Lwhispers

Pliny Thanks for your response. It was respectful and appropriate. You are right that I am concerned with money. In particular I am concerned with debt and the idea of generational downloading of debt. I am concerned about what will happen if a massive amount of debt falls on Gen Y - and I certainly don't want them downloading it onto their children. I am for any system that relieves debt and (provides the potential for) improving the quality of life for future generations.

Just curious where are you getting these Canadian numbers? And are they an account simply of federal spending or do they represent the provincial spending as well?

So on your first page.... All these programs should just be rolled into Free tuition with a 1%(per year (3 terms of 16 week duration) of program participation) of future income paid into a federal alumni fund to move towards self sustaining post secondary education for all citizens of Canada. I am not challenging your calculations but merely questioning why 1% is the number that you chose? Why can't a lower annual rate be selected and paid over more time? Nowhere in here do you explicitly cover the total costs of post secondary education. The reason that I am asking about the total cost is currently you have only listed federal transfers to the provinces. But the provinces contribute a significant amount of money to subsidizing education already, and I'm guessing that under this program that would end - which raises the amount that would have to be included in your calculations. Maybe this would make it clearer, and it's my major point that I asserted earlier on your lack of specificity in terms of how much the current system receives from each area of government...... What have you calculated as the overall cost of education in this country? This is important as you are designing a program to pay for it. It will also help me understand why you came to the 1% number, as so far you seem to have chosen this arbitrarily - I'm not saying that it wouldn't pay for it - it would, but does it need to be 1%? What is the most efficient number? You have stated how such a program would be implemented but have you looked at the power structures involved? The provinces currently run education - what influence would your program have? Would it simply stay the same and fall into line under the current federal transfer to provinces? Under this current legislation the provinces have more power in terms of saying where the money goes - does this mean that it will go directly to tuition? In order to ensure this new legislation would have to be put into place. What happens with job retraining? If I take a 3 month certificate program what percent am I going to pay as a mature student? What about corporate funding of research? Where does this play out? Is government money from this fund the only way research is funded? Would the loans program be eliminated completely? Or would there still be an opportunity for students to attain loans in order to support their costs of living (I know that you suggested an employment program, but many may not be able to do this)? Does your idea effect the way in which schooling would be delivered? If so, how? If this fund is as flush as you are predicting, what sorts of internal cost controls would be in place (salaries at schools growing out of control, misappropriation of funds, poor investments)? Or would this responsibility remain with the provinces? My original complaints still stand that there are a number of questions that you need to answer, however, I will admit that I hadn't read back to your original posts in some time and got hung up on the generalized concept that you presented. Nevertheless, the questions still stand. And, hopefully in answering some of these you can further justify your position. Cheers. P.S. I was rereading your point on those staying in the system paying more and therefore hopefully they are getting a doctorate... You may want to try and change the way that it would work.... Basically you are limiting people to one shot at an education, and you tack on additional payments every time a person goes to school again - this would discourage education and considering in the near future the high likelihood of individuals returning to school multiple times throughout their lives... the cost quickly outweighs the benefits of returning - even though it may be essential for the economy as industries change with increasing rapidity. Education is to be encouraged, not discouraged. The idea that people will simply wander about in the system never leaving is an assumption not supported by any statistics that I have ever seen.

Hi Darryl. I am currently researching this and cannot say conclusively how much it will cost. I am collecting a lot of information on this so when I sift through and find out the exact figure I will let you know. I have taken a look at numerous examples of what it may cost. Currently with approximately 1.5 million students at an average of 6000$ a year we are looking at about 9 billion. To put this into perspective, if the gst hadn't been cut by 2% we would be churning out 14 billion a year or more than enough to cover the costs. This is a simplification of the costs however as some provinces subsidize more than others and if we were to cover the costs in full I assume all the provinces would like to pay an equal share (not fair to have one pay more than the other in terms of percent). I am also not suggesting that the GST is the best way to pay for it, but it is an example of how much taxation could go up in order to pay for such a program. Other options would include increasing taxes on individualized tax brackets (loaded with problems). Increase corporate taxes (as they are primary beneficiaries of this investment), or drawing from funds such as EI - which is a useful concept as those unemployed often need retraining. This list is not exhaustive and there are many other ways that it could be done. I'm open to any ideas that anyone has surrounding this!

