Seniors and Entitlement

[Renegade]

Basic pension roughly $170/week and is payable to everyone at age 65. varies with marital status etc but not by much.....

The basic pension in Canada is $105 a week. Are you in dollars or pounds. If it is dollars than you can get a lot more over there. If you arei in pounds then it would be The equivilant of $387 a week.

jester, I believe that to be eligible for a UK pension you must have to have contributed to NI, similar to our CPP system, correct?

margrace, you have earlier stated that the basic amount paid is around $12000 (OAS + GIS). So the minimium amount a senior would be getting in Canada would be $230/week

How much is it worth?

The full weekly rates are (year to April 2006):

Single person: £84.25

Couple: £134.75

Will I get the full basic state pension?

Not necessarily.

What you get will depend on your National Insurance (NI) contributions - and the rules are stringent.

Q&A: Basic state pension

[Wilber]

Let's put my responses in context. I said, and believe that parents have an obligation to educate their kids. If the state didn't provide an education to my kids, I as parent would still have that obligation. The obligation I speak of is a moral one and one I signed up for as a parent. That is why I stated "My obligation is to to pay for my kids in the same way. If I have no kids, I have no such obligation".

You asked me what I would do with my kids if I had any. So I said "If I'm here I may send them to public or private shool depending upon what is available."

Now does any of this state that I wouldn't fund the education of other kids who couldn't afford it? Not as far as I can see, and I fail to see how you can read it that way.

Is this all you have to prove your aligation that I "believe all education should be private an only those who's parents can afford it, should have access to it." ?

Well so far you have told me you have no obligation other than to your own kids so you will have to explain how education would be financed for those who can't afford it. Would you send them all to private school?

[Renegade]

Well so far you have told me you have no obligation other than to your own kids so you will have to explain how education would be financed for those who can't afford it. Would you send them all to private school?

Possibly. In my view, parents would have to pay for the education of their kids whether sent to private or public instituions. Kids who couldn't afford it, would be granted loans, which would be repayed on employment.

[Riverwind]

Possibly. In my view, parents would have to pay for the education of their kids whether sent to private or public instituions. Kids who couldn't afford it, would be granted loans, which would be repayed on employment.

Why should society even do that? Somebody has to provide the capital upfront and deal with the losses if the person dies young and is never able to repay. Since you seem to be so convinced thatit is wrong to demand that people that make money from society contribute back to society then it seems that the fairiest system would just let poor rot without access to school. It is, after all, their fault that they are poor.

[Renegade]

Possibly. In my view, parents would have to pay for the education of their kids whether sent to private or public instituions. Kids who couldn't afford it, would be granted loans, which would be repayed on employment.

Why should society even do that? Somebody has to provide the capital upfront and deal with the losses if the person dies young and is never able to repay. Since you seem to be so convinced thatit is wrong to demand that people that make money from society contribute back to society then it seems that the fairiest system would just let poor rot without access to school. It is, after all, their fault that they are poor.

Because it is an investment in their ability which may pay a return down the road similar to venture capital. It may be that some of them are unable to repay, however IMV it will be more than repaid by those who can and do succeed.

BTW, I don't believe that it is wrong that people who make money from society contribute back to it. I just believe that the contribution back to society should be reflective of what society contributed to them.

[Riverwind]

Because it is an investment in their ability which may pay a return down the road similar to venture capital. It may be that some of them are unable to repay, however IMV it will be more than repaid by those who can and do succeed.

It is thinly disguised from of slavery. The cost of educating a child from K-12 is at least 15-20K/year (based on private school tuition). This means each child would graduate with a debt more than $200 - assuming interest did not accumulate. Most people would never be able to pay off that debt and would declare bankruptcy as soon as possible. If that was not permitted you would find that most people would not go to school at all.

BTW, I don't believe that it is wrong that people who make money from society contribute back to it. I just believe that the contribution back to society should be reflective of what society contributed to them.

Rich is a relative term and all rich people depend on a society full of poor people that is willing to let them use their wealth to purchase the things that they need. This implies that a social contract exists between the rich and the poor that is impossible to quantify. Many societies have tried to find different ways to balance the obligation between the rich and the rest of society. Some societies have simply created physicals walls where the rich live apart form the poor. This is an unstable system because the poor will eventually tear down those walls. In our society we have a social contract that requires the rich to fund services that the poor receive and, in return, the wealth of the rich is protected by society.

