Canada's poor are getting poorer!

[geoffrey]

Though you won't get much help from the GST, someone who doesn't own a car like you did get a break. You get to write off your use of the public transportation system.

I think the public transit tax credit is an excellent idea which will help a lot of people. My bus pass is built into my tuition though, so I'm not sure if I'll get a break or not. Oh well.

I think we should QC, I can't see why not... university students are probably among the most common transit users. We also get to write off our textbooks this year.

[Hicksey]

Though you won't get much help from the GST, someone who doesn't own a car like you did get a break. You get to write off your use of the public transportation system.

I think the public transit tax credit is an excellent idea which will help a lot of people. My bus pass is built into my tuition though, so I'm not sure if I'll get a break or not. Oh well.

I think we should QC, I can't see why not... university students are probably among the most common transit users. We also get to write off our textbooks this year.

To encourage people to get educated we should let them write off all costs related to schooling. Students should be able to write off 100% of their lodging if they have to leave their home town to attend school. These people will ultimately earn more in the long run and pay the government back for the breaks tenfold more than someone who does not attend post secondary education.

[geoffrey]

The write-offs are pretty generous for schooling right now Hicksey, it's like $500 a month plus your tution costs.

[gc1765]

The point of that post was to point out that the tax cuts were targetted. A very wide spectrum of low to middle income homes will benefit. Some more than others, but a lot of people will benefit. I believe it should have been much more tax relief than it was.

It would have been nice to see them keep the tax rate and basic personal exemption they way the liberals wanted AND implement the transit tax credit. Not everyone has a bus pass, but maybe it will encourage more people to take public transit. I also think part of the reason the government implemented the transit credit was because harper was being criticized for not doing anything about the environment...but the benefit to the poor is definately a fortunate side effect. Anyways, I was only trying to argue that income tax cuts would be more beneficial to the poor than GST cuts (not including other tax cuts), which in most cases is simply not true.

I think we should QC, I can't see why not... university students are probably among the most common transit users. We also get to write off our textbooks this year.

I don't know. For one thing, This Website says you need to keep your passes and how much they cost, though the cost of my pass is worked into tuiton. Secondly, tuition is already tax-exempt....but I could be wrong, it would be good news if it is.

[gc1765]

To encourage people to get educated we should let them write off all costs related to schooling. Students should be able to write off 100% of their lodging if they have to leave their home town to attend school. These people will ultimately earn more in the long run and pay the government back for the breaks tenfold more than someone who does not attend post secondary education.

Well that would be great news for students....the only problem is wouldn't that encourage people to go to school far away just so they can get their housing costs paid for? And if you only give it to people who have to leave home for school because it is too far away, what if there is a not-so-good school close by but a better school far away? A more practical solution might be to pay the entire tuition like some countries do (or did?). I think that's pretty generous.

[Melanie_]

[A more practical solution might be to pay the entire tuition like some countries do (or did?). I think that's pretty generous.

A good idea in theory, but not so much in practice. I've had students who were completely funded (by their band, by EI, by various programs to encourage post secondary education), and sometimes there seems to be a lack of commitment to their studies. Not always, there are many students who appreciate the opportunity and make good use of it, but there seems to be a higher drop out rate among those who are fully funded (that is just my own observations, no hard data to back it up). Whether that is due to the "free ride" or due to other personal factors I don't know - perhaps if there were a program for the general population of students my observation would be different.

[Hicksey]

The write-offs are pretty generous for schooling right now Hicksey, it's like $500 a month plus your tution costs.

That doesn't change that an investment in people educating themselves will pay us back huge in extra taxes paid on a higher income and would also likely encourage more people to do so.

I have always characterized the government as an investment counsellor. I beleive that the government should invest in things and people that gets itself the best return to pay for infrastructure, health care and other programs. We have to be much better at seeing the investments that will not only maximize the productivity of our population, but also bring in the work to keep them going.

I've always maintained that rather than letting people sit on welfare for year after year, they should be forced to pick an occuaption and train for it so we can get them back into the workplace. 2 years of tuition and welfare may amount to $50k, but if that changes their status from a $20k/yr money drain to a $6,500 a year money supply for the government, that's a net gain of $26k/yr and it would pay us back in two years and continue to pay us after that.