Interesting hypothesis considering your idea is nowhere near fully fleshed out. I have presented a thoughtful argument as to why an alternative method of payment needs to be considered. I have supplied evidence from economists, professors, experts in related fields such as statistics and policy. This has given you the platform to launch your idea. It has provided the "why". You are attempting to provide the "how" but have failed to make any sort of statistical argument beyond a generalized concept for payment. Here are a list of the shortcomings I have seen in your argument. Start to answer these and perhaps your idea will have more credence. Shortlived you have suggested a 1% permanent payment plan to pay for education instead of an upfront immediate cost. You are right that this will create a massive amount of money and more than pay for education. I am curious as to what effect this would have on the economy as 1% is essentially stripped from all future workers that achieve any post secondary, as it is then contributed to the educational system? How did you come to the 1% figure? How about 0.5%, or 0.7%, or 0.01? Have you accounted for how much is already subsidized by provincial and federal governments? Do they instead pay nothing under this new plan? What happens to the grant plans and the entire loan system? How is the money to be distributed? What money is invested where? Example: Colleges vs. Universities, Social Sciences vs. Hard Sciences, Biology vs. Chemistry, Stem Cell Research vs. Theoretical Physics? Who decides this? Is this a national policy (as you have implied)? If it is you do realize that it would be stripping education away from the provinces - the battle that would ensue would be monumental and no federal party would even consider this as the provinces are very careful to safeguard their power. What pays for the educational system while your idea is getting off the ground? Does the government have to take out massive loans on behalf of the people to further subsidize education until the payment plan you have enacted actually starts to return dividends? If this is the case please note the hypocrisy of chastising taxation and then requesting government money... Furthermore how much of the money is to be delineated to research vs. schooling? Are the schools free to choose this or would the government play a role? Are you suggesting a free market for schooling? ----- This can present numerous problems as a free market is less responsible to public need, Ex. a school can abandon all research in the social sciences in favor of the more profitable sciences.... But then what if every school did this? There are a lot of questions here that need to be answered and I don't believe that you have done a good enough job of explaining your concept. That is likely why you have received criticism to the point that those posting on this board are laughing at the concept. You need a more detailed account that is supported by evidence. You are simply mucking about with a generalized theory and tearing into any challengers that have contested your position. Answer some of these questions and perhaps a more credible, civil conversation will emerge that will either solidify or disintegrate your argument. Cheers.

