shortlived Posted March 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) No, but a quick search of past forum members login and William Ashley will shed some light on this and a great many other "topics". You seem to always suggest these two but leave out Groupei and Sa'Adoni http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/user/5968-groupeii/ http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1 keep working working at that ban I'm sure you'll get it. Charles will often ignore the flame baiting and ban mostly due to points the person posts being both strong and anti-conservative. Its the classic, oh I can't refute his points, lets gang rape him. That is exactly one of the things that has watered down my support of the Harper Government. This topic was about free education though, can we move on from your derail and stimulate intelligent discussion as opposed to your nonsense. Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 This topic was about free education though, Gosh, which is it? Free or pay? Cuz ya have posted numerous times that.... It is free when they get it. If they work they pay Hoo boy....cant keep the free versus pay thing in order Did you know I just got a free car? Yup free ! Woot....but next month I have to give the leasing company some money to keep it free can we move on from your derail and stimulate intelligent discussion . Well , we can , hitops and the rest, but that would excuse you from that discussion., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Its your money, I'm the one getting free education here under the current system. Not at all. This program would never apply to my situation anyway. While I was attending I actually got many thousands of dollars in grants. This program isn't overly advantageous to me, I had free tuition.... Are you a student or not? It's kind of confusing from what you say as to whether or not you are finished your studies. "I'm the one getting free education " is in the present tense and "while I was attending" is in the past tense. Nice that you are getting a "free" education paid for by someone else. You illustrate quite well why free education should not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) No, but a quick search of past forum members login and William Ashley will shed some light on this and a great many other "topics". I'm new here, thanks for the history lesson. I guess there's only so much you can do in the age of IP hiding software. I don't get why he keeps coming back though. At least his current forum name shows a little bit more insight into the likely results of this behavior. What's the best name to remember him by so as to reduce confusion? Are you a student or not? It's kind of confusing from what you say as to whether or not you are finished your studies. "I'm the one getting free education " is in the present tense and "while I was attending" is in the past tense. Nice that you are getting a "free" education paid for by someone else. You illustrate quite well why free education should not exist. It was certainly free. Education might be a very generous word for it. Since he can't seem to decide himself whether he's a student or not, or whether his system is free or not, I strongly doubt he'll be able to explain it to others. Edited March 22, 2013 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) keep working working at that ban I'm sure you'll get it. Charles will often ignore the flame baiting and ban mostly due to points the person posts being both strong and anti-conservative. Oh I have no doubt you know the system very well. Its the classic, oh I can't refute his points, lets gang rape him. Ideas refuted, gets trounced. Nobody wants to listen. Reacts with swearing and such. Now playing the victim......right on schedule. If your past accounts are an indication...at least you're consistent. Edited March 22, 2013 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lwhispers Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Anything that is "free" gets used inefficiently. If you offer people free houses, they'll take 5 just cause they can. If you offer people free hot dogs, they'll take a bunch and eat one or two and throw away the rest. If you offer people free education, they won't properly consider whether there is economic value to what it is studying, value enough to make the cost of it worth it. 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. And meanwhile universities still have costs, so they'll still be charging money. But that money will be charged to the government administering the "free education" program. And the universities can then just raise the rates through the roof, since it won't actually deter any students from going there, since their education is "free". 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. No... education should continue to be paid for by students. Students who qualify based on various criteria already have access to various sources of financial aid, through scholarships, bursaries, and student loans. Everything indicates that Canada's system works quite well, as it has a high proportion of the population attaining post-secondary education. There is no need for drastic change. Don't fix what isn't broken. 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. As to your projected problems for the future, a few points: 1) You are talking about the burdensome costs of social programs. Ok, that's fine. But how does adding one more expensive program help that situation? You don't seem to have thought this through at all. 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. 