IOW - the rich owe a lot more to society than what they receive directly in services.

[Renegade]

It is thinly disguised from of slavery. The cost of educating a child from K-12 is at least 15-20K/year (based on private school tuition). This means each child would graduate with a debt more than $200 - assuming interest did not accumulate. Most people would never be able to pay off that debt and would declare bankruptcy as soon as possible. If that was not permitted you would find that most people would not go to school at all.

It is unrealistic to use a 15K-20K/year private school tution as the basis of your computation. More likely a figure like 3K/year should be used as it is the cost used in the public system. I don't see a $35K debt as a form of slavery, and if an individual doesn't see $35K is worth the education, why should society bother to provide it?

Rich is a relative term and all rich people depend on a society full of poor people that is willing to let them use their wealth to purchase the things that they need. This implies that a social contract exists between the rich and the poor that is impossible to quantify. Many societies have tried to find different ways to balance the obligation between the rich and the rest of society. Some societies have simply created physicals walls where the rich live apart form the poor. This is an unstable system because the poor will eventually tear down those walls. In our society we have a social contract that requires the rich to fund services that the poor receive and, in return, the wealth of the rich is protected by society.

IOW - the rich owe a lot more to society than what they receive directly in services.

RW, I appreciate your perspective. It does give food for thought.

The issue lies in quantifing that obligation the rich have. You have yourself said that it is impossible to quantify, yet quantify we must because that is what we require the rich to pay.

The problem with your "social contract" concept is that it is very vague and subject to change. What are the rich and poor agreeing to specificly? What if it changes and someone no longer agrees? I don't think it has be adequately discussed, in order to assume such a contract exist.

[Wilber]

Well so far you have told me you have no obligation other than to your own kids so you will have to explain how education would be financed for those who can't afford it. Would you send them all to private school?

Possibly. In my view, parents would have to pay for the education of their kids whether sent to private or public instituions. Kids who couldn't afford it, would be granted loans, which would be repayed on employment.

How do you grant a six year old a loan and when are you going to pay back yours? Who is going to build and maintain this mythical public institution for you and those like you, to rent for the time you feel you need it?

[Riverwind]

The problem with your "social contract" concept is that it is very vague and subject to change. What are the rich and poor agreeing to specificly? What if it changes and someone no longer agrees? I don't think it has be adequately discussed, in order to assume such a contract exist.

The contract exists and that cannot be denied. It is part of the complicated set of social norms that we all grow up with. It starts when parents tell children to share what they have with their siblings for no reason other than because it is 'good to share'. Parents teach these values because they unconsciously know that a household where the siblings do not share with each other will be a pretty miserable place.

More importantly, the contract works. All societies which protect the wealth of rich in return for unspecified contributions to society have the highest quality of life and collective wealth. Societies which allow the wealthy to keep everything in the name of 'fairness' or societies that try to take everything from the wealthy in the name of 'equality' are much worse off.

The political process is the place for negotiating and renegotiating the terms of the contract. I do not see any problem with this. Society changes over time so the terms of the contract should change. Furthermore, social contracts are based on consensus - not unanimity so there will always be individuals who disagree with the details at any given time. This is an unavoidable consequence of living in a mass society.

I see free education as a key element of this social contract since education is the key to wealth. When the wealthy contribute to the education of the poor they are giving the poor the opportunity to become wealthy if they have the abilities. These means the poor will see themselves as people who could become wealthy in the future which means they have an interest in protecting the rights of the wealthy. A society where the poor believe that they have no opportunity to better themselves is an unstable society because the poor will eventually figure out that they have numbers on their side on that the rich need them more than the poor need the rich.

[Catchme]

It is unrealistic to use a 15K-20K/year private school tution as the basis of your computation. More likely a figure like 3K/year should be used as it is the cost used in the public system. I don't see a $35K debt as a form of slavery, and if an individual doesn't see $35K is worth the education, why should society bother to provide it?

Where do you get your information that 3k per student is what is used by the public school system? I find that very hard to believe.

Also, you do not take into consideration the direct costs parents pay for their children to go to scool, that is actually on top of what is paid for by taxation of those same parents.

Plus, I thought that private schools do get a certain amount of public monies on top of privately paid tuition.

IOW - the rich owe a lot more to society than what they receive directly in services.

