Free Post Secondary Education in Canada

[Pliny]

What were your questions?

Clarification on seemingly contradictory statements.

I don't need to divulge personal details to you.

No, you don't but making claims to being a student and then not being a student does not contribute to your credibility.

Also there has been no name calling by me.

Troll, net-stalker, turd.....I think those are names you used? Edited March 25, 2013 by Pliny

[shortlived]

Clarification on seemingly contradictory statements.No, you don't but making claims to being a student and then not being a student does not contribute to your credibility.Troll, net-stalker, turd.....I think those are names you used?

I have been a student, and I can choose to be a student in the future.

I didn't call you a turd, show me where I called you a turd?

Who did I call a troll? Who did I call a netstalker?

It should be very obvious I didn't "namecall" anyone, and that any use of any of the above was a generous assignment that removed most of any vulgarity deserved for the specific person in question. Although I don't recall those things being assigned to you, can you recap your post prior to the "name calling" occuring. As I have no recollection.

Edited March 25, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

Ok what about a cell phone in Canada, you'd still pay that in the US right?

People can just as easily skip student loans.

No because you would have a greater number of people graduating with non-employable degrees or not graduating at all under your system, which means many more would need to run from obligations than be able to pay them.

You have yet to explain how you system does not introduce more bureaucracy.

[hitops]

Also there has been no name calling by me.

False:

F--- you buddy. I've got tons of value from my time in post secondary studies.

Dude who the hell are you to say what I should do with my time, manage your own life prick.

You are turds.

And that's just this one single thread. Your entire posting history consists of insisting on bizarre ideas, nobody agrees, and then you start yelling.

Your ideas don't make sense. The only person on this forum who does not realize this, is you.

And yes you have called people trolls many times. Twice in this thread alone. So please at the very least stop lying about insulting people and calling them trolls. The only other posters who come close to you in this regard, are your own past accounts.

Edited March 25, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

No because you would have a greater number of people graduating with non-employable degrees or not graduating at all under your system, which means many more would need to run from obligations than be able to pay them.

You have yet to explain how you system does not introduce more bureaucracy.

Has nothing to do with this, that is "quality of accredited degree counted as post secondary studies"

That would be up to the government to determine what accrediting organizations to recognize. I think that is a separate issue from the ability to participate in an accredited program, although related, they are two separate issues.

I would not say bible colleges offer no benefits to society, much like I wouldn't say poli sci or legal or sociology or social sciences, or fine arts degrees offer no benefit to society, actually I think they do. Now do they make people money, not always, but either do programming and computer science degrees. also some of the more difficult technical programs such as engineering have people switch degrees due to failing to keep up to program requirements, switching over to arts degrees or not graduating. I think that education itself in its delivery should be holistic, and that the delivery system is not. However one must recognize that arts degrees such as social sciences and history are information intensive, while technical degrees tend to be formula intensive, fine arts is actual skill development.

I think the arts contribute to society, I personally greatly support history as a teaching aid, civics and law serve a benefit, in large part because it is not socially engrained, and society is morally corrupt in a capitalist corporatist system that pervades non public life, law is not laymen due to professional legal development over the last 800 years.

The main point of this response though is that accredited programs and accrediting organizations are another matter.

In all honesty in a free market capitalist system I think employers should higher unskilled workers and get long term apprenticeship contracts with them to fill skill shortages, through co-op programs. The Canadian forces puts its young officers through school to get university educated officers, I see no reason why oil companies, and other industries can't pay for this same training. don't think it is fair for them to offload those costs to the individuals and government, and complain they don't have skilled workers when they have full capacity to do the same thing the government and individuals are doing to insure skilled workers.

I think it is a slippery slope when the government only funds some programs, as it can become partisan and related to command economy practices, its not for the government to determine economic mobility in a free society, Canada shouldn't be a socialist state that forces people to learn only a limited range of skill sets, people should be free to explore their own interests. Bible colleges, and the arts and letters have been around for way longer than the sciences and they are way more fundamental foundations for social skills need to maintain an orderly society.