2) People not retiring is good. For one, people continuing to work means they are not a drain on the above-mentioned social programs. Secondly, older workers with decades of knowledge and experience can be immensely useful to the companies where they've accumulated all this knowledge, and can be great mentors for younger employees. Third, studies have shown that people who continue to work into their later years live longer and have a better quality of life. As for the younger generation, there are huge amounts of unfilled jobs with good pay and benefits, you just need to have the right skills for said jobs. And no, art history and English literature aren't the right degrees. 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. The way to address the cost issue of social programs for older people is to look realistically at the benefits offered. Most importantly, it must be realized that when government pension funds were implemented, the life expectancy was less than the retirement age. That means that less than 50% of people ever got to collect CPP/OAS, or in the US, social security. Today, life expectancy exceeds the retirement age cutoffs by 15+ years, meaning the vast majority of people are collecting from these programs for decades. The situation is clearly not sustainable. The only reasonable solution is to index retirement benefit age to life expectancy. In short, the way to address problems with expensive social programs is by addressing problems with expensive social programs, not by drastically changing unrelated programs (education) that are actually working just fine. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Did you know I just got a free car? Yup free ! Woot....but next month I have to give the leasing company some money to keep it free This alone makes the rest of his argument invalid. Not much more to go on or debate in my view. The last few pages have been kind of interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) This alone makes the rest of his argument invalid. Not much more to go on or debate in my view. The last few pages have been kind of interesting. No but it's free! And you just pay when you work, and nobody pays! And you have to commit to a portion you wage, the system is free! Nobody will get forced to pay, it's just that you pay 1%. Why are you not getting this?!>?!>! I haven't seen such a fun thread in a long time. Edited March 23, 2013 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) Are you a student or not? It's kind of confusing from what you say as to whether or not you are finished your studies. "I'm the one getting free education " is in the present tense and "while I was attending" is in the past tense. Nice that you are getting a "free" education paid for by someone else. You illustrate quite well why free education should not exist. I am not the subject of debate here. I think that to the actual net stalkers out there you should probably stop netstalking William as it is illegal and criminal harassment, and you will eventually get hit for trolling activities like that. I think that the fact you revert to ad hominem attack just shows how full of it you are. You are here to slander and deride the guy not actually debate the issues. You are turds. To the actual net stalkers, those that arn't that isn't intended for you. I think hitops is the brown variety. A few other people on here tend to fixate on the person rather than the communication also. Edited March 23, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) No but it's free! And you just pay when you work, and nobody pays! And you have to commit to a portion you wage, the system is free! Nobody will get forced to pay, it's just that you pay 1%. Why are you not getting this?!>?!>! I haven't seen such a fun thread in a long time. Almost. 1. It is free to use when you take post secondary studies. 2. Your net income is assessed by your tax and/or accounts at 1% for each year you take full times studies, or 0.33% per term or about half that for part time studies or about 0.08% for each credit. This works out to 3.2% for a 4 year degree of 40 credits. 3. You pay regardless of your net income after the initial term, so say you earn $10,000 during your second year of university you would pay $100 into the plan your second year. On your third year if you earned 30,000 you would pay $300. Say you earn 40,000 after graduating 40 credits you would pay $1280/ year. or about 12 years or so to repay your initial tuition costs. After that point however you would contribute to the fund, based on a $4000/year tuition average which would be higher for some and lower for others based on program types. Tuition for a year of university can go about $8000 so a 4 year program may cost upward of $25000, but for others as low as $6000. The government funded portion of the fund would reduce, and eventually it would pay out to the shareholders, be they private or the government, which is assessed on a basis of percentage each year on equal share of total contributions, so if you put 1% of the cost in your get 1% return, in an accumulative sort of way, the total costs are worked at for total percentage of contributions and pay back in. So people who are the first to take the program will be the first to have their money returned as more and more layers are ontop serving the program, as there is a threshold between when their portion is offset by the sheer numbers of participants. Now this is not universal some people who have higher incomes would likely be paying more than they get in return initially, however their contributions act as shares for future payouts so if they in the future have lower incomes their contributions end up being a sort of dividend. So if they are getting short ended when they are rich, they are gaining from their investments when they are poor. Edited March 23, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 Almost. 