Free Post Secondary Education in Canada

[shortlived]

tax is immoral.

[Lwhispers]

tax is immoral.

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.

[Lwhispers]

How much higher would our taxes go? I'm in favour of lowering tuition fees but come on, free? I don't think we can sustain that.

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!

[shortlived]

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.

Uh dude you clearly havn't read all my posts to still be saying 1% to cover all costs. try rereading them giving an informed response, that I'll actually read.

It is based on the timeline a fair annuity, and averaged incomes. I will repeat it one last time for a 4 year degree it is about 3.2% of annual income which works out to on average around $1500/year or $120/month but the amount will vary based on income. There are incentives to finishing sooner rather than later, for instance someone staying in post secondary studies for 8 years would be paying about $3500/year or $300/month on average, although one would hope that would amount to doctorates so their income at base would be higher.say someone with 100,000 annual income being in studies for 8 years all free tuition would be paying about $667/month out of an income of about $8400/month. Bear in mind though most people who do masters or doctorates are employed at the schools they attend and may not need this sort of program.

I think the government should aggresively pursue employment education partnerships where companies sponsor educational costs on commitment to work for the company after or during graduation.

As well as co-op programs to be pushed to the furthest extent to remove the need for free tuition programs.

I think that that is the real answer for solving job shortage problems.

its easy to say that only engineering jobs and medicine are any benefit to the public, but that simply isn't the case. It is a misnomer to think that.

This isn't black wing, construction only world, there is more to life than science. Science is not the end all of life. Most of that stuff can be done by robots.

Edited March 27, 2013 by shortlived

[Lwhispers]

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?

2million x $500/month = 12 Billion per year (however the program would initially have a start up cost which would depend on local circumstances, but those costs would reduce) - the cost of this program however would be less than social assistance and help programs by the federal and provincial governments, which overlap and do the same thing, as well as cover uninsured EI individuals, this was described in the EI knock knock guess who thread. But it isn't just for students but everyone out of work, a means of replacing welfare also, as well as a guaranteed source of basic income and supports through the program. The program could be larger depending on private sector support. The key in this program is that costs reduce the longer the program runs which means eventual savings and increased benefits for participants.

The cost of free education will cost less each year as the 1% per annum work out to a 3 to 4% return on b.a. or b.s. student who utilize it perpetually, so each set of graduating students reduces the cost from general revenue. Slightly more for masters and doctorates.

Batch 1 year 3-4 paying ~2-3% of annual income into program

Batch 2 year 4-5 paying ~2-3% of... this means

Batch 3 graduates etc...

each year the graduating members reduce the program burden, eventually after about 10 years the program will generate excess revenue, even after the government input spending into the program was paid back, the money could then go to enhancing educational services for students.

The program would continue year after year to provide better and better education. Since students for instance in Ontario already receive 33% off for fresh out of high school students (not mature students), and low income individuals may have another $1000 knocked off the actually gap is not very large. People who get student loans end up paying the amount they get, this program also accomplishes that but over a longer term.(but only tuition not living expenses would be included, the work program is an option which would provide up to $500 living costs and access to co-op produce and shelter where available.)

People still might like to seek private student loans though which are often comparable, the difference is that the government won't have to foot the bill for the bureaucracy to provide loans.

None the less the program costs are reduced by removing a whole bunch of administrative losses.

Obviously I can't say how much the programs would cost because it would depend on participation in the programs.

It really won't cost any more than the current system, the first batch will take about 10 years to pay the money they got out back in and so on.

However after ~13 years the program pays for all new incoming student without any additional inputs. Government costs for post secondary education start to reduce at this point reducing program costs by approximately 7 Billion per year. So year 14 7 billion reduction year 15 14 billion reduction (this amount would need to be adjusted for inflation as applicable) year 16 21 billion generated etc..

Note staff savings due to reduced administrative staff was not input so the amount and time frame likely would actually be faster for return on initial investments. Total inputs over the first 13 years would be 97.5 billion or about 7.5 Billion per year (Although this amount likely would be less as this was based on a $3000/term tuition and 500,000 students participating in the free post secondary program. for about $24000/ 4 year program --- the costs however would then be reduced from the amount paid via various grands and scholarships etc.. so the 7.5 billion is rather liberal as opposed to a conservative cost estimate which might peg the costs much lower.

7.5 billion / year in additional funding for the first 13 years, total about 98 billion funding over `14 years. within 18 years the 98 billion paid into the program would be paid back, and 40+ billion the following year would be new funding and so on so 47 billion in additional funding year 20. and so on. It would only generate more or more funding for education potentially allowing the scope of the program to expand after 13 years.