Someone who goes off topic time and time again or starts making adhominem attacks is a troll, and I do mean the person who starts making ad hominem attacks, attacking a person is much different than attacking their ideas.

I am not a "starter", hitops is a starter. Guyser is also a starter. Which is just part of a few people on here that are prone to setting up people they want to get rid of by starting flame wars, and flame baiting. It is part of the practice by derailing discussion when the truth is inconvenient, because the truth shows their own policy to be corrupt, immoral and greedy.

Edited March 25, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

False:

And that's just this one single thread. Your entire posting history consists of insisting on bizarre ideas, nobody agrees, and then you start yelling.

Your ideas don't make sense. The only person on this forum who does not realize this, is you.

And yes you have called people trolls many times. So please at the very least stop lying about insulting people and calling them trolls. The only other posters who come close to you in this regard, are your own past accounts.

You have a fine way of taking my statements out of context, why not quote the entire exchange in addition to what it was quoting. Just another example of your trolling ways. Try to stick to the topic rather than starting a flame war, just more flamebait from a troll.

You are called a troll because you are a troll.

And no I havn't called many people trolls... you have reserved that right along with one or two other people around here who behave like trolls.

Hitops you are on ignore now, bye.

Edited March 25, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

You have a fine way of taking my statements out of context, why not quote the entire exchange in addition to what it was quoting. Just another example of your trolling ways. Try to stick to the topic rather than starting a flame war, just more flamebait from a troll.

You are called a troll because you are a troll.

So you admit you lied about calling people trolls.

My mistake on the context. Here is the entire post:

It is free when they get it. If they work they pay, if they don't work, they don't. If what you guys are saying is so true, it is free.

F--- you buddy. I've got tons of value from my time in post secondary studies.

Dude who the hell are you to say what I should do with my time, manage your own life prick.

Also the difference of them having most secondary studies will statistically increase their income by more than 40% a 3-4% cut of that 40% is an investment well spent.

Oh ya much better.

Grow up and learn to control your temper.

[GostHacked]

You have a fine way of taking my statements out of context.

How can one take 'you are a turd' out of context? I can see your time here on MLW will be 'shortlived'.

*peels off sunglasses* YEAAAHHHH !!!!!!

[shortlived]

guyser, on 21 Mar 2013 - 19:17, said:

No you arent. Nothing is free.

You are not getting any value for your education either

Might want to reconsider this path you are on

It is free when they get it. If they work they pay, if they don't work, they don't. If what you guys are saying is so true, it is free.

F--- you buddy. I've got tons of value from my time in post secondary studies.

Dude who the hell are you to say what I should do with my time, manage your own life prick.

Also the difference of them having most secondary studies will statistically increase their income by more than 40% a 3-4% cut of that 40% is an investment well spent.

[hitops]

How can one take 'you are a turd' out of context? I can see your time here on MLW will be 'shortlived'.

*peels off sunglasses* YEAAAHHHH !!!!!!

No, no! You took that WAY out of context. His exact words were 'you are turds'. It's not just one person. Please, please realize how this remark is actually intelligent and reasoned when you consider that.

[shortlived]

How can one take 'you are a turd' out of context? I can see your time here on MLW will be 'shortlived'.

*peels off sunglasses* YEAAAHHHH !!!!!!

Taking an excerpt of an exchange and trying to make it something it isn't is out of context. Sorry, if you don't think that we arn't on the same page in regard to clarity of communication. Much like the "I support genocide" tag, the line was much longer, it was closer to I support genocide of the bad guys, people who endanger innocent people and set out to victimize those innocents. I support genocide to protect human life of the innocents. I support genocide, but not using or on religious, ethnic or cultural grounds. As you can see the "I support genocide" excerpt does not do justice to my meaning. Much like the responses above that are excerpts that take out of context, and in that context are not my statements whatsoever. If you take a sentence or a word and say see you said this, no, that is not the full meaning, meaning is formed in bigger blocks than words and clauses.