Yes, funnily enough they do not see that though, weird eh?!

renegade says: The problem with your "social contract" concept is that it is very vague and subject to change. What are the rich and poor agreeing to specificly? What if it changes and someone no longer agrees? I don't think it has be adequately discussed, in order to assume such a contract exist.

The contract exhists because it is in effect and working all around you, there is no assumption. If the rich think to change the rules, I am sure they would have more than a few surprises in store.

[Renegade]

How do you grant a six year old a loan and when are you going to pay back yours?

You grant a six year old a loan the same way you grant a 18 yo a loan. You simply track how much was owed.

I've already paid mine back.

Who is going to build and maintain this mythical public institution for you and those like you, to rent for the time you feel you need it?

What public instution are you referring to? The education system? For the most part it is built. All we are doing is discussing how the cost can be recovered.

Now that I've answered your questions, maybe you can point out where I said that welfare should be eliminated, or have you ignored the fact that you made that accusation and was challenged on it?

[Renegade]

I see free education as a key element of this social contract since education is the key to wealth. When the wealthy contribute to the education of the poor they are giving the poor the opportunity to become wealthy if they have the abilities. These means the poor will see themselves as people who could become wealthy in the future which means they have an interest in protecting the rights of the wealthy. A society where the poor believe that they have no opportunity to better themselves is an unstable society because the poor will eventually figure out that they have numbers on their side on that the rich need them more than the poor need the rich.

I see this as pretty reasonalble justification for funding public education.

I still have issue with your model of a social contract however. You state that the rich owe the poor a set of benefits, because the poor let them keep their wealth. That smacks of extortion. Do the poor owe the rich anything because the rich don't use their wealth to sell the poor into salvery?

In essence what you call a social contract , I see as a balance of power. Our society exist because it is more efficient to have a set of rules where everyone can coexist than to have one group opress the other.

The rich are willing to give up some wealth to the poor because it cost less to them than it would if they had to use the wealth to opress the poor. The poor are willing to accept the wealth they are given because if they revolted, they may get no wealth at all. The rich minimize what the wealth they transfer to the poor, and the poor do the reverse.

Should education be one of those basic services provided by the rich to the poor? Maybe, I'm not sure one way or another. But assuming it is, why would it not be provided in the same way welfare is. Only the low income tier get it for free, the middle class and rich should pay for it.

[Renegade]

Where do you get your information that 3k per student is what is used by the public school system? I find that very hard to believe.

Actually I'm going by memory on something I read a while ago. I could be wrong. I agree that 3K seems pretty low.

Also, you do not take into consideration the direct costs parents pay for their children to go to scool, that is actually on top of what is paid for by taxation of those same parents.

True, but some of these cost they would incur anyway even in a publicly funded system.

If the rich think to change the rules, I am sure they would have more than a few surprises in store.

Both the rich and poor change the rules all the time. Eveytime the government passes a budget or legislation which affects taxes or services the rules are changed. It is misleading to imply that only the rich change the rules, or that it doesn't happen.

[jester]

Basic pension roughly $170/week and is payable to everyone at age 65. varies with marital status etc but not by much.....

The basic pension in Canada is $105 a week. Are you in dollars or pounds. If it is dollars than you can get a lot more over there. If you arei in pounds then it would be The equivilant of $387 a week.

jester, I believe that to be eligible for a UK pension you must have to have contributed to NI, similar to our CPP system, correct?

margrace, you have earlier stated that the basic amount paid is around $12000 (OAS + GIS). So the minimium amount a senior would be getting in Canada would be $230/week

How much is it worth?

The full weekly rates are (year to April 2006):

Single person: £84.25

Couple: £134.75

Will I get the full basic state pension?

Not necessarily.

What you get will depend on your National Insurance (NI) contributions - and the rules are stringent.

Q&A: Basic state pension

There is also the fact that things in the UK are more expensive than in Canada. As a rough guide what you would pay in Dollars is more often than not the price but in pounds.

[Riverwind]

In essence what you call a social contract , I see as a balance of power. Our society exist because it is more efficient to have a set of rules where everyone can coexist than to have one group opress the other.

That is another way to describe what is going on. I prefer the term social contract because it implies individuals are bound by something even if they, as individuals, could get away with activities that undermine the balance of power. For example, I feel an individual has an obligation to pay their share of taxes even if they could theoretically break the rules and hide their income.