It would triple post secondary funding (in terms of federal transfers to post secondary education) from 4 billion to about 12 billion.

but on year 14 it would generate a surplus of 3.5 billion.. year 15 17.5 billion etc.. and so on as stated by year 18-19 the program would be generating 10x the total amount of federal funding for post secondary education and beyond after program costs. As stated these are not optimized figures and represent poor performance not good performance.

The program could cost more... but only if more than 33% of students participated however this is about inline with the 540,000 students that currently receive student loans.

However the more participate the more income it generates for educational funding.

Really it is a question of being able to pay for free education within 15 years with no tax inputs from the general public, or continuing to go in debt providing private loans through federal organs, that at times just get forgiven anyway.

The main benefit is removal of stupid red tape, and wasted time waiting in line ups and signing papers.

The students get no income - which is usually either a write off, or ends up being transfered to reduce someone elses taxes.

getting this as either you pay or you participate in the program, no tax involvement, no federal programs to bog things down.

No nonsense no bias no bs. just free tuition you get in, the government pays, when you stop attending your income is garnished for life as a contribution to the free education fund.

pretty simple. people pay based on their income after taxes.

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.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Lwhispers

[shortlived]

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.

keep reading, when you finish, you will understand!

[Pliny]

Well, I can say you are certainly doing research that will convince you of your position.

Lwhispers, on 26 Mar 2013 - 11:42, said:

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 a growing problem, I agree. I commend your dedicated enthusiasm in addressing it. However, I believe the entire problem is "money" and your whole concern is money and how to skirt the problem or devise some scheme to alleviate the single problem of student debt.

You can find economists that will apply their mathematical formulae

to the problem and create scenarios where a free education can possibly be done. The main problem with that is they all

depend upon other factors remaining constant. They lack the flexibility of changing circumstance.

Perhaps, when baby boomers retire they decide to take advantage of higher learning and get some free education. Is that going to be denied them? It's not really the intent of the program, that of free education, to educate people that just want a free education. It is intended for people who are going to give a return to society. In other words, it acts as a chain.

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.

As you well know economies tend to go through cycles, even moreso now that government has tools that it uses to heat it up or cool it down. Usually politicians like to blame the market itself for the cooling down trends but like to take

credit for the heating up trends. Once again you are talking economics.

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.

Entirely about money. That argument seems more your concern than education itself.

I have heard that one third of the people with college degrees in the US are in jobs that don't require more than a high school education. The question is more what is wrong with the education system where all that is being discussed is money and from there what is wrong with "money" in the first place, indebted students being a symptom of the problem of money.

The answer may appear to be to move away from a capitalist system into a more communal or socialist system. But before

we decide to do that let's look at exactly what money is today. It really doesn't fit the definition of "money" in its

true sense. Does anyone think a CEO should be making $100 million dollars per annum? Money doesn't seem to dictate a

value or the pricing system as it used to. While it still falls in the limitations of availability its allocation seems

disconnected from the pricing mechanism.

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.

This leads to the argument that we abandon a pricing system in favour of a Marxist system.

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 motion is toward a single global currency. It requires a collapse of the current currencies. Of course, we could

move to a political credit system, entirely away from a capitalist pricing system.

But I am a proponent of a pricing system based on supply and demand not on a debt creation system to purchase things now and have future generations pay later. Or on the Marxist system of total governmental economic control of resources.

Evidence suggests this if you care to see what is happening in Europe but first get a good grounding on the term money.

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.

You are telling me you base your opinion in fact from authoritative or expert sources and I just have my opinion.

I am aware of the work of Keynesian economists. I think you would really enjoy Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize-winning economist with a column in the New York Times. I'm certain he could write some very convincing arguments to support your

view.

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.

I believe you are willing to change your mind. "Money" has created similar problems in other areas in society, not just education. Your approach leads to a discussion of the role of money in society. It would be best to find out why it is

even considered important, its evolution and what its natural function is in an economy. PLUS how that function being

established over time is usurped and debased by the intervention of those who wish control over the social structure and the changes they have brought to its definition and purpose.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Pliny

[Pliny]

shortlived, on 28 Mar 2013 - 00:51, said:

keep reading, when you finish, you will understand!

You seem to have a whole system devised and are simply presenting it here as an opportunity but it is rather disjointed.

The whole idea must be looked at. Where does it come from?

[shortlived]

You seem to have a whole system devised and are simply presenting it here as an opportunity but it is rather disjointed.