[jdobbin]

That doesn't change that an investment in people educating themselves will pay us back huge in extra taxes paid on a higher income and would also likely encourage more people to do so.

If they stay in Canada.

[Hicksey]

That doesn't change that an investment in people educating themselves will pay us back huge in extra taxes paid on a higher income and would also likely encourage more people to do so.

If they stay in Canada.

It would be nice if people had a more altruistic view of their professions than the one of what their material worth can be, but that's not in the deck of cards we have to play with.

What we need to do is find ways to attract skilled people to Canada. I do not have that answer. But I am sure someone left here is ingenius enough to come up with that one.

[Renegade]

That doesn't change that an investment in people educating themselves will pay us back huge in extra taxes paid on a higher income and would also likely encourage more people to do so.

I have always characterized the government as an investment counsellor. I beleive that the government should invest in things and people that gets itself the best return to pay for infrastructure, health care and other programs. We have to be much better at seeing the investments that will not only maximize the productivity of our population, but also bring in the work to keep them going.

If your argument is that subsidizing people's education is an investment by the government, then it should be treated as such. Then:

1) Individuals who's education has been subsidized should be on the hook to contribute more in the years when the start earning (perhaps by a higher marginal tax rate) until such time that investment is paid off. It doesn't seem right that those who have not recieved such an investment should have to pay the same amount as those who have.

2) If people want to leave the country they would be requred to repay the investment plus more.

3) The level of educational subsidy should be reflective of the propensity for that education to deliver higher paying employment. So perhaps someone studing to be a lawyer should get a subsidy, and someone studying to be a librarian, none.

IMV, the extent of government involvement in higher education should be to provide enablement in the form of loan guarantees open to appropriately qualified students. Any other subsidy unnaturally distorts what people would choose as a course of study, and the incentive is already there for students to invest in their own higher education via higher wages.

[Hicksey]

That doesn't change that an investment in people educating themselves will pay us back huge in extra taxes paid on a higher income and would also likely encourage more people to do so.

I have always characterized the government as an investment counsellor. I beleive that the government should invest in things and people that gets itself the best return to pay for infrastructure, health care and other programs. We have to be much better at seeing the investments that will not only maximize the productivity of our population, but also bring in the work to keep them going.

If your argument is that subsidizing people's education is an investment by the government, then it should be treated as such. Then:

1) People's who's education has been subsidized should be on the hook to contribute more in the years when the start earning (perhaps by a higher marginal tax rate) until such time that investmetn is paid off. It doesn't seem right that those who have not recieved such an investmetn should have to pay the same amount as those who have.

2) If people want to leave the country they would be requred to repay the investment plus more.

3) The level of educational subsidy should be reflective of the propensity for that education to deliver higher paying employment. So perhaps someone studing to be a lawyer should get a subsidy, and someone studying to be a librarian, none.

IMV, the extent of government involvement in higher education should be to provide enablement in the form of loan guarantees open to appropriately qualified students. Any other subsidy unnaturally distorts what people would choose as a course of study, and the incentive is already there for students to invest in their own higher education via higher wages.

1) The point in doing this is to get people who were content to ride the system back into the work force. Taking back the advantage really serves no purpose. The investment is one made back today so that within 5 years they will be a net income for the government. Taking back what benefit they get takes away the incentive.

2) I agree wholeheartedly that if people want to take their skills outside Canada they should have to pay back our investment with interest. Great idea.

3) I think that people should be funded according to the field they plan to enter also. However, we're not talking about people that already had funding would have already gone to school so we cannot deny funding to people that didn't have any to begin with and require they go to school. The whole point is to take people that are a net cost to society because they are on welfare and make them a net gain through an investment that would get them the skills to get back into the workplace.

[Renegade]

1) The point in doing this is to get people who were content to ride the system back into the work force. Taking back the advantage really serves no purpose. The investment is one made back today so that within 5 years they will be a net income for the government. Taking back what benefit they get takes away the incentive.