Should education be one of those basic services provided by the rich to the poor? Maybe, I'm not sure one way or another. But assuming it is, why would it not be provided in the same way welfare is. Only the low income tier get it for free, the middle class and rich should pay for it.

Income tested social programs are almost always a bad idea because they give people an incentive to keep their income low to avoid losing benefits. I don't like the welfare system for this reason - i would rather see a variant of a guaranteed annual income that ensures people are never punished for working harder.

[Wilber]

Now that I've answered your questions, maybe you can point out where I said that welfare should be eliminated, or have you ignored the fact that you made that accusation and was challenged on it?

Fine, lets make everything user pay and what isn't profitable, won't exist. Your only responsibility is to yourself. Your idea of paradise but not mine.

Now you are finally on to a good idea.

Sorry if I made the wrong interpretation but I still haven't figured out the correct one.

What public instution are you referring to? The education system? For the most part it is built. All we are doing is discussing how the cost can be recovered.

Yes, with someone else's money because you didn't contribute to it and say you have no obligation to do so in the future unless it is for your own blood.

Let's look at your model. Because you do not want any of your taxes going to education someone will have to invest in building a school system and recoup that investment. I assume that means you as well if you contribute to building the system. What would be the difference between a public and private system under those conditions.

That is where your sense of entitlement comes from. Society gave you what you needed, now that you have yours, you want the option of opting out on your responsibility to future generations.

Because the cost will be spread between far fewer people, it will cost parents far more than the present system to educate a child. Ergo, lower birth rates and an aging population. Also with fewer students being educated, fewer schools will be required so many will either have to drive their kids long distances or pony up for other transportation.

Problem, how do we renew our population with skilled, educated young people? We could take more immigrants but what intelligent, well educated young person who has received a good public education is going to move to a country where the middle class (if there still is one) has to go into hock to give their kids any kind of education at all? Seems to me that many young Canadians might be looking in the other direction. After all, isn't our education system one of the big things that attract people to this country?

One more thing. If your parents were unable to afford to educate you, or were unable or unwilling to go into debt to do so, you wouldn't exist.

[Renegade]

Let's look at your model. Because you do not want any of your taxes going to education someone will have to invest in building a school system and recoup that investment. I assume that means you as well if you contribute to building the system. What would be the difference between a public and private system under those conditions.

That is where your sense of entitlement comes from. Society gave you what you needed, now that you have yours, you want the option of opting out on your responsibility to future generations.

Because the cost will be spread between far fewer people, it will cost parents far more than the present system to educate a child. Ergo, lower birth rates and an aging population. Also with fewer students being educated, fewer schools will be required so many will either have to drive their kids long distances or pony up for other transportation.

Problem, how do we renew our population with skilled, educated young people? We could take more immigrants but what intelligent, well educated young person who has received a good public education is going to move to a country where the middle class (if there still is one) has to go into hock to give their kids any kind of education at all? Seems to me that many young Canadians might be looking in the other direction. After all, isn't our education system one of the big things that attract people to this country?

Rather than more mire in the muck of misunderstandings (look at that alliteration!), let me try and explain how I see things.

1. I think parents that can afford to, should pay for their kids education. I don't mean via taxes, I mean pay for it just like they do any private service. That is their parental obligation. It is part and parcel of the overall cost of having kids and they shoudl consider that cost when they decide how many kids to have. I think the vast majortiy of parents should fall into this category.

2. I think even kids who's parents did not plan for the cost of education and can't afford it, should be provided the opportunity to get educated. I woudl propose a loan system, but I can be convinced it should be partially or fully subsidized grant instead. The funding for these grants woudl come from general tax revenues.

3. For general "insurance" programs such as welfare. I'm fine with them being funded out of general tax revenues, so long as the the amount recieved is low enough that it still gives people incentive to work instead of recieve welfare.

RW's reasoning for why the richer shoudl subsidize the poorer make a lot more sense to me then your concept of "deferred benefit". Your stated justification for supporting these general benefit programs, is because each one of us got something or is going to get something. I have pointed out numerous examples of people either not having got anything from the system or not going to get anything from the system. This is where your logic fails, and you are forced to scramble to justify why in those cases there still should be contribution to the system RW's justification doesn't depend upon what benefit was recieved or is going to be recieved. I have a somewhat different view of RW's social contract as I explained to him above, but I understand his logic.