1. It is free to use when you take post secondary studies. Did you know you can get free furniture too? THE BRICK, THE BRICK, DON"T PAY UNTIL 2016! 2. Your net income is assessed by your tax and/or accounts at 1% for each year you take full times studies, or 0.33% per term or about half that for part time studies or about 0.08% for each credit. This works out to 3.2% for a 4 year degree of 40 credits. Which you pay, and you have no choice. Ergo, the education was no more free than my new fridge. Percentage of your income? Welcome to the definition of a tax. 3. You pay regardless of your net income after the initial term, That would be the mandatory part. so say you earn $10,000 during your second year of university you would pay $100 into the plan your second year. On your third year if you earned 30,000 you would pay $300. Say you earn 40,000 after graduating 40 credits you would pay $1280/ year. or about 12 years or so to repay your initial tuition costs. After that point however you would contribute to the fund, based on a $4000/year tuition average which would be higher for some and lower for others based on program types. Tuition for a year of university can go about $8000 so a 4 year program may cost upward of $25000, but for others as low as $6000. The government funded portion of the fund would reduce, and eventually it would pay out to the shareholders, be they private or the government, which is assessed on a basis of percentage each year on equal share of total contributions, so if you put 1% of the cost in your get 1% return, in an accumulative sort of way, the total costs are worked at for total percentage of contributions and pay back in. So people who are the first to take the program will be the first to have their money returned as more and more layers are ontop serving the program, as there is a threshold between when their portion is offset by the sheer numbers of participants. Now this is not universal some people who have higher incomes would likely be paying more than they get in return initially, however their contributions act as shares for future payouts so if they in the future have lower incomes their contributions end up being a sort of dividend. So if they are getting short ended when they are rich, they are gaining from their investments when they are poor. Student loans revisited, plus an added Ponzi scheme. This posits no benefit whatsoever over our current student loan system. And requires tons more people to be hired to run it. And will encourage nonsense education because its free, resulting in no job, resulting in no pay-back, and the Ponzi scheme falls apart. But we've already been over all of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 And will encourage nonsense education because its free, resulting in no job, resulting in no pay-back, and the Ponzi scheme falls apart. But we've already been over all of that.The idea also creates a huge incentive for skilled people to move to another country. Why would a medical doctor or an engineer stay here and pay the extra tax when they can take up residency in the US and be free of the obligation. University must be paid for by students. This is the only way to ensure accountability. If student loans are provided then universities must justify their tuition increases (The US has made a mistake by providing student loans without imposing conditions on the universities that benefit from those loans). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) The idea also creates a huge incentive for skilled people to move to another country. Why would a medical doctor or an engineer stay here and pay the extra tax when they can take up residency in the US and be free of the obligation. University must be paid for by students. This is the only way to ensure accountability. If student loans are provided then universities must justify their tuition increases (The US has made a mistake by providing student loans without imposing conditions on the universities that benefit from those loans). You wouldn't be free from the obligation, people living in the US still pay taxes in Canada. People who move still have use for their "home country". There are defaults with the current student loans too that is no different. Also having your accredation withheld is another step. Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) Did you know you can get free furniture too? THE BRICK, THE BRICK, DON"T PAY UNTIL 2016! This is a flat rate, the brick doesn't offer you a rate based on your income. this also isn't delayed payment it is based on your personal income. Which you pay, and you have no choice. Ergo, the education was no more free than my new fridge. Percentage of your income? Welcome to the definition of a tax. Its not a tax, it is a service fee. Only those people who take the plan pay. People who don't use the service don't pay for the service, this is why it is different. According to Black's Law Dictionary, a tax is a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name." What is this? This you are offered to participate in a fund, if you participate in the priveleges of that fund you become obligated to make payment to the fund. This is not a default tax, there is no imposition or force to use the service. It is like saying a stamp is a tax, well you know what, the government has no obligation to move messages around for people, it is a service fee just like UPS requiring payment for the service of moving your goods around. What type of tax is it, because it is nothing like any tax I've ever seen. This annuity isn't to support the government it is to support students, there is a clear difference, it is not a tax. That would be the mandatory part. People don't need to take the plan. Student loans revisited, plus an added Ponzi scheme. This posits no benefit whatsoever over our current student loan system. And requires tons more people to be hired to run it. No it is not student loans it is a vast improvement over the student funding situation. Student loans are mirred in bs, redtape and administrative waste, errors, and more paperwork. Also its not a ponzi scheme. 