It absolutely does serve a purpose. As with any investor the government takes a RISK in the funds it puts up. There are many things which could prevent that indivudual from actually translating that subsidy into earnings (They may never finish the program, the may not find employment, they may lose interest in the occupation, etc). In essence if you truly mean "investment" then what the govenment provides is ENABLEMENT to do something they could otherwise not do. Without the recoupment of the subsidy, it is not an investment at all, it is simply a grant.

3) I think that people should be funded according to the field they plan to enter also. However, we're not talking about people that already had funding would have already gone to school so we cannot deny funding to people that didn't have any to begin with and require they go to school. The whole point is to take people that are a net cost to society because they are on welfare and make them a net cost through an investment that would get them the skills to get back into the workplace.

I'm not sure if we are on the same page. I simply mean that any education subsidy is contingent upon entering a trade or program which have job prospects which result in higher earnings than they would otherwise get. For example if someone already has the skills to be a plumber, why should the government subisidze him to train as a teacher when he is likely to earn more as a plumber? As with any investor, the government should have a say in where those investment funds are used.

[Hicksey]

1) The point in doing this is to get people who were content to ride the system back into the work force. Taking back the advantage really serves no purpose. The investment is one made back today so that within 5 years they will be a net income for the government. Taking back what benefit they get takes away the incentive.

It absolutely does serve a purpose. As with any investor the government takes a RISK in the funds it puts up. There are many things which could prevent that indivudual from actually translating that subsidy into earnings (They may never finish the program, the may not find employment, they may lose interest in the occupation, etc). In essence if you truly mean "investment" then what the govenment provides is ENABLEMENT to do something they could otherwise not do. Without the recoupment of the subsidy, it is not an investment at all, it is simply a grant.

Maybe grant status could be hinged on completion? and 1 year of gainful employment?

3) I think that people should be funded according to the field they plan to enter also. However, we're not talking about people that already had funding would have already gone to school so we cannot deny funding to people that didn't have any to begin with and require they go to school. The whole point is to take people that are a net cost to society because they are on welfare and make them a net gain through an investment that would get them the skills to get back into the workplace.

I'm not sure if we are on the same page. I simply mean that any education subsidy is contingent upon entering a trade or program which have job prospects which result in higher earnings than they would otherwise get. For example if someone already has the skills to be a plumber, why should the government subisidze him to train as a teacher when he is likely to earn more as a plumber? As with any investor, the government should have a say in where those investment funds are used.

Obviously, that should be the case. However, I was talking about using this for people on the take from our social programs. If we were going to extend it to the general population we have to give priority to people that have no education or trade. If a plumber wants to get ahead he would have to stand in line. The point of such a program is to make people who are a net cost to society a net gain first and foremost. After that, allowing people already trained to move into emerging employment sectors could also be effective but should be considered a secondary objective.

[jbg]

2) I agree wholeheartedly that if people want to take their skills outside Canada they should have to pay back our investment with interest. Great idea.

That's why the USSR didn't let people leave. I suppose an alternative would be som e kind of student loan which would be forgiven upon staying a given amount of time. Otherwise, the loan would follow them south.

[Hicksey]

2) I agree wholeheartedly that if people want to take their skills outside Canada they should have to pay back our investment with interest. Great idea.

That's why the USSR didn't let people leave. I suppose an alternative would be som e kind of student loan which would be forgiven upon staying a given amount of time. Otherwise, the loan would follow them south.

My thought was that if they leave within 8 years they would be responsible for the whole amount of their schooling with interest.

[jdobbin]

That's why the USSR didn't let people leave. I suppose an alternative would be som e kind of student loan which would be forgiven upon staying a given amount of time. Otherwise, the loan would follow them south.

Unfortunately, a lot of doctors who head south promptly renege on their student loans in Canada. I have no idea what the stats are at the moment though. Some states in the U.S. are not very helpful to creditors in Canada who try to garnish wages for non-payment of student loans.

They are trying to come up with incentives to keep doctors in Canada through loan forgiveness for years of service and residency and research opportunities. They also try to encourage worthwhile applications from people who show intent to make their practice in rural places.

Still, there are unscrupulous individuals who intend to leave and figure that no one can get them for student loan payments once they are in the U.S. Do you want that person for your doctor?