If this is the case please present a cogent counter argument. Display information that would indicate otherwise. I have posted what I see as a growing problem that needs to be addressed. And, this problem is being identified by numerous individuals; the majority of which are well qualified to comment on the problem. What this means is that as the baby boomer generation retires Gen Y will have to keep the economy moving. That means buying houses, cars, etc.. to keep the economy going. It is going to be very difficult as by 2031 as a full 23% of the population will be seniors or 65+. They will be drawing significantly from programs such as CPP, OAS and the healthcare system - all of which are paid for through current taxes. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-311-x/98-311-x2011003_2-eng.cfm To sustain these programs taxes will have to rise, otherwise significant cuts will be needed. The additional burden of post-secondary education debt on Gen Y is unnecessary, if it were to be paid for now, through taxation, then that burden of debt down the road would be reduced. Gen Y may then be able to afford to pay for the CPP, OAS and healthcare that the boomers need. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The "free" system would simply mean that you get your education for free. Staying a student? Why is it the assumption that people would just stay students forever? What evidence is there that this would even occur - it is an assumption. Also, yes, student is not a career, but as long as these people are working - at all - they will continue to pay taxes. The system would run very much like high school where it is paid for students by the community. If that student has a job on top of their education they still pay taxes. Note I am only speaking of free or universally funded TUITION. Not a free ride for anyone wanting to be a student. Again this is a massive assumption of the cost. Most estimates on the cost are somewhere around 7-9 billion a year. This is growing with reduced spending on schooling at both the provincial and federal levels as well as taking into account changes in inflation. Sounds like a lot eh? Not as bad as you would think considering the contribution of students graduating from the programs would contribute more over their lives than what the schooling would cost. Also worth considering - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-lost-when-ottawa-cut-the-gst/article10271589/ So the budget officer has pointed out that not only was the GST cut negligible in its economic effect but it stripped the government of 14 billion a year. Interesting that it would be more than enough to cover the cost of education for everyone in the country - and then some! I will note however that I don't necessarily think that universal tuition paid for through GST is a good idea. There are better ways to pay for such a program. Ummm... Sorry but this is just somewhat ridiculous. You simply sound scared of how this would be implemented..... And frankly based on this statement you have no idea of how they currently select for acceptances in post-secondary. This is kind of what I am arguing for, you almost sound like you are supporting my idea...... Note that money is currently a factor - I am suggesting it shouldn't be, that we can afford it economically, and that there are actually economic benefits to doing so. The economy is on the verge of collapse????? WOW. Any economist would agree that we aren't in the most stellar of times, but to suggest we are on the brink of collapse is pure BS. On the verge of collapse? Care to support this with some evidence????? ------ yeah I thought not, yet another assumption - although this is worse as its just your uninformed opinion. BRUTAL. The idea of free does concern me. But I have been reading about the benefits of doing this as opposed to not doing anything. That is the point I am trying to make here. And your disregard for economic assessments speaks more to your pre-determined opinion that this is not a good idea. You disagree with these economists and therefore toss their ideas out - without presenting any evidence to the contrary???? I thought we were here discussing the viability of this idea based on fact. But if this is simply going to devolve into an opinion page then I am wasting my time. I have put the challenge to those opponents out there to read my previous post. To look at the information and to explain why I am wrong with evidence. If you can do that then I will change my position. Please respond in a factual manner as your opinions and assumptions contribute nothing to the conversation. Present an informed opinion with evidence and I am willing to change my mind.... CONVINCE ME.