The whole idea must be looked at. Where does it come from?

what are you talking about.

I read a news report about student riots in Montreal and called for free tuition.

As far as my opinion/policies are concerned, they come from my thought developed over the last 15+ years when I started analyzing public policy and devising my own.

None the less I'm more than willing to discuss alternative free education models such as done in France and the states.

France for instance spends about 65 billion euro per year on all levels of education (primary, secondary and post secondary) poor people can get scholarships while wealthy individuals pay between 150 euro to 750 euro depending on the school and level, poor individuals also receive about 450 euro per month. It has a population nearly twice the size of Canada...\

Ontario alone spends over 23 billion dollars on education...

with more than 7 billion more on post secondary

and that doesn't include federal and municipal spending on education.

nor the debt interest.

alberta spends over 6 billion. etc..

bc is also over 6 billion

quebec is over 15 billion.

You can quickly see how Canada with an extra 10 billion in federal spending

is spending twice as much as france and students are coming out more than $30,000 in debt.... meanwhile the french have free education , even income earning education for the poor.

something is wrong there.

Edited April 1, 2013 by shortlived

[Lwhispers]

what are you talking about.

I read a news report about student riots in Montreal and called for free tuition.

As far as my opinion/policies are concerned, they come from my thought developed over the last 15+ years when I started analyzing public policy and devising my own.

None the less I'm more than willing to discuss alternative free education models such as done in France and the states.

France for instance spends about 65 billion euro per year on all levels of education (primary, secondary and post secondary) poor people can get scholarships while wealthy individuals pay between 150 euro to 750 euro depending on the school and level, poor individuals also receive about 450 euro per month. It has a population nearly twice the size of Canada...\

Ontario alone spends over 23 billion dollars on education...

with more than 7 billion more on post secondary

and that doesn't include federal and municipal spending on education.

nor the debt interest.

alberta spends over 6 billion. etc..

bc is also over 6 billion

quebec is over 15 billion.

You can quickly see how Canada with an extra 10 billion in federal spending

is spending twice as much as france and students are coming out more than $30,000 in debt.... meanwhile the french have free education , even income earning education for the poor.

something is wrong there.

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?

[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.

[Pliny]

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.

I have to be civil because I am not that smart.

The current system is designed for everybody to be in debt not just students but individuals, businesses, corporations

and governments.

All you are fighting for is more choice in what your debts are and/or when or how you will pay them.

If you really wish the majority of people to live free of debt then the free market will have to be re-established, government will have to necessarily shrink and income tax eliminated and replaced with a more rational type of tax.

I worried about debt for most of my life and resisted it. If all you are doing with your money is keeping debt down you will be fighting a losing battle. And that's probably what most honest people who pay their debts experience.

You can beat the system over time if you become financially savvy. Take one piece of advice from the author of "Rich

Dad. Poor Dad." Robert Kiyosaki and pay yourself first. That means putting away 10% of your earnings until you have enough to find something that will be an investment and give you a return on your money and continue.

Of course, a degree helps so education is helpful in the sense you will probably earn more and under the current system you will probably make enough to die with more assets than

liabilities. Governments will eventually change that as well, as they search for additional new "revenue tools".

What tends to happen is that after graduation and some of a students debts get paid down they aren't as eager for

change that is meaningful, especially if it means upsetting their standard of living somehow. They get comfortable with the system.

We are in rather unstable times economically and change is in the winds so we do need to take advantage of the times and try to take economics in the right direction. It means being informed on what money is, why a fiat paper currency is

not money, per se, and neither is an electronic debit and credit system about money. How prices are established and the real effects of government programs, such as the minimum wage, wage and price controls, etc.

It really has to do with avoiding tyranny and oppression and not sacrificing freedoms and liberties that we now have and should keep.

You may entirely disagree with me and believe that government needs to regulate all prices and wages, or better, there shouldn't be any at all.

[shortlived]

Posted Yesterday, 08:07 PM

shortlived, on 01 Apr 2013 - 01:39, said:

what are you talking about.

I read a news report about student riots in Montreal and called for free tuition.

As far as my opinion/policies are concerned, they come from my thought developed over the last 15+ years when I started analyzing public policy and devising my own.

None the less I'm more than willing to discuss alternative free education models such as done in France and the states.

France for instance spends about 65 billion euro per year on all levels of education (primary, secondary and post secondary) poor people can get scholarships while wealthy individuals pay between 150 euro to 750 euro depending on the school and level, poor individuals also receive about 450 euro per month. It has a population nearly twice the size of Canada...\

Ontario alone spends over 23 billion dollars on education...

with more than 7 billion more on post secondary

and that doesn't include federal and municipal spending on education.

nor the debt interest.

alberta spends over 6 billion. etc..

bc is also over 6 billion

quebec is over 15 billion.

