Seniors and Entitlement

Renegade · January 8, 2007

I don't think there are many young couples out there who could subsidize you to that extent.

Let me understand you claim. You are saying that people with kids subsidize people no kids, correct? And the more kids they have the more they are subsidizing non-parents, correct?

I have seen several and they were all publicly funded.

What does that have to do with your claim that foreign aristocrats will send their kids to Canadian schools? Do you think a foreign aristocrat cannot afford a private school in their own country?

Wilber · January 8, 2007

Let me understand you claim. You are saying that people with kids subsidize people no kids, correct? And the more kids they have the more they are subsidizing non-parents, correct?

Under your system yes. Society needs to continually renew its supply of young educated people to function. Because we all benifit from the wealth those children will produce, if all of society does not contribute to their education, the people who are paying will be subsidizing the standard of living of those who do not. What is so hard to understand?

What does that have to do with your claim that foreign aristocrats will send their kids to Canadian schools? Do you think a foreign aristocrat cannot afford a private school in their own country?

Who cares, you are grasping at straws with this one. This is not about foreign aristocrats sending there children to private school, it is about the average Canadian getting an education.

scribblet · January 8, 2007

Havn't read the whole thread so apologies if this is a repeat. Don't forget that OAP is clawed back at a certain income level, so well off seniors don't get it.

Also, the only time workers actually paid a separate tax for OAP was in the 60s, and only for about 3 years, now it comes from general revenues.

Renegade · January 8, 2007

Under your system yes. Society needs to continually renew its supply of young educated people to function. Because we all benifit from the wealth those children will produce, if all of society does not contribute to their education, the people who are paying will be subsidizing the standard of living of those who do not. What is so hard to understand?

OK, I can accept that the broader community does see benefit beyond the individual for education. The question is how much. My question was general, not specific to the scenario I proposed. To what extent are parents or for the individuals themselves responsible for their own education costs? Clearly the individuals themselves will profit from their own education through higher wages, so why shouldn't they or their parents be expected to shoulder part of the cost?

Now I know that the indirectly shoulder part of the cost, through real-estate and income taxes. But those are clearly independant of the amount of education consumed. What I'm suggesting is that the part they shoulder should be tied to what they consume.

Who cares, you are grasping at straws with this one. This is not about foreign aristocrats sending there children to private school, it is about the average Canadian getting an education.

You should care if you want to defend your nonsensical statement that foreign aristocrats come to Canada presumably because we fund public education. Of course it is not about the choices foreign aristocrats make on educating their kids, so I'm unclear on why you made the statement in the first place.

Wilber · January 8, 2007

OK, I can accept that the broader community does see benefit beyond the individual for education. The question is how much. My question was general, not specific to the scenario I proposed. To what extent are parents or for the individuals themselves responsible for their own education costs? Clearly the individuals themselves will profit from their own education through higher wages, so why shouldn't they or their parents be expected to shoulder part of the cost?

They do shoulder part of the cost. They pay taxes that go toward schooling like the rest of us.

I'll try this one more time. You are getting a heck of a deal. Raising children is hard work, time consuming and expensive. Never mind the education bit. You get the benefit of the wealth these children will produce and the services they will provide without having to go through any of that. Our society will not survive without them. All you are asked to do is pony up a little money to see they get a basic education. As I said before, society must continually renew itself to provide the wealth and services it needs to function.

You ask how much. The answer is almost everything. When you go to the store and buy a 2X4, the guy that cut the tree down, the people who made and sold his equipment, the people who ran the mill and those who made their equipment, the truck driver who transported it and those who built and sold his truck, plus the people who worked at the store, all required some sort of education. When you are 80 years old, fall off your scooter and break your hip, you will want an orthopedic surgeon to fix it for you. Where do you think he will come from if people like you don't want to invest in basic education. Every time you do, use or need something that requires the involvement of someone else, you benefit from whatever education they have, right from pre school to a PhD.

It is in your best interest to support a good education system because it would be difficult to even survive let alone live a good life without the benefits it provides for everyone.

Renegade · January 8, 2007

They do shoulder part of the cost. They pay taxes that go toward schooling like the rest of us.

You seem to have missed the rest of my statement. I asked why they should not shoulder the cost directly instead of indirectly through taxes.

I'll try this one more time. You are getting a heck of a deal. Raising children is hard work, time consuming and expensive. Never mind the education bit. You get the benefit of the wealth these children will produce and the services they will provide without having to go through any of that. Our society will not survive without them. All you are asked to do is pony up a little money to see they get a basic education. As I said before, society must continually renew itself to provide the wealth and services it needs to function.