One more thing. If your parents were unable to afford to educate you, or were unable or unwilling to go into debt to do so, you wouldn't exist.

Probably true. And I'm ok with that. There are a great many things that if my parents had either done different or not at all would either cause me not to exist or to have a different existance. There is no way to tell if that existance would have been better or worse than the current one.

[Renegade]

For example, I feel an individual has an obligation to pay their share of taxes even if they could theoretically break the rules and hide their income.

Do you mean that an individual who legallly takes full advantage of the system and maxmizes the amount of income he shelters from tax is shirking his obligation to society?

[Riverwind]

Do you mean that an individual who legallly takes full advantage of the system and maxmizes the amount of income he shelters from tax is shirking his obligation to society?

Tax avoidance is fine. Tax evasion is not.

[Wilber]

1. I think parents that can afford to, should pay for their kids education. I don't mean via taxes, I mean pay for it just like they do any private service. That is their parental obligation. It is part and parcel of the overall cost of having kids and they shoudl consider that cost when they decide how many kids to have. I think the vast majortiy of parents should fall into this category.

I don't know how you can say that when you have no idea what it costs to educate a child for a year. You say that one should not use private school rates but a system that is totally user funded amounts to a private school.

No matter, you and I have fundamentally different philosophies. I have enjoyed all the benefits of growing up and living in a first world country. One thing common to all first world countries is a good public school system that is equally assessable to all. They don't exist without one. I have benefited from such a society all my life and my obligation to that society exists as long as I enjoy those benefits. It didn't end when I got mine.

Of course there are lots of countries where only people who can afford to pay are educated, or have less than marginal public systems but the great majority are third world s---holes run by autocrats who had to come to a country like Canada to get a decent education, if they have one at all. That should tell you something.

[gc1765]

Does anyone here get the impression that "seniors" have a tremendous sense of entitlement?

If you don't like the fact that seniors have some sort of "entitlement", think of it this way....if it wasn't for our ancestors, and the progress they made, we would all be living in caves and hunting for our dinner. If it wasn't for the progress that seniors made, we would likewise have a much lower standard of living...actually we wouldn't even be alive. We owe our prosperous way of life to those who came before us.

[margrace]

Old age pension, in 1927 the first Old Age Pension was passed. It was available to British subjects 70 and over and there was a means test. In the 1930's this became very hard to maintain, Children must first prove that they could not support their parents and after receiving the old age pension it could be withdrawn , presumebly because they now were over the means test rules. Claims could be made against the estates of people who had died.

After the 2nd world war the constitution was amended to bring in the Old Age Security Act. This had to be universal or people such as my parents and your grandparents wouldn't have agreed with it. This did away with the means test, but until 1967 it remained 70 years.

So this would have helped my grandparents but they were already dead. My mother and my dead husbands father did get old age pension in 1965 and my father in law in 1960. My father and mother in law were already dead. No one in my immediate family got the pension until I reached 65 when I did.

So if you want to make this a means test again it is up to you but remember that you benefited from it.

Oh by the way, the person who was talking about perks we got but seniors in Britian did not. Unless it was changed recently, seniors in Great Britian could travel free on any public tranportation as well as the privitized ones as far as I know.

[jester]

Old age pension, in 1927 the first Old Age Pension was passed. It was available to British subjects 70 and over and there was a means test. In the 1930's this became very hard to maintain, Children must first prove that they could not support their parents and after receiving the old age pension it could be withdrawn , presumebly because they now were over the means test rules. Claims could be made against the estates of people who had died.

After the 2nd world war the constitution was amended to bring in the Old Age Security Act. This had to be universal or people such as my parents and your grandparents wouldn't have agreed with it. This did away with the means test, but until 1967 it remained 70 years.

So this would have helped my grandparents but they were already dead. My mother and my dead husbands father did get old age pension in 1965 and my father in law in 1960. My father and mother in law were already dead. No one in my immediate family got the pension until I reached 65 when I did.

So if you want to make this a means test again it is up to you but remember that you benefited from it.

Oh by the way, the person who was talking about perks we got but seniors in Britian did not. Unless it was changed recently, seniors in Great Britian could travel free on any public tranportation as well as the privitized ones as far as I know.

Local buses only I'm afraid. At 65 you get your bus pass though you can buy a senior pass for the railways. Of course other people can buy different passes so the benefit isn't all one way...