You can quickly see how Canada with an extra 10 billion in federal spending

is spending twice as much as france and students are coming out more than $30,000 in debt.... meanwhile the french have free education , even income earning education for the poor.

something is wrong there.

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?

Read it again I think it is pretty self explanitory, when naming the province, and when saying additional by the federal government it should be clear. Education is primarily provincial in Canada the federal government still kicks in billions in funding though.

As said for example ontario spends 30 billion while alberta spends 6 billion, the federal government spends about 10 billion throughout Canada. In addition to student funding it kicks in funding for buildings, research grants etc..

Edited April 2, 2013 by shortlived

[Archanfel]

Why do people worry about tuition debts anyway? If you found a good job and lived frugally, you should be able to pay off $30,000 in no time. You made a personal choice to go to university, why should somebody else pick up the tab?

[shortlived]

Why do people worry about tuition debts anyway? If you found a good job and lived frugally, you should be able to pay off $30,000 in no time. You made a personal choice to go to university, why should somebody else pick up the tab?

Not everyone graduates. But under the current system, someone else is picking up the tab. Huge chunks of student loans are write offs under the current system. The tax payer is paying billions each year for other people to go to university.

Ontario for example is paying down at least 30% of tuition for new students, which is really an age biased policies since they won't pay this for mature students only new highschool graduates. Meanwhile people who get laid off can get second carear funding, yet people who are out of work with no education have to pay the full price...

Edited April 5, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

Not everyone graduates. But under the current system, someone else is picking up the tab. Huge chunks of student loans are write offs under the current system. The tax payer is paying billions each year for other people to go to university.

And this problem would be even worse under your system. What you perhaps are refusing to see is that it encourages people to hang around in school and not take anything of any particular economic value. It's way more interesting and fun to take social science degrees and chill on campus than do something useful, and when its free this basically makes that demographic of student explode in numbers. This is beyond self-evident. Those people either do not graduate, or go on to gain no benefit from their fluff degrees. This increase the cost of the system, but those people never go on to pay back into it. The entire assumption about how it would work, totally ignores human nature. It would operate in the red, and the taxpayer would foot the bill.

[shortlived]

And this problem would be even worse under your system. What you perhaps are refusing to see is that it encourages people to hang around in school and not take anything of any particular economic value. It's way more interesting and fun to take social science degrees and chill on campus than do something useful, and when its free this basically makes that demographic of student explode in numbers. This is beyond self-evident. Those people either do not graduate, or go on to gain no benefit from their fluff degrees. This increase the cost of the system, but those people never go on to pay back into it. The entire assumption about how it would work, totally ignores human nature. It would operate in the red, and the taxpayer would foot the bill.

That is nonsense.

A 1% increase in amount paid into the annuity each year from ones future income in perpetuity is not encouragement to remain in studies forever. Sorry but retards don't often get into post secondary studies. Usually basic math is a prerequisite of most programs, and almost always highschool graduation.

Have you graduated highschool?

You totally do not have basic literacy skills in terms of comprehension. I'm sorry but I can't acknowledge such as moronic non insightful post more than I already have. READ THE THREAD YOU ARE POSTING REALLY STUPID RESPONSES

I can only say even the alcoholics with severe very severe brain damage would not be hanging around, if you would I'm sorry but you have lost all credibility in my eyes for anything involving math or numbers.

Edited April 6, 2013 by shortlived

[Archanfel]

Not everyone graduates. But under the current system, someone else is picking up the tab. Huge chunks of student loans are write offs under the current system. The tax payer is paying billions each year for other people to go to university.

Ontario for example is paying down at least 30% of tuition for new students, which is really an age biased policies since they won't pay this for mature students only new highschool graduates. Meanwhile people who get laid off can get second carear funding, yet people who are out of work with no education have to pay the full price...

That's why no matter what the intent, government policies are almost never fair. It will be best for the government to simple butt out. If university education can improve future earnings, then the banks would have no problem providing student loans, albeit with unsecured interest rates. In the mean time, billions dollar can be used to reduce tax burden.

[hitops]

That is nonsense.

A 1% increase in amount paid into the annuity each year from ones future income in perpetuity is not encouragement to remain in studies forever. Sorry but retards don't often get into post secondary studies. Usually basic math is a prerequisite of most programs, and almost always highschool graduation.