Yes, I realize raising kids is hard work, but it is also rewarding. I am a parent myself so I know firsthand. Parents in general do not have kids in order to maintain a continual workforce for society. They do so, for their own reasons, and the propogation of the next generation is simply a byproduct. While you claim that non-parents don't share in the work and effort in bring up kids, this is true, but the don't share in the intangible rewards either. The net is parents are not having kids because they are martyrs for society, they are doing so because on balance they find the rewards of parenthood outweigh the drawbacks.

You ask how much. The answer is almost everything. When you go to the store and buy a 2X4, the guy that cut the tree down, the people who made and sold his equipment, the people who ran the mill and those who made their equipment, the truck driver who transported it and those who built and sold his truck, plus the people who worked at the store, all required some sort of education. When you are 80 years old, fall off your scooter and break your hip, you will want an orthopedic surgeon to fix it for you. Where do you think he will come from if people like you don't want to invest in basic education. Every time you do, use or need something that requires the involvement of someone else, you benefit from whatever education they have, right from pre school to a PhD.

Yes, I am aware that society needs a workforce. Let's take your orthepedic surgeon example. I don't simply benefit from the orthepedic surgeon treating me. He beneifts too because I pay him. In essence they pay he gets is compensation for the investment he has made in his time and costs including education.

You try and paint a picture where the sole beneficary of education is society. You seem to discount the fact that the receipents of the education benefit as well. They financially reap those benefits in terms of higher pay.

Wilber · January 8, 2007

You seem to have missed the rest of my statement. I asked why they should not shoulder the cost directly instead of indirectly through taxes.

Because we all need to share the cost or it will be unfordable for too many people. I don't know how you do that other than with taxes. Besides, we all benefit from the result. To use the same logic, if you use a particular bridge that I don't, why should my taxes go toward building and maintaining it. Why can't I just say, buy a boat? Can't afford a boat? Can't afford boat payments? Too bad.

I am a parent myself so I know firsthand. Parents in general do not have kids in order to maintain a continual workforce for society.

That's true but society as we know it cannot survive without them.

You try and paint a picture where the sole beneficary of education is society. You seem to discount the fact that the receipents of the education benefit as well. They financially reap those benefits in terms of higher pay.

Not the sole beneficiary but the major one. In fact, the society we have could not exist without it. Education adds to the value each citizen can contribute to the system. A basic education adds value to all citizens and makes them less likely to be dependent on others in the future. Many will go farther at their own expense and deserve whatever added compensation comes from it. Even then, unless it is a privately run institution with no government or philanthropic support, tuition will cover only part of the cost of their education.

Live From China · January 8, 2007

You try and paint a picture where the sole beneficary of education is society. You seem to discount the fact that the receipents of the education benefit as well.

In reality, the recipients are just part of society.

Renegade · January 8, 2007

Because we all need to share the cost or it will be unfordable for too many people. I don't know how you do that other than with taxes. Besides, we all benefit from the result. To use the same logic, if you use a particular bridge that I don't, why should my taxes go toward building and maintaining it. Why can't I just say, buy a boat? Can't afford a boat? Can't afford boat payments? Too bad.

Here's how you do it other than taxes. Let's accept the principle that both the individual and society each benefit from an individual being educated. I think you've already acknowledged that parents or indivdiuals pay at least part of the cost through their taxes. What if instead of paying tax on the value of your house and income, parents instead paid $500/per year per child they enrolled in public school. Is is affordable? For most parents , probably.

Not the sole beneficiary but the major one. In fact, the society we have could not exist without it. Education adds to the value each citizen can contribute to the system. A basic education adds value to all citizens and makes them less likely to be dependent on others in the future. Many will go farther at their own expense and deserve whatever added compensation comes from it. Even then, unless it is a privately run institution with no government or philanthropic support, tuition will cover only part of the cost of their education.

I agree with at least part of this, except that I think the major beneficiary is the individual themselves. The benefit that society recieves is incidental and is reflected in the compensation that individual gets.

Live From China · January 9, 2007

Here is some food for thought for you.

A disabled single mother, who became disabled at work who gets screwed over by WCB, and receives less than $700 a month in disability and social services, is raising two children. Children who should be entitled to post secondary education, but who can forget it - there wont be any money for that.

Yet. this persons mother, who never worked a day in her life, never contributed one cent to taxes, CPP or anything else, is raking in almost $1400 a month with all the different programs. It would never occur to mommy dearest to contribute one cent to her daughter or her grandchildren because she is a senior citizen and deserves her free ride. Where is the justice or the rational in this scenario?

Seniors purchased homes for their families when it cost them about $10,000.00 for a new and nice house. Now they are sitting pretty on property worth anywhere from $500,000.00 to $1 million - The buying power of today's families is very much reduced from that of their parents at the same age.

