom of buying apartments for their children. A transition between my generation, a generation that saw as an ideal the re-establishment of the Torah world after the Holocaust, and a new generation born into a different reality, a sharp decrease in the supply of Torah jobs, and other reasons.

    On the other hand, there were quite a few yeshiva students who in the past received exemptions from the unconditional recruitment of yeshiva studies, and the great majority of them remained in the yeshiva, even though the conscription law did not require them.
    Also, from the norm in the US that at least until marriage, an ultra-Orthodox man studies in a yeshiva, and from the fact that all over the world ultra-Orthodox girls study in ultra-Orthodox institutions, which provide relatively poor professional training, we learn that the world of yeshiva does not depend on recruitment.

    It is possible that there is a difference between studying for several years in a yeshiva for a guy whose burden of livelihood is not on his shoulders, and which has become a binding norm, and endless studies of an avrach in a kollel (or getting a Torah position) and which even today a large part of the ultra-Orthodox sector does not see it as a binding norm, and for that reason the cancellation of the conscription law , will mainly reduce the number of priests, not the number of yeshiva students.

    And finally, since you asked about the long term, it is possible that a certain decrease in the number of students will create a critical mass that will change the ultra-Orthodox view of life, which will further strengthen the decline of the yeshiva world.

56. Just a Jew
    First of all, I am very happy that you are commenting on the site. It is very refreshing to hear such opinions that are less of a quarrelsome herd.
    I wanted to ask your opinion.
    If theoretically (although in my opinion this is very practical) conscription would be abolished (instead of an army of volunteers at a fair wage) what do you think would be the change in the yeshiva world, by how much, if at all, would it have shrunk. (I am asking a long broker not in the first year of the change.
    Thank A.

57. By the way, as a yeshiva student in the past, I will point out that the state does not transfer money to yeshiva students. I personally did not receive a shekel from her.
    She budgets meetings and includes a student teacher.

    Yes, there is one exception to this claim, and it is my parents who have 3 children under the age of 18, and without a car and additional income, that is, the wife does not work either.
    In the past there was a budget for this, and it was canceled by the High Court of Justice decision, and now there is an ultra-Orthodox attempt to restore it.
    Even when it existed, only about 5 percent of married students were budgeted in this section, mainly because of the conditions for multiple children, and the lack of other income.

58. There are several other newspapers and media outlets that are not in Netanyahu's pocket that would be happy to check it out:

    Yedioth Ahronoth, Haaretz, etc.

59. You don't know the excellent newspaper "Israel is a threat"? They are surely working on finding the exact amount that is paid to the yeshiva students. Later they will check how much the settlements cost us

60. ??

61. Israel is a threat to it

62. I trust the media who would know how to find the "real amount" if it was many times greater.

    There is nothing more pleasing to a journalist than to report on an addition to meetings, and on "payments to the abrachs".

63. Jewish,
    Assuming you're not a young Jew, do I really have to tell you that if someone tells you they're at the peace interchange, they're actually at the halacha interchange?
    If the official budget is 1.1 billion this year, then the real budget is much larger. It's so obvious.

    It seems to me that the discussion about whether it is billions of shekels or a billion shekels is quite as ridiculous as a discussion about astrology, correct or not.

64. As I have already mentioned, I agree with your claim regarding the unreasonableness of yeshiva budgeting, and that is what the discussion should deal with.

65. a truism.
    It is clear that budgeting for yeshiva is a violation of democracy and it is a shame, simply a shame to compare a scandalous budget for yeshiva regulars with those of the universities. I find it hard to believe that I read such nonsense.
    If there were no Yeshiva, Israel would be in a much, much, much better place
    If there were no universities, Israel would not exist

66. I will divide my answer into two.

    Does the yeshiva budgeting harm justice and equality?
    You raised an important issue of non-recruitment, and indeed it harms equality.

    But does sectoral budgeting harm equality?
    The answer is no.
    The education budget for the municipality is also essentially sectoral, it is intended only for this city.
    The state education budget is also sectoral, it is intended for the secular.

    The question is only at the level of budgeting, whether those who choose to study in a yeshiva are budgeted more than a student.
    The budget per year per yeshiva student is lower, but lasts for more years.

    Beyond equality there is also the wisdom of whether it is worthwhile for the company to invest in yeshivas?
    In my opinion, as someone who grew up in ultra-Orthodox society and its institutions, no.
    For many reasons related to our future.