Taking excerpt without the full context is a disservice to civilized discussion. Also playing the "your life is this way, you should do this" card is just plain ignorant and disrespectful when you have no idea how someones life is, and you shouldn't be delegating how other people should live their life in the first place. Quite frankly it is you guys that are being insulting in that type of context.

It is very clearly just flaming, and if you do it repeatedly, such as hitops with his netstalking, it is trolling behaviour. That is just the facts.

Edited March 25, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

Taking an excerpt of an exchange and trying to make it something it isn't is out of context. Sorry, if you don't think that we arn't on the same page in regard to clarity of communication. Much like the "I support genocide" tag, the line was much longer, it was closer to I support genocide of the bad guys, people who endanger innocent people and set out to victimize those innocents. I support genocide to protect human life of the innocents. I support genocide, but not using or on religious, ethnic or cultural grounds. As you can see the "I support genocide" excerpt does not do justice to my meaning. Much like the responses above that are excerpts that take out of context, and in that context are not my statements whatsoever. If you take a sentence or a word and say see you said this, no, that is not the full meaning, meaning is formed in bigger blocks than words and clauses.

Taking excerpt without the full context is a disservice to civilized discussion. Also playing the "your life is this way, you should do this" card is just plain ignorant and disrespectful when you have no idea how someones life is, and you shouldn't be delegating how other people should live their life in the first place. Quite frankly it is you guys that are being insulting in that type of context.

It is very clearly just flaming, and if you do it repeatedly, such as hitops with his netstalking, it is trolling behaviour. That is just the facts.

The funny part is the 'you are turds' comment was in the same paragraph you were whining about ad hominem attacks. I guess you don't fail to grasp every concept, you did master irony.

[GostHacked]

Taking an excerpt of an exchange and trying to make it something it isn't is out of context.

Well when you resort to things like 'you are turds' other posters see the desperation. There really is no room for context wiggle room even if it was part of a larger exchange between two people. No matter the conversation, when a reply of 'you are turds' there is really no need to understand what the conversation was about to know the derogatory context in which 'you are turds' was used.

Sorry, if you don't think that we arn't on the same page in regard to clarity of communication.

Clearly we are not on the same page, and I am ok with that. As the premise of this thread is in essence a false premise.

Your premise is that one can go to school and as long as they KEEP going to school, the education is free. So I could become a life long student and not have to pay a single dime for education. Only if I make it into the workforce would I then be forced to pay back into the education system.

Each proposal you made consists of free now, pay later. And really not an overall bad idea, but how you are presenting it as completely free is simply false. Someone somewhere will be paying for it eventually, and this is where your argument fails right out of the gates.

[shortlived]

Well when you resort to things like 'you are turds' other posters see the desperation. There really is no room for context wiggle room even if it was part of a larger exchange between two people. No matter the conversation, when a reply of 'you are turds' there is really no need to understand what the conversation was about to know the derogatory context in which 'you are turds' was used.Clearly we are not on the same page, and I am ok with that. As the premise of this thread is in essence a false premise.

Your premise is that one can go to school and as long as they KEEP going to school, the education is free. So I could become a life long student and not have to pay a single dime for education. Only if I make it into the workforce would I then be forced to pay back into the education system.

Each proposal you made consists of free now, pay later. And really not an overall bad idea, but how you are presenting it as completely free is simply false. Someone somewhere will be paying for it eventually, and this is where your argument fails right out of the gates.

For the sake of salvaging the topic, I'm going to ignore your absurdities.

The tuition is free. Tuition does not make up all costs of schooling. You are taking the scope out of context. I have no desperation in a discussion that will not yield to actual practice. I raised the issue of free education being an alternative to riots and associated problems such as discontent, maladministration, corruption, and abuse by the current system.

Just because you can continue studies doesn't mean you will, post secondary studies are not an amusement park.

I think free now, pay later is the only option, people without money but potential skills development need the skills to be of use.

I think the current loan system is being abused, and this program offers many advantages over the current loans system, because it removes private lenders, hidden conditions, redtape, and high staffing administrative needs, and tons of legal issues, including government mismanagement of personal data. People with access to resources are also benefiting from it unfairly.Giving the money to the students rather than the schools is also just representative of an additional layer of red tape and abuse of process.