Kids should support their parents? Not bloody likely when you consider how many parents refuse to help out their kids these days. If your child hits 21 does that mean all your responsibility is finished? But when you hit 65 you are suddenly entitled to financial support from your kids? Hell no.

I know several people who have taken mom or dad to ER and left them there, and I support them their own families should come first. The sandwich generation are raising their own families, trying to put kids through college, working two jobs, paying exorbitant mortgages and the last thing they need is to take on the care of a parent who didnt plan for their own retirement.

Raising children is much harder these days, they still need to be fed, cared for, they still generate laundry etc just like they did in the 1950's and 60's but now there is the presence of the media, and the internet to supervise and control, there are much more pitfalls and dangers out there. Kids are more mobile these days and there is more violence in society. And drugs etc.

Here's another situation a friend told me about .

"One time I was in the drugstore and this old bat pulled up in a $60,000 car, wearing a fur coat, dripping with rings - expensive ones and then bitched her head off that she had to pay a $5 dispensing fee for her FREE medication. The Pharmacist looked at her and said "Mam there is a single parent behind you who is going to pay $200 for her childs prescriptions, please step aside, I have more important things to do then listen to you ."

Wilber · January 9, 2007

Here's how you do it other than taxes. Let's accept the principle that both the individual and society each benefit from an individual being educated. I think you've already acknowledged that parents or indivdiuals pay at least part of the cost through their taxes. What if instead of paying tax on the value of your house and income, parents instead paid $500/per year per child they enrolled in public school. Is is affordable? For most parents , probably.

Is this in lieu of school taxes because as parents perform a function that is essential to the society I live in, I can think of no good reason to penalize them and some good reasons to reward them.

I agree with at least part of this, except that I think the major beneficiary is the individual themselves. The benefit that society recieves is incidental and is reflected in the compensation that individual gets.

I consider the benefit vital to my well being. I have no problem with contributing my full share to education for the rest of my life even though my children left the nest some time ago. I consider it money well spent. The compensation the individual gets is reflected in their value to society.

margrace · January 9, 2007

Back in the early 70's it cost about $800 to educate a child in the public system. What does it cost now? Instead of throwing around a lot of BS Lets get the cost. I tried to find it but am not sure what to look for.

Wilber · January 9, 2007

Back in the early 70's it cost about $800 to educate a child in the public system. What does it cost now? Instead of throwing around a lot of BS Lets get the cost. I tried to find it but am not sure what to look for.

It costs what it costs, the issue is who pays.

Renegade · January 10, 2007

Back in the early 70's it cost about $800 to educate a child in the public system. What does it cost now? Instead of throwing around a lot of BS Lets get the cost. I tried to find it but am not sure what to look for.

The information you seek is here: link

Renegade · January 10, 2007

Is this in lieu of school taxes because as parents perform a function that is essential to the society I live in, I can think of no good reason to penalize them and some good reasons to reward them.

Yes this is in lieu of school taxes based upon property value.

Wilber · January 10, 2007

Is this in lieu of school taxes because as parents perform a function that is essential to the society I live in, I can think of no good reason to penalize them and some good reasons to reward them.

Yes this is in lieu of school taxes based upon property value.

Interesting thought. As long as their school taxes were equal to or more than what it would cost to send their children to school, I don't have a problem with that for those who own their own homes. Would you exempt renters?

Renegade · January 10, 2007

Interesting thought. As long as their school taxes were equal to or more than what it would cost to send their children to school, I don't have a problem with that for those who own their own homes. Would you exempt renters?

I don't think it is reasonable to always assure that a per student charge would be less than school taxes. There will be large families crammed into small houses who pay relatively low school taxes, for them it would undoubtly be more. There are small families in high-value houses which would pay less. In any case the actual amount paid are just details. What I'm proposing is a principle which is reflective of use of the system.

No renters would not be exempt. They pay school taxes too, the only difference is that the taxes are included in their rent. In fact apartment renters are unfairly penalized in the current system, because the taxes on MURBs are much higher than houses.

Wilber · January 10, 2007

Interesting thought. As long as their school taxes were equal to or more than what it would cost to send their children to school, I don't have a problem with that for those who own their own homes. Would you exempt renters?

I don't think it is reasonable to always assure that a per student charge would be less than school taxes. There will be large families crammed into small houses who pay relatively low school taxes, for them it would undoubtly be more. There are small families in high-value houses which would pay less. In any case the actual amount paid are just details. What I'm proposing is a principle which is reflective of use of the system.