1. It pays for itself 2. It pays for other people 3. It saves the regular tax payer on average $20,000 over their lifetime on current costs 4. It saves student loan borrowers over their lifetime. 5. It makes education free for those who want access to it without administration or applications. And will encourage nonsense education because its free, resulting in no job, resulting in no pay-back, and the Ponzi scheme falls apart. But we've already been over all of that. This is just a stupid assumption. You are making no sense whatsoever. I imagine you just rambling talking out of your hand. It is nonsense. Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 You wouldn't be free from the obligation, people living in the US still pay taxes in Canada.No they don't. Taxes are based on residency. If you are a resident of the US then you owe no taxes to Canada unless you have taxable Canadian investments.People who move still have use for their "home country". There are defaults with the current student loans too that is no different. Also having your accredation withheld is another step.Student loans are a personal debt. They are a liability no matter where you are. That is the way it should be. Your scheme breaks the chain of accountability. It makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) No they don't. Taxes are based on residency. If you are a resident of the US then you owe no taxes to Canada unless you have taxable Canadian investments.Student loans are a personal debt. They are a liability no matter where you are. That is the way it should be. Your scheme breaks the chain of accountability. It makes no sense. No. I don't think it does a contract is still a contract. I think it makes full sense and makes things very clear. Last i checked the CRA stated that Canada has income tax sharing agreements with over 40 countries. and that many wealthy Canadians are skipping paying taxes like they are suppose to. The student loans scheme is bloated, filled with red tape, errors, and other issues. Its also like people havn't defaulted on their loans. I think your point is redundant. Why should people and the government have to keep borrowing from private lenders to pay peoples student loans, it is a liability for the government. A self managing fund removes the need for the government to pay high interest loans to private individuals and companies that are providing the loans. Defaulting on a contract still brings liability, if it is a legal contract. This would be much the same as student loans only based on variable rate income with an infinite term. It would also pay out eventually too, not all just one way. That is part of the difference between a student loan. No hidden conditions on this either unlike the student loans, we can spy on you and mess around with your bank accounts, hidden clauses. They also don't get the tuition money so no room for funny money deals. Or errored payments which can mess around with other programs and funding, and income levels. The money goes direct to the program from the government. We can move on from my program, as it is just my opinion, perhaps you can talk about alternative free education methods. I stand behind my program, the current system is a piece of crap. Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Anyone who is not smart enough to be born to wealthy parents should mortgage themselves to the hilt if they want a decent education.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. 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. Edited March 25, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) This is a flat rate, the brick doesn't offer you a rate based on your income. this also isn't delayed payment it is based on your personal income. There is no functional difference apart from nibbling around the edges. It's a delayed payment. Its not a tax, it is a service fee. Only those people who take the plan pay. People who don't use the service don't pay for the service, this is why it is different. What is this? This you are offered to participate in a fund, if you participate in the priveleges of that fund you become obligated to make payment to the fund. This is not a default tax, there is no imposition or force to use the service. It is like saying a stamp is a tax, well you know what, the government has no obligation to move messages around for people, it is a service fee just like UPS requiring payment for the service of moving your goods around. What type of tax is it, because it is nothing like any tax I've ever seen. This annuity isn't to support the government it is to support students, there is a clear difference, it is not a tax. It is as tax on those who used the free system. Every part of that tax definition is completely applicable to those people. People don't need to take the plan. But if they do, payment is mandatory, just later. No it is not student loans it is a vast improvement over the student funding situation. Student loans are mirred in bs, redtape and administrative waste, errors, and more paperwork. Also its not a ponzi scheme. 1. It pays for itself 2. It pays for other people 3. It saves the regular tax payer on average $20,000 over their lifetime on current costs 4. It saves student loan borrowers over their lifetime. 