Frankly preventing access to education is a problem, because quality education should not be blocked, because the money invested into higher degrees creates more capable employees, generally.

We would be well served by more masters and doctors. This never ending education thing is just a myth.

grades manage capability to continue in studies. schools generally may only allow one degree in a given faculty, at the undergrad level.

Masters and Doctorates, actually see people employed rather than being money dependent as part of their program, and there are limited spots.

I don't think finances should limit access to education. We should allow people with the grades to get further training.

I don't believe money should rule society, capability should.

Edited March 25, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

Well when you resort to things like 'you are turds' other posters see the desperation. There really is no room for context wiggle room even if it was part of a larger exchange between two people. No matter the conversation, when a reply of 'you are turds' there is really no need to understand what the conversation was about to know the derogatory context in which 'you are turds' was used.Clearly we are not on the same page, and I am ok with that. As the premise of this thread is in essence a false premise.

Your premise is that one can go to school and as long as they KEEP going to school, the education is free. So I could become a life long student and not have to pay a single dime for education. Only if I make it into the workforce would I then be forced to pay back into the education system.

Each proposal you made consists of free now, pay later. And really not an overall bad idea, but how you are presenting it as completely free is simply false. Someone somewhere will be paying for it eventually, and this is where your argument fails right out of the gates.

Exactly, and not only this but the fact that in creates the incentive to just take anything because its free, translating into a lower percentage of graduates with actual marketable, productivity-increasing education. The burden of the whole system will of course fall on them, but that won't be enough and it will fall to the taxpayer.

[GostHacked]

I think free now, pay later is the only option, people without money put potential skills development need the skills to be of use.

Right, so free now pay later does not mean completely free which you seem to hang on. But now that we have that nugget out of the way, some of your proposals will make more sense.

Simple clarification like this some pages ago could have saved you and the other posters some grief.

[shortlived]

Right, so free now pay later does not mean completely free which you seem to hang on. But now that we have that nugget out of the way, some of your proposals will make more sense.

Simple clarification like this some pages ago could have saved you and the other posters some grief.

Its free now. They aren't paying for their education later, they are paying for education to be available to people later, who choose the program like they did. As well as to insure it is available to themselves at a later date.

It would eventually start paying back to them later in their life, should the world get to that point. Generally the only people paying a whole lot more than they get back would be people of upper class income levels, who I think should feel pride in the fact they are supporting education, as a form of philanthropy, and that the cost of education is removed from general income taxes and moved into a fund that funds education separate from general revenue that could do anything with the money they pay, or limit access to people who have no other means of getting post secondary studies access.

I think though this would have people not stay in a long time, because people wouldn't want to pay an ever larger segment of their annual income for life, and after a certain threshold would opt for private funding or employment earnings to further studies.

Edited March 25, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

Its free now. They aren't paying for their education later, they are paying for education to be available to people later, who choose the program like they did. As well as to insure it is available to themselves at a later date.

It would eventually start paying back to them later in their life, should the world get to that point.

Seems you can't even just agree to go along with the person who is desperately trying to help you bail yourself out of the hole you are in.

It makes no difference who's education they are paying for. They get education, then they pay later. it is not free. That's all that matters in terms of the economics of the system, and that's all that will matter to any prospective student considering the system. If you have any hope of explaining this to anyone in the future, stop the 'it's free' argument. It's not, you just pay later. We are actually trying to help you here.

And if the system only exists because past graduates are paying into it, then it's no different than the American social security system. In other words, a Ponzi scheme. How is that system going for them?

Edited March 25, 2013 by hitops

[ReeferMadness]

When I was at university the people paying their own way took it seriously.

Rich kids on their parent's dime were there to party.

The lesson is the same: put a price on something and only people who value it will seek it.

Give something away for free and it will not be valued.

Anecdotal & based on conventional wisdom. No way to verify how much truth there is to this.