You are making some astounding generalizations about the way in which this system would run, not to mention predicting the behaviour of everyone when it comes to education. I would like to see some statistics to back this up, but I'm guessing you don't have any as this is nothing but an assumption. I would like to point out that just because something is offered as free does not mean that you qualify for the service simply upon applying. You would still need to meet the vigorous standards for admittance into any particular program. And, should there be a significant increase in applicants due to the new free system, it would only serve to increase competition and raise the standards. Again this is another assumption about what will happen. It would be abhorrently ignorant of the government to not put any sort of control measures in place for this program. Obviously should a program like this be implemented controls should be put in place to ensure that this did not happen. Don't fix what isn't broken? Wow, you seriously need to do some further reading on what is going on: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/boomers-have-a-stake-in-gen-ys-success/article4179385/ http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/tag/generation-y/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/08/17/student-debt-survey.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120819153505.htm http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/home-cents/student-debt-time-for-a-reality-check/article616300/ This is just a drop in the bucket. Yes, I have. Heaping debt onto the current generation while expecting them to be able to make up for the consumption of their parents, as well as paying for boomers social programs is unrealistic. I am suggesting that education be made free to alleviate the immediate debt concerns of students. This means that they will begin consuming the moment that they are done school. It also ensures that their debt does not drag on the growth of the economy. I couldn't agree more with this statement. But there are consequences that occur as a result. First is that the older generation not vacating means that there are less spaces for the new up and comers to replace them. This wouldn't be so bad if students weren't carrying debt that they are trying to pay off. Another problem is that those mature workers that are sticking around are in the high paying, knowledge intensive jobs. Those in poorer health, in manufacturing and service jobs are the ones that are not staying in the workforce. And the opportunities left for youth when they leave are in lower paying positions, with no job security, often contract work, with no benefits and unpaid overtime. I agree that art, history and english majors are not the type of degrees that we want people to be churning out, which is why there would be limited spaces for these degrees and a higher level of competition in order to be accepted. Again I could not agree more. But it doesn't change the fact that due to the massive size of the boomers there will be additional stress on the system - even if the measures you suggested are taken into account. Many that have posted seem to suggest that this is an unneeded measure, and a costly one at that. Please consider that the only reason I am recommending this is due to the fact that it would actually be beneficial to the economy. I would not recommend it otherwise. If there are negative economic consequences to paying for education upfront through taxation then I yield the argument and would recommend whatever is in the best interests of the economy. If you have some sound economic evidence that this is not a viable option please provide it, I have been searching for it through numerous academic journals, and have spoken in person to various economists - yes even conservative ones, who have agreed that the overall economic benefit would be positive. Here are some of the positive academic assessments I have found: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2012/01/CCPA_Paid_in_Full_2012_web.pdf http://www.oecd.org/social/labour/49421421.pdf Black, Errol; Chernomas, Robert. (Dec 2003). Eliminating tuition fees would make Manitoba a national leader. Caut Bulletin: 50. Canadian Association of University Teachers. Kirby, Dale. (2011). Strategies for widening access in a quasi-market higher education environment: recent developments in Canada. Higher Education: 62, 267-278. (This does not explicitly attempt to explain tuition but assesses government intervention in education and indicates its preference over a free market concept). Doherty-Delorme, Denise. (Apr 2000). Tuition fees: why post-secondary education should be free. Briar Patch 29. 3. 18. Philippe Hurteau., Eric Martin. (Jan 2007). Post-secondary Education: Should We Charge Tuition, or Have Free Education?: Eliminating education fees is economically viable and socially just. Institut de recherche et dìnformations socio-economiques. (Original french version link: http://www.iris‐recherche.qc.ca/publications/tarification_de_lducation_postsecondaire_ou_gratuit_scolaire) If you have some economic studies that suggest this would incur a negative result, please share.

This conversation seems to be getting off topic. Maybe I can lay out a few points that will bring us back. Shortlived. I agree that post secondary should be free, but you are laying out the how to do this without adequately arguing the why. WHY SHOULD IT BE FREE (or universal, something like our healthcare system maybe?) 1. The baby boomers are aging, and are going to be a huge drain on various social programs (healthcare, pensions, OAS, and welfare). The upcoming generations likely cannot handle the financial burden of these programs along with school debt, additional schooling (as going back to school multiple times becomes the new norm) and helping to pay for their children's education - remember that this smaller generation must make up for the consumption of the boomers in order to continue driving the economy, but the additional expenses beg the question of money spread too thin (how to pay for it all). 2. A growing number of boomers are not retiring. This is preventing the new generation from filling the gap of retiring boomers. Their incomes are lower and unemployment levels higher. They also face contract work, part-time work, no benefits and little job security. 3. Economies are changing rapidly these days. Continual schooling to adapt to the new markets is an essential. Having to take on significant financial debt every time that you go back to school is inefficient and a deterrent. Funding for these programs so that individuals can gain additional training and re-enter the workforce almost immediately get's them off government support and keeps them contributing economically. These are primarily economic reasons for funding, not an ideological perspective (not socialist) ! ! ! To those that disagree..... Please present a viable alternative ------ I don't care how its paid for, or what approach you believe will work.... but based on the coming problems (and those developing currently) what would you suggest?