    The reason I insist on correcting wrong numbers is because you can't have a debate with other people, except the convinced ones, using incorrect data.
    It is difficult to convince an ultra-Orthodox that the current situation cannot continue, based only on a false claim that the yeshiva budget is larger than the university budget, when the Hebrew University's annual budget, actually just the annual pension provisions of the Hebrew University in 2014, is almost as large as the entire yeshiva budget!
    http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000987545
    It is enough for a yeshiva student to visit the university campus in Givat Ram once, to understand how absurd the claim is.

67. The discussion here reminds me of the joke about the student in astronomy class who panicked when he thought the sun would fade in about 5 million years and calmed down when he realized it would happen in about 5 billion years. The amount is astronomical, unique (sectoral) and anti-democratic.
    Indirect budgeting: the non-conscription (which, in addition to being immoral and scandalous, let's ask how many of the non-conscription earn money on the side, without a receipt of course? What about not exhausting earning capacity in buying an apartment or tenders for those with three or more children or what about a child allowance that is all really intended for the ultra-Orthodox? What about the need for the economy to continue supporting all yeshiva refugees who have no profession?
    True, according to Anat Davidov the amount jumped by NIS 500 million from 2014 and not by a billion, but it really doesn't matter like it doesn't matter if it's 5 million years or 5 billion years. Either way it's killing us

68. It is important to note that I am not here to recommend increasing the Yeshiva budgets.

    But if you want to have a real discussion, it should deal with the question of what kind of society we want to create, and the study of what knowledge and content should be encouraged and financially supported, whether scientific knowledge and content of a liberal, productive and enlightened society, or erroneous knowledge from the Middle Ages and religious fanaticism.

    The obsessive preoccupation with yeshiva budgets, while describing them in the wrong accounts as being even larger than the budget for higher education, harms this important discussion.

69. In the link you brought to The Marker it is written that the Yeshiva budget was increased to NIS 984 million. And in 2016 it stands at 1.1.
    A simple calculation reveals that this year the budget increased by 116 million.
    Not really an increase of billions.

    The yeshiva budget decreased with the coalition with Yair Lapid, and increased again in the current coalition.
    http://www.themarker.com/news/1.2080921

    The ultra-orthodox demand was to "cancel the Lapid decrees".

    By the way, one of the reasons that anti-Orthodox parties find it difficult to survive at the top for more than one term, is that the way in which the yeshiva budget is always described in the media as increasing, and in years when it decreases, they ignore it, thus paradoxically harming anti-Orthodox parties.

70. Yes, really far.
    De Marker writes about a budget of NIS 914 million
    Now, right now, Anat Davidov, in the silver color of Network B, said that this year's budget is 1.1 billion NIS, which is twice what it was two years ago.
    All the programs of Kol Israel are recorded and you can easily verify my words.
    All this without the indirect budgets they receive.
    Poor accounts.

71. Shmulik, assuming that you included the links as a response to my request for a reference to the source that yeshiva received additions of billions this year, then the links do not show this. In the links we see that in those years, the total budget of the Yeshiva does not amount to billions, not to mention the addition of a certain year.

    And also, the support budget goes largely to yeshiva and not to universities and high schools, because universities are budgeted with 7 billion shekels per year from the current higher education budget, and high schools (which are equivalent to small yeshiva) are budgeted by the Ministry of Education as post-primary education with billions more, compared to yeshiva whose budget comes only from a support section.

    Instead of discussing the importance of the budgeting of higher education institutions versus yeshivas - if there is any importance in their budgeting at all, the commenters are doing bad accounting, but really bad.

72. http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=568009
    http://www.themarker.com/news/1.2629510
    http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3622032,00.html
    http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3430610,00.html
    http://www.themarker.com/news/1.2751836

73. Sabdarmish.

    I would appreciate it if you could direct us to the source, that the yeshiva received additions of billions this year.

74. Yodla
    Finally at a good time you say things of sense, without quantum nonsense.

75. They are working on us!, the yeshiva received billions already this year. What higher education will get is a few hundred million in the first year. There is nothing to talk about in the following years. There will be someone who cancels them in the future. or transfer them to other purposes. I assure you that soon there will be an intellectual who will say that the yeshiva are also higher education and deserve their relative share (most of the money). Kahlon, I voted for you, but not anymore!
    Yehuda

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.