No renters would not be exempt. They pay school taxes too, the only difference is that the taxes are included in their rent. In fact apartment renters are unfairly penalized in the current system, because the taxes on MURBs are much higher than houses.

So more affluent parents with the most expensive houses would get the biggest benefit and renters would not only have to pay the property owners school tax through their rent but pay up front for schooling as well.

As we all benefit equally or at least have an equal opportunity to benefit from a pubic education system through our own education or from the services and wealth generated by those who do, perhaps a more appropriate thing would be a head tax for education on everyone, starting at 20 years old or whenever they complete high school, whichever comes first.

Renegade · January 10, 2007

So more affluent parents with the most expensive houses would get the biggest benefit and renters would not only have to pay the property owners school tax through their rent but pay up front for schooling as well.

Yes, parents with big houses would pay less as I've pointed out. Why is that a problem? As I've said there would be no school tax, so renters would not be paying it through their rent, they would pay for schooling up front.

As we all benefit equally or at least have an equal opportunity to benefit from a pubic education system through our own education or from the services and wealth generated by those who do, perhaps a more appropriate thing would be a head tax for education on everyone, starting at 20 years old or whenever they complete high school, whichever comes first.

Can you show that everyone benefits equally? My feeling is that the benefits are unequally distributed and are primarily by those who undertake the education. The reason I prefer and propose an "as-you-go" payment is that it makes parents more accountable for the cost to the system that their kids incur. If the payment was only made 20 years later, there would be no accountability.

Wilber · January 10, 2007

Can you show that everyone benefits equally? My feeling is that the benefits are unequally distributed and are primarily by those who undertake the education. The reason I prefer and propose an "as-you-go" payment is that it makes parents more accountable for the cost to the system that their kids incur. If the payment was only made 20 years later, there would be no accountability.

You still seem to think that some people should reap the benefits that an educated society provides without contributing and it is someone elses responsibility to raise and educate that society for them. When you come up with a taxation system that is 100% fair, you will have my vote for King of the World. Until then, the rest of us will just have to keep looking for the one which is the least unfair.

Renegade · January 10, 2007

You still seem to think that some people should reap the benefits that an educated society provides without contributing and it is someone elses responsibility to raise and educate that society for them. When you come up with a taxation system that is 100% fair, you will have my vote for King of the World. Until then, the rest of us will just have to keep looking for the one which is the least unfair.

Who do you think I'm suggesting shouldn't contribute? You didn't answer the question on what evidence you have that everyone benefits equally. The system I propose is less unfair than the current one which bases education contribution upon house value.

Wilber · January 10, 2007

As I've said there would be no school tax, so renters would not be paying it through their rent, they would pay for schooling up front.

If there is no school tax, who is paying for the education system except for those who are educating the children who will maintain the society that all of us require to survive?

When a person pays for someone else's services, they don't do it because of their education, they do it because their need for what those people can do is greater than the amount they are prepared to pay. The greater their need, the more they are prepared to pay. If no one takes responsibility for educating these people when they are children, we won't find them at any price. Why should everyone benefit and only a few take the responsibility? My need for those educated and skilled people to keep my society functioning is far greater than anything I pay in school taxes.

Renegade · January 10, 2007

If there is no school tax, who is paying for the education system except for those who are educating the children who will maintain the society that all of us require to survive?

If you assume that there is a beneift to both society and the individual educated, and that they should each pay a part of the education cost, why wouldn't society's payment come from general revenues (mostly income taxes) and the individual's from user fees.

When a person pays for someone else's services, they don't do it because of their education, they do it because their need for what those people can do is greater than the amount they are prepared to pay. The greater their need, the more they are prepared to pay.

What you are describing sounds more like a voluntary contribution. I'm afraid it is not so. Most people contribute because either they are unware they are contributing (eg renters) or are forced to do so via taxes. It would be interesting to see how many people would contribute if it were not voluntary.

Wilber · January 10, 2007

Why shouldn't it all come from general revenues? I don't have a problem with that at all. It makes no sense to make raising and educating a child even more expensive than it already is for parents.

What you are describing sounds more like a voluntary contribution. I'm afraid it is not so. Most people contribute because either they are unware they are contributing (eg renters) or are forced to do so via taxes. It would be interesting to see how many people would contribute if it were not voluntary.

I wasn't referring to education, I was referring to life. Funding basic education is far too important to be voluntary.

Renegade · January 11, 2007

Why shouldn't it all come from general revenues? I don't have a problem with that at all. It makes no sense to make raising and educating a child even more expensive than it already is for parents.

For the same reason all of our daily life necessities don't come from general revenues. Why don't we expect government to pay for our food, accomodation, transport, and everything else?