Concerning School taxes

Topaz · September 7, 2007

So Tory wants to include all schools be covered by the government. I say, ok, BUT, I don't have kids or grandkids in the system so should I pay for others? Maybe someone in gov't should come up with the idea that if you don't have kids in the system why should you suppose it, especially, if they open it up to everyone!!!

geoffrey · September 8, 2007

Just like if your healthy, why pay for sick people? Brilliant man, brilliant. User pays.

gc1765 · September 8, 2007

So Tory wants to include all schools be covered by the government. I say, ok, BUT, I don't have kids or grandkids in the system so should I pay for others? Maybe someone in gov't should come up with the idea that if you don't have kids in the system why should you suppose it, especially, if they open it up to everyone!!!

I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. Are you saying you shouldn't pay for schools because you don't have kids? Didn't you ever go to school?

jennie · September 8, 2007

So Tory wants to include all schools be covered by the government. I say, ok, BUT, I don't have kids or grandkids in the system so should I pay for others? Maybe someone in gov't should come up with the idea that if you don't have kids in the system why should you suppose it, especially, if they open it up to everyone!!!

Future generations are our number one responsibility. We ALL contribute. This argument has been done to death over the decades.

One family's tax contribution does not cover the cost of educating a student.

equality · September 9, 2007

So Tory wants to include all schools be covered by the government. I say, ok, BUT, I don't have kids or grandkids in the system so should I pay for others? Maybe someone in gov't should come up with the idea that if you don't have kids in the system why should you suppose it, especially, if they open it up to everyone!!!

Are you serious? I have to wonder when a majority of hospital beds are being used by elderly folk who have no where else to go. I'm not using the beds and none of my family members are using those beds. Should we continue to pay? Of course we continue to pay collectively for what helps everyone. Poorly educated people do not benefit society. When people have not learned to read and write, they can be easily influence to do things without questioning the outcome. Perhaps if we do agree to take your contributions out of the system, along with others who feel as you do, then some of the poorly educated might decide to cut paying for health care when given the opportunity.

geoffrey · September 9, 2007

Future generations are our number one responsibility.

I thought the environment was? Or settling Indian claims?

Anyways, the responsibility to 'future generations' belongs in the hands of the parents that give birth to them. That said, we need to maintain a base level of education to ensure that everyone has an reasonably equal footing as an adult, ie., enough skills to operate a forklift or drive a dumptruck. Beyond that, society, IMO, has very little responsibility.

Once secondary school is done, society needs to step back and force people to make choices on their own. No government funding of tution fees is a good start. Then we'd have people making choices based on the actual returns of their careers and not wasting university resources by sitting in 4 years of 'Religious Studies' classes in order to go work at Sears.

mikedavid00 · September 10, 2007

No government funding of tution fees is a good start. Then we'd have people making choices based on the actual returns of their careers and not wasting university resources by sitting in 4 years of 'Religious Studies' classes in order to go work at Sears.

I agree.

Canada has far too much education which is a BAD thing. I thin far less people in Canada should be going to university and rather go into trades and other labor where they are needed.

They are saying that Universtiy is now becoming a form or extended highschool. In Ontario we have 17 year olds that can enter 1st year. That's just silly IMO.

I think I'm goign to make my kids take a year off school after highschool. 17 is just too young to go into school. It's a great way to get into debt though.

geoffrey · September 10, 2007

I started university at 17. I'm already establishing myself as an industry professional in my early twenties. There is something to be said about starting early mike. But only if you know what you want to do, for real. These people that spend 4 years in Greek and Roman studies are really just wasting their time and taxpayer dollars.

Why is the $25,000 a year poverty line single mom paying for a kid she never has met to get a BA in Greek and Roman studies? It makes no sense. It's a terrible crime.

Edited September 10, 2007 by geoffrey

gc1765 · September 12, 2007

Once secondary school is done, society needs to step back and force people to make choices on their own. No government funding of tution fees is a good start. Then we'd have people making choices based on the actual returns of their careers and not wasting university resources by sitting in 4 years of 'Religious Studies' classes in order to go work at Sears.

I would argue that students are already paying the full costs of their education. The question is, why should students subsidize research?

M.Dancer · September 12, 2007

These people that spend 4 years in Greek and Roman studies are really just wasting their time and taxpayer dollars.

Et Tu, Geoffrey?

I know a fellow who studied classical education before obtaining a masters in international political science. He went on to work at MI6 before heading over to the private sector.

geoffrey · September 13, 2007

Et Tu, Geoffrey?
I know a fellow who studied classical education before obtaining a masters in international political science. He went on to work at MI6 before heading over to the private sector.

Hey, if they end up having goals and ambitions where there education helps them, then have at it. The problem is that most are just killing 4 years before starting their retail career. Very few of my friends at university have any real idea where they are going, especially those in humanities programs.

fellowtraveller · September 13, 2007

I would argue that students are already paying the full costs of their education. The question is, why should students subsidize research?

Interesting.

At the local uni (U of A) there about 35,000 fulltime students. Divide the operating budget by 35k and it works out to around $16k per person. Average tuition is around $6k, so roughly $10k per student per year is paid for by taxpayers. The uni does have some small ouside revenues, so make that around $9k per student.

gc asks a pertinent question: does the $5k cover the cost of instruction? What portion of the uni budget goes to research, and should students be funding any portion of that, if in fact they are?

M.Dancer · September 13, 2007

Hey, if they end up having goals and ambitions where there education helps them, then have at it. The problem is that most are just killing 4 years before starting their retail career. Very few of my friends at university have any real idea where they are going, especially those in humanities programs.

Timothy Leary once said that Liberal Arts was more dangerous than LSD. I think he was actually comparing stats about suicide of undergrads compared to people under the influence. (which quite possible could be both). I have done both, I know both can be mind expanding but LSD is far cheaper.......It also teaches context...LSD doesn't, but hey,....

I'm not surprised those who don't know what they are goijg to do take humanities. Humanities will broaden your mind and in ideal cases, show you how to be a creative thinker. It also gives you a BA so that when you do decide to move on, you have an accredited foundation.

I know one gal who didn't know where she was going. Her first degree was in fine art. She was an A student. THen she got disillusioned with the subjectivity of art so she took applied mathematics. She was disappointed with her grades. She was an A- student. Then she took law.

She now teaches law in BC.

She also took a fair bit of LSD in college.

gc1765 · September 13, 2007

gc asks a pertinent question: does the $5k cover the cost of instruction? What portion of the uni budget goes to research, and should students be funding any portion of that, if in fact they are?

I don't know the exact answer to that question, however I would argue that most of the University's resources go towards research. Most professors teach only one or two courses per year, and spend most of their time doing research. They also get startup funds when the begin (upwards of a million dollars). Walk into any science building (not so sure about the arts) and you will find perhaps a few lecture halls/teaching labs, with the majority of the building dedicated to research labs.

Perhaps a better way to answer that question is to look at how much a student pays in tuition for each course. Multiply that by the number of students in the course (200?), and then subtract how much it actually costs to run the course: how many hours it takes for the professor/instructor to teach and prepare for the course times a reasonable pay per hour (less for sessional instructors, and even less for PhD candidates), renting the lecture hall, paying the teaching assistants to mark tests etc. You'd also have to throw in a few miscellaneous expenses, such as the cost of running the libraries (although most of the libraries around here were built with money from donations, and the libraries are also used for research). I'd bet that students are paying for most of (if not all or more of) their education. I am currently paying tuition fees, and I haven't taken a course in years!