[jdobbin]

My thought was that if they leave within 8 years they would be responsible for the whole amount of their schooling with interest.

Some of the people who leave promptly renege on their student loans.

[Renegade]

That's why the USSR didn't let people leave. I suppose an alternative would be som e kind of student loan which would be forgiven upon staying a given amount of time. Otherwise, the loan would follow them south.

Unfortunately, a lot of doctors who head south promptly renege on their student loans in Canada. I have no idea what the stats are at the moment though. Some states in the U.S. are not very helpful to creditors in Canada who try to garnish wages for non-payment of student loans.

They are trying to come up with incentives to keep doctors in Canada through loan forgiveness for years of service and residency and research opportunities. They also try to encourage worthwhile applications from people who show intent to make their practice in rural places.

Still, there are unscrupulous individuals who intend to leave and figure that no one can get them for student loan payments once they are in the U.S. Do you want that person for your doctor?

The problem is not that mechanisms don't exist to recoup those loans, it is the lack of will on the part of government to go after and collect. There is no issue if people leave but still assume responsibility for their loan. If the govenment was as diligent in chasing deadbeat students as it does its own taxpayers, this would not be an issue at all.

[jdobbin]

The problem is not that mechanisms don't exist to recoup those loans, it is the lack of will on the part of government to go after and collect. There is no issue if people leave but still assume responsibility for their loan. If the govenment was as diligent in chasing deadbeat students as it does its own taxpayers, this would not be an issue at all.

It requires the cooperation of numerous governments. Some governments just don't care. And that doesn't jyst happen in a Canada to U.S. reationship but in a province to province one as well. There have been some improvements but any creditor will tell you that chasing down student loans is no easy task even from people who remain in the jurisdiction. Gary Doer didn't pay his student loan until called on it while he was in office.

[Hicksey]

My thought was that if they leave within 8 years they would be responsible for the whole amount of their schooling with interest.

Some of the people who leave promptly renege on their student loans.

Then we should put out a warrant for their arrest upon their return, and arrest them on bail equal to full payment of their loan. If they're thumbing their noses at the hand up we have given them I don't care if they have to put up their homes to pay.

[Renegade]

It requires the cooperation of numerous governments. Some governments just don't care. And that doesn't jyst happen in a Canada to U.S. reationship but in a province to province one as well. There have been some improvements but any creditor will tell you that chasing down student loans is no easy task even from people who remain in the jurisdiction. Gary Doer didn't pay his student loan until called on it while he was in office.

Yes, I agree much can be done to improve loan collection among juristictions. This is not specific just to student loans, but applies to everything from traffic tickets to unpaid credit card bills. It serves the interest of all governments not to let individuals escape debts by moving to a different juristicition.

[jbg]

Unfortunately, a lot of doctors who head south promptly renege on their student loans in Canada. I have no idea what the stats are at the moment though. Some states in the U.S. are not very helpful to creditors in Canada who try to garnish wages for non-payment of student loans.

Most states will recognize and allow the "domestication" of Canadian judgments. Judgment enforcement devices, whether in Canada and in most American states, tend to be rather toothless.

Trust me on that.

[jdobbin]

Most states will recognize and allow the "domestication" of Canadian judgments. Judgment enforcement devices, whether in Canada and in most American states, tend to be rather toothless.

Trust me on that.

It is definitely frustrating when someone is subsidized through school or loaned money and then have that person take a powder to another jurisdiction while reneging on their responsibilities.

If there is one thing Harper could do it is to ensure the enforcement of payment of loans by students is carried out wherever they are. One way to do that is to track where these students go by making them file tax returns if they retain Canadian citizenship just like the U.S. does for its own citizens.

[Riverwind]

It is definitely frustrating when someone is subsidized through school or loaned money and then have that person take a powder to another jurisdiction while reneging on their responsibilities.

Canada is also benefits from educated people immigrating here.

[jdobbin]

Canada is also benefits from educated people immigrating here.

If they have reneged on paying their student loans in their home countries, I'd hope that Canada would help those countries collect those loans. Wouldn't you?