Have you graduated highschool?

You totally do not have basic literacy skills in terms of comprehension. I'm sorry but I can't acknowledge such as moronic non insightful post more than I already have. READ THE THREAD YOU ARE POSTING REALLY STUPID RESPONSES

I can only say even the alcoholics with severe very severe brain damage would not be hanging around, if you would I'm sorry but you have lost all credibility in my eyes for anything involving math or numbers.

I have a post-graduate degree, 10+ of uni and work as a professional making six figures. You responded with your usual, non-arguments and insults, consistent with your level of debate and understanding. Every system that operate on a similar premise as you are proposing, does nothing but lose money and increase in cost. We already have the proof that this does not work. Every person in this thread sees the problem, you are the only one who does not.

You still don't get it. It's the not the cost of 1% that people stay in school to avoid. It's the fact that when there is no up-front cost, you attract the kinds of people to university who do not complete and just go to hang out and take various subjects that interest them. It's free, so why no just go? Who cares if you don't have much direction or know what you want. The 'finding yourself' aspect will explode, and the relative goal-oriented proportion of students will decline as a proportion. This is beyond obvious. It exists right now because of students loans, it will be amplified under your system. When there is no immediate perception of costs, it fosters that kind of behavior. This is basic human nature and we have plenty of examples occurring right now, we don't have to guess if it would happen, it already does. If there is no up-front cost, there is little consequence to lack of completion. The amount of students who enroll vs those that complete would skyrocket, and the system would operate in the red because the majority who enroll would never go on to the good-paying jobs that are supposed to fund the system. Basic economics.

Edited April 6, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

I simply don't believe you unless you suffered massive brain damage between now and then. You dont get it look at the whole thread again. I'm not even going to respond to your out of touch non factually based response because you arn't addressing the facts you are just concocting something that isnt what I've indicated, as such it is just lies and/or stupidity. I'm not discussing this with you until you use the correct facts regarding the program operation.

You facts are wrong, and your post appears as nothing but misinformation. If that is intentional gtfo this site.

I needed to deal with a wild dog pack on the outskirts of playa del carmen none the less wolves because of their numbers are the one animal that is issued because it is a pack rather than one animal that might be dispatched at close range with a high test crossbow.

I only saw one lone wolf last year... it was friendly and kept its distance but where there is one I fear there may be many.

Edited April 6, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

I simply don't believe you unless you suffered massive brain damage between now and then. You dont get it look at the whole thread again. I'm not even going to respond to your out of touch non factually based response because you arn't addressing the facts you are just concocting something that isnt what I've indicated, as such it is just lies and/or stupidity. I'm not discussing this with you until you use the correct facts regarding the program operation.

You facts are wrong, and your post appears as nothing but misinformation. If that is intentional gtfo this site.

You have been kicked off this site numerous times, so that is quite an ironic statement.

You simply cannot explain how to deal with the problem of idle students who just go because it is perceived as free, do not complete or complete with worthless degrees, and then cannot pay enough to fund it. The incentives of your system will only explode this problem. You don't see that. Your only argument is insults. This tells us everything we need to know.

It took you 10 pages just to realize you cannot claim your system as free when it costs 1%. My expectations are pretty low that you are going to tune into this one.

Edited April 6, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

hitops you still don't have your facts straight. You seem to be ignoring the fact this is not a "1%" cost for free education. It is far more indepth than that and you are misrepresenting it. Until you correctly represent it I suggest you refrain from posting because you are being obtuse.

[hitops]

hitops you still don't have your facts straight. You seem to be ignoring the fact this is not a "1%" cost for free education. It is far more indepth than that and you are misrepresenting it. Until you correctly represent it I suggest you refrain from posting because you are being obtuse.

In other words, you still can't explain away the fact that the incentives inherent to your system are bad and would make it a money loser.

Edited April 7, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

In other words, you still can't explain away the fact that the incentives inherent to your system are bad and would make it a money loser.

No I don't value my time to repeat information I've already written more than once. I said read the discussion, the facts are in there, you have them wrong. I have no obligation to spend time in dialogue with a troll.

If you want to hire me to explain this to you send a rate and payment method otherwise read it yourself.

[hitops]

No I don't value my time to repeat information I've already written more than once. I said read the discussion, the facts are in there, you have them wrong. I have no obligation to spend time in dialogue with a troll.

If you want to hire me to explain this to you send a rate and payment method otherwise read it yourself.

No you've never explained it once. You cannot explain away the bad incentives. Easier to just avoid it I guess.