5. It makes education free for those who want access to it without administration or applications. This is just a stupid assumption. You are making no sense whatsoever. I imagine you just rambling talking out of your hand. It is nonsense. ha You still don't understand how the actual effects and incentives of that system, will change the way people approach education and that change in behavior will make the system nothing but a money hole and waste of time for many more people. You also can't seem to understand even the basics of the costs of administering the system. The idea that it requires no administration defies logic. Someone has to enroll them, keep track of them, and bill them later. That requires a lot of someone's, and a lot of tracking that can only be done through a myriad of other departments, requiring them to increase services as well. It's bizarre you can't see this. Edited March 25, 2013 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) You wouldn't be free from the obligation, people living in the US still pay taxes in Canada. People who move still have use for their "home country". There are defaults with the current student loans too that is no different. Also having your accredation withheld is another step. Nope. For Canadians living in the US, you pay taxes in the state you live. If you work in the US and live in Canada, or live and work only short periods in the US, then you would pay taxes in Canada, but this is an exceptionally small number of people. Edited March 25, 2013 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Nope. For Canadians living in the US, you pay taxes in the state you live. If you work in the US and live in Canada, or live and work only short periods in the US, then you would pay taxes in Canada, but this is an exceptionally small number of people. 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. Edited March 25, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I am not the subject of debate here. I think that to the actual net stalkers out there you should probably stop netstalking William as it is illegal and criminal harassment, and you will eventually get hit for trolling activities like that. I think that the fact you revert to ad hominem attack just shows how full of it you are. You are here to slander and deride the guy not actually debate the issues. You are turds. To the actual net stalkers, those that arn't that isn't intended for you. I think hitops is the brown variety. A few other people on here tend to fixate on the person rather than the communication also. What you say is the subject of debate and it isn't very clear. There was no attack, except from you doing some name-calling in your post. I simply called for some clarification on a couple of your statements which you avoid answering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) What you say is the subject of debate and it isn't very clear. There was no attack, except from you doing some name-calling in your post. I simply called for some clarification on a couple of your statements which you avoid answering. What were your questions? I don't need to divulge personal details to you. Also there has been no name calling by me. Edited March 25, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 No but it's free! And you just pay when you work, and nobody pays! And you have to commit to a portion you wage, the system is free! Nobody will get forced to pay, it's just that you pay 1%. Why are you not getting this?!>?!>! I haven't seen such a fun thread in a long time. If I pay now or pay later , that by definition it is NOT FREE. The rest of the argument does not have anything to stand on based on this premise that it is free, but you pay for it later. I do not think it is me that is not getting it. As your line states "Nobody will get forced to pay, it's just that you pay 1%." How do you reconcile the last part of that statement with the first part? So if I am paying in some fashion, that means it is NOT free. Why are you not getting that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 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. 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. 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.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. 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.Done school? I think I would just take some more "schooling" and then retire, applying for some of those "boomer" socialprograms. 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. It also ensures that their debt does not drag on the growth of the economy.A debt that does not drag on the growth of the economy....hmmm?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.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? This wouldn't be so bad if students weren't carrying debt that they are trying to pay off.They would be carrying debt, wouldn't they? It adds up over the years of "schooling".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.But as you say the economy will not have a drag on it from student debt and will grow to provide spaces.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.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. 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.The massive size of free education will be a stress on the system too. 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. 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. The problem is that everyone wants entitlements, free education is just another one, and the economy is on the verge of collapse. 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.The word "free" should be enough to cause some consternation. 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 Office/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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.