It is also worth noting that in places that provide free university education like Germany it can take 7 years to get a 4 year degree because there are not enough seats in mandatory courses. It is exactly the same problem we have with healthcare because the government cannot limit demand with a price so it is forced to control costs through rationing.

So, let's just throw up our hands and give up, right?

Why not try alternative ways of delivering education like MOOCs? The cost per unit can be driven way down.

[Pliny]

Anyone who is not smart enough to be born to wealthy parents should mortgage themselves to the hilt if they want a decent education. This is only fair and natural. Anyone who says otherwise is a socialist dupe. Wealth is the only way to allocate a scarce resource like knowledge. The fact that the schooling is heavily subsidized by the state doesn't change that.

Let the rich get richer!

Yeah - socialist dupe - at least that is correct.

I would rather have money make the final determination as opposed to some biased or prejudiced bureaucrat determining

winners and losers.

Having said that, there is something definitely wrong with the structure of the education system. Some graduates are not getting an education some are just getting a piece of paper but they are paying big bucks. Total student loans has

bubbled to a trillion dollars in the States. Unless you get hired on with the government I don't see that there will be jobs for students to pay those loans back. Probably the plan of the Merchant of Chaos currently occupying the White

House.

The free market system has created more wealthy people and raised the living standards of more people than any other

system or agency. No government has ever managed to lift people up out of the mire through social engineering or wealth redistribution. History shows it does manage to destroy wealth and lower living standards - witness the US where the

middle class is being eviscerated. It doesn't matter that the government is creating money out of nothing and the first to receive it are the rich. Since they have been in charge of the printing presses that has always been the case and

that is the beginning of the end for the middle class as they become increasingly marginalized by inflation and social

programs and entitlements become too costly.

[Pliny]

Its free now. They aren't paying for their education later, they are paying for education to be available to people later, who choose the program like they did. As well as to insure it is available to themselves at a later date.

It would eventually start paying back to them later in their life, should the world get to that point. Generally the only people paying a whole lot more than they get back would be people of upper class income levels, who I think should feel pride in the fact they are supporting education, as a form of philanthropy, and that the cost of education is removed from general income taxes and moved into a fund that funds education separate from general revenue that could do anything with the money they pay, or limit access to people who have no other means of getting post secondary studies access.

I think though this would have people not stay in a long time, because people wouldn't want to pay an ever larger segment of their annual income for life, and after a certain threshold would opt for private funding or employment earnings to further studies.

I don't understand how this will work in the future when you yourself suggest the capitalist system will not be around

much longer than 30 years? And if our present educational system continues it will be less than 30 years for sure.

[shortlived]

I don't understand how this will work in the future when you yourself suggest the capitalist system will not be around

much longer than 30 years? And if our present educational system continues it will be less than 30 years for sure.

Its not a difficult concept

people pay 0.33% of their income per full term of studies which works out to about 3.2% for a 4 year undergrad degree less for less study terms.

after each year more people are paying but only one year of new students approx 500,000+ students per year. Eventually more money is coming in than is required to pay the incoming students tuition, and then there is excesss.

people have equal share based on the money coming in as a total of all funds paid, people who have paid more in over the life of the fund in turn get a larger return share the longer and more they have been paying of the surplus. the surplus will continue to increase and people will eventually be getting more back than they have paid in.

Everything is redundant between 2030-2040 but you can't plan for things not to be around, that is negligent, you have to plan not only that it will be around but that you will need to maintain it. I'm not a fortune teller or prophet, I am wrong sometimes, but I beleive in this fund concept for removing income taxes, and I think this is something you need to insure support for because the alternative will set us back as a society, and the current system has some real problem particularly the government relying on private loans, and second it still needs to tax, and third the hidden conditions violate Canadians constitutional rights with unlawful search and seizure. The government shouldn't be using funds for education as a way of depriving Canadians of their constitutional rights.

I think there is a real technological race, but I'm not really concerned with that, its not over yet, until it is, it doesn't end everything else, the finish line ain't finished until you get there.

You need to understand the government is borrowing money to pay for these programs, then the tax payer needs to pay for it and the debt interest. The only real solution to remove debt servicing costs is to stop borrowing private money, and have programs support themselves.