[Renegade]

I don't know how you can say that when you have no idea what it costs to educate a child for a year. You say that one should not use private school rates but a system that is totally user funded amounts to a private school.

I do know exactly how much on average it cost to educate a child. 7-8K/year. I admit the figure I earlier quoted to RW was not correct. The reason I say you cannot use private school rates, is that the costs for private shcools are made by a composition of costs which what public schools don't incur. Private schools include in their cost profit, higher wages for presumably more qualified teachers, lower student ratios, better facilities, etc. If you consider private shools and public schools as differnt "products", I am not advocating offering a differnt product, I am simply suggesting a different way to pay for the same product, so the rates for the same product, (ie public schools) are the ones used.

The reason I'm confident that most people can afford it, is because they already afford it now. People contribute toward public education today, for most of their adult lives. If you sum up the cost contributed through real estate and income tax through a person's lifetime, and compared it to the cost of providing that public eduation, for most peopel the gap would minor.

If your issue is a cash flow one (ie most parents couldn't afford the upfront cash to pay). I'm perfectly fine with financing solutions which spread that burden over as many years as necessary. What I am suggesting is that the parents are the primary ones who carry the obligation for educating their children and should be the prinary ones having responsiblity to pay for it.

No matter, you and I have fundamentally different philosophies.

I agree. It was clear from the start. I didn't set out to reconcile with your philosophical views. I set out to address your statement about the program being a "deferred benefit" or "deferred payment' program which implied what you put in was what you got out but at a different time. I have shown that in many cases this is not true.

autocrats who had to come to a country like Canada to get a decent education, if they have one at all. That should tell you something.

Have you actually seen or experienced education in some other (non-western) countries? I doubt it or you would not make such as statemetn. You can get a fantastic elementry school education, far better than what is available in most private schools in Canada. It is virtually unherd of for the elite there to send their kids overseas for elementary education.

With university education it is a dfferent story. Univeristy education in western countries is far superior to those offered elsewhere. Most elite will send their kids overseas to complete university. Most of time the kids are sent to the US, instead of Canada, because the education is expected to be better. So the only times those "autocrats" are coming to Canada and other western nations, is AFTER the time general public education is freely avaiable, and at the time when parents actually have to contribute to their kids education.

[Wilber]

I do know exactly how much on average it cost to educate a child. 7-8K/year.

I think you overestimate the profit component of private schools but let's use your 8K number. For the country to avoid negative population growth, every person who was born in this country must be replaced by another born and educated here, otherwise the society will die unless we import educated people from other countries. Under your system that means 96K in after tax dollars to give each child the 12 year education that society now provides. If you and your partner decide to have no children, some other couple must have four or we must find two well educated immigrants. You will have to find people in Canada or elsewhere who are willing and able to put out 384K in after tax dollars to educate children so that you and your partner can enjoy the society they maintain, without contributing yourself. I live in a city that is about 90km from Vancouver where the average house price is pushing 400K. I don't think there are many young couples out there who could subsidize you to that extent.

Perhaps you should do away with yourself now because someone who is willing needs your job and the rest of society needs their contribution.

I agree. It was clear from the start. I didn't set out to reconcile with your philosophical views. I set out to address your statement about the program being a "deferred benefit" or "deferred payment' program which implied what you put in was what you got out but at a different time. I have shown that in many cases this is not true.

It is true, you are the one who got the education, you are the one who benefited from it, you are the one who owes. Education is a provincial jurisdiction, paid for by provincial and municipal taxpayers. Why leave the country? Just move to the next province and make the same claim. I don't think you will get much sympathy.

Have you actually seen or experienced education in some other (non-western) countries? I doubt it or you would not make such as statemetn. You can get a fantastic elementry school education, far better than what is available in most private schools in Canada. It is virtually unherd of for the elite there to send their kids overseas for elementary education.

I have seen several and they were all publicly funded.

Society (including your parents) took responsibility to see that you were educated, so that you could enjoy the benefits and share the obligations of maintaining the society which has given you so much. They did so because they had the wisdom to know there is nothing more beneficial a society can do for itself than invest in a well educated and healthy population. It's ironic that on a thread titled "Seniors and Entitlement" someone approaching geezerdom is telling you that they have a continuing obligation to the education of our children for as long as they live, not from a sense of charity but because they know it is in their own best interest.

You are the one who received the education, you are the one who benefits, you are the one who has an obligation to the children of today and tomorrow.