Finally a Canadian group of people that are actually discussing this issue. I am very interested in this topic and laud the efforts of those involved in dissecting and commenting on how tuition rates in Canada may be addressed. That being said, there are a few points that I would like to add to the conversation. Firstly, Shortlived, I appreciate the idea and ultimately support your endeavor for free post-secondary, but not like this. What you are suggesting is a permanent contribution of 1% of all income annually for anyone that obtains a post-secondary education. This would work, but I believe you would end up with a massive amount more money than is needed over time. Not to mention the potential effect on the economy of a generational group taking a 1% hit. Your idea needs more flushing out, but there is substance to work with there. Moonbox, you have brought forth a torrent of statistical data and shot down some of the suggestions brought forth by Shortlived. Kudos for bringing a rational response to these suggestions; but I have a few points of consideration I would like to put to you regarding your assertions. You are right here, it is not a justification for free tuition. But there is the nagging question of the need for such a bloated loan system when paying upfront through some form of taxation would be simpler and not require a massive bureaucracy to accompany it. It's indicative of the red tape conservatives are always griping about that holds back business. This is a hoop to jump through, how much of an impact it actually has in terms of access to education is really the burning question. Careful here. What you are doing is using anecdotal information (your personal view) as justification for the apparent behavior or stereotype of a student. I don't believe that the statistics bear this out, and would like to see them if you have them on hand? Very good point. But this doesn't actually address funding for post secondary so much as it points out the level of neglect by provincial governments to adjust the number of graduates in a given program at universities. Less available spaces should be allotted in these programs due to their excess, making it more competitive to actually enter into that program. The main reason universities are allowing excess people in currently is for the funding increases from tuition. I could not agree more with this point, but it still does not lend any weight to the funding aspect of post-secondary, it has much more to do with the bureaucratic structure. My suggestion would be something like this: - Each province should contribute an equal minimum percentage to post secondary with the remainder being paid for through federal taxation (this already happens, although not enough to cover costs entirely). - It would cover the tuition, but not living expenses of individuals. - Part of the agreement is dependent upon restructuring the education system to better meet the needs of the university, the community and the economy. What this entails is separate guaranteed funding for research that is not tied to tuition and level of enrollment. More flexibility for each school to cater to its area of expertise (sciences, engineering, social sciences, etc...) but maintaining a minimum in each area (not eliminating programs entirely). - It would actually increase the level of competition as not everyone would simply be let in just because the tuition is zero - you would need the grades in order to go. - I know the cost sounds daunting but its actually not as huge as you would think. It is estimated that there is something like 1.5 million students in Canada. The average tuition cost is approx $6000 (rounded up). That's about 9 billion a year. Now consider that the GST cut of 2% slashed somewhere between 8-9 billion and it begins to put things into perspective. (I am not saying that this is the way in which it should be paid - I'm open to suggestions, but that extra 2% could sure go a long way today! Also I believe we spend somewhere around 200 billion a year in healthcare - again, perspective). Why should we do this? Can't students afford it? - It would decrease the overall level of student debt that is being carried. This has been a point of concern touted by the major banks as they are beginning to worry about student debt. - Those in debt are not consumers but are rather a drag on the economy as they pay interest on top of their debts and it takes them much longer to pay it off and begin to contribute to the economy. - Furthermore, there is a generational shift occurring where the baby boomers are going to begin dragging on the economy in terms of healthcare, pension and old age security. It is the expectation that the Millennials will consume enough to drive the economy, pay for their parents pension and healthcare and provide for their own children (boomer grandkids). Beginning life out of post-secondary debt ridden is a drag on us all and raises questions as to whether this generation will be able to meet all of the financial commitments. - A final point of contention - it is often said by boomers that they made their own way and their kids can do the same. This is fairly ignorant to the glaring differences that exist between generations. Millennials face global economic competition, higher costs of living when adjusted for inflation, increasing tax burdens, tepid job security and a boomer generation that is sticking around in the workforce (where their predecessors were retiring). By not exiting the workforce in the traditional fashion the Boomers are actually taking up jobs that the new generation are hoping to fill. The world is a very different place then it was for our parents. These are just a couple of points and there is much more to be considered. But this is the general gist of it. Any questions or concerns I am happy to address and debate with you. Keep it factual ~