Its the program financing itself that is the problem not the programs. Government needs to stop throwing money at partisan projects that really have no need to exist except fancy, it is a bit like those "unneeded academic programs" that were brought up here, program spending is like that. Its not for the government to end programs but it should insure they are self funding. To do this general tax revenue must be eradicated from being collected and direct taxation and direct program spending must be brought into force by creating crown corporations and funds for all these pet projects and slush funds, and insure that people pay directly to fund those programs, even if they are organized through the government.

The government needs to kill all slush funds and pet projects and concentrate solely on essential services such as the courts, the military, and a few other core services, everything else should be administered through the public service that acts as a public bank, with products such as employment insurance, and health insurance that are optional services, as well as crown corporations owned by the public and held in trust by the government, with the members of the public holding equal share, and non essential crown corporations where they are government managed but publicly funded through direct payment for those services. If the public fails to fund them they should fail to exist.

This fund is just one means of eliminating post secondary funding from general revenue and instead passing it over to interested parties and the students themselves who want funding for tuition. While it will take time to become self sufficient it will become self sufficient. Most of my programs are based on 10-20 year implementation timeframes. I have to be honest there is no quick fix except ditching the financial system and starting over, and that isn't realistic.

Edited March 26, 2013 by shortlived

[ReeferMadness]

I would rather have money make the final determination as opposed to some biased or prejudiced bureaucrat determining

winners and losers.

Spoken like a true plutocrat. Let's keep those rabble-rousing peasants down and keep the money in the hands of the betters where it belongs.

[Pliny]

Spoken like a true plutocrat. Let's keep those rabble-rousing peasants down and keep the money in the hands of the betters where it belongs.

As long as there is no oppression of people who wish to better themselves or raise their standard of living then I don't

see a problem. It is governments that bestow privilege and monopoly to the upper class that is the problem. Are the rich

and government one and the same? Perhaps. The way to keep them separate is to not grant one the power to create money out of thin air. Get rid of family trusts as eternal entities, have proper inheritance laws and tax laws that apply equally toall, you know as all laws are supposed to be applied equally, not to make everyone equal. With sound money in the hands of the people they have more input to government and government will remain their servant rather than their master.

[Lwhispers]

There is discontent on University campuses? Do any of those articles stem from the advocating of free tuition?

It seems you submit a self-prophesizing argument.

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.

It is reality but I agree unrealistic. Something indeed needs to change. I don't know what "expecting them to be able to make up for the consumption of their parents" means but paying for social programs of boomers are unrealistic. So we should maybe look there for change.

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.

Done school? I think I would just take some more "schooling" and then retire, applying for some of those "boomer" social programs. Consuming without paying is preferable to consuming and paying later. As waldo said some people just can't make up their mind what career they prefer - "student" is not a career but would be under the "free" program.

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.

A debt that does not drag on the growth of the economy....hmmm?But student debt would not be a drag on the economy so there would be economic growth and thus more spaces for them to find positions. No?They would be carrying debt, wouldn't they? It adds up over the years of "schooling".But as you say the economy will not have a drag on it from student debt and will grow to provide spaces.Perhaps if you take a BSc then later you can get the program you want? You know just wait it out even if you have to

live with Mom and Dad for a few years.The massive size of free education will be a stress on the system too.

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.

Why do you want "free" education? To make University more accessible? To give everyone an opportunity? All you are doing is placing the selection process into the hands of administrators who will restrict entry based upon criteria they determine which will be something like 50% of each gender, an equal ratio of race according to population, a percentage of the physically challenged, or who knows what absurdities...could be, in the extreme, whether or not they will be of any benefit to the State.

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.

The selection process should be those that have the ambition, drive and purpose to go and money should not be a factor in the consideration.

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 problem is that everyone wants entitlements, free education is just another one, and the economy is on the verge of collapse.The word "free" should be enough to cause some consternation.Just as you will find many economists that will tell you that a national debt is of no consequence so too will you be

able to find economists that will suggest free education is beneficial overall.

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.