The rich are getting richer...

[basketcase]

Merit based education has it's ... well...merits but if the idea is to create equal opportunity, more needs to be done.

There was a crecent study released and comented on in one of the Toronto papers that looked at why the poor were less likely to attend university. As was mentioned, it is not the money. The two biggest factors they identified had to do with role models and the value the family puts on education. The other factor is that many students need to work significant hours to support their family or themselves and therefore lose the time (and sleep and food) required to get the good grades.

Someone mentioned Parkdale and I also have a lot of connections with the area. I have seen a lot of very highly motivated students who lost their chance because they worked all night and were therefore too tired to get to class and do well enough to get into university.

If the objective is to ensure that class doesn't affect the chances for education, we also need to make sure that money isn't a factor for students at the high school and elementary levels too. (despite the lack of practicality, the idea is nice)

 

[oldjones]

How about, 750 returns payed 25% of the income tax bill in the US in 2002 and the top 10% pay more than half the income tax. That means the bottom 90% are heavily subsidized. They can pay more, they should is a value judgement open to degree (how much more).

OTB

As I said—and you quoted—unsupported numbers are a burden on debate. What's the support for these "facts" of yours? While you're digging them up, how many people do you suppose benefit from one man buying a $6,000 dollar shower curtain compared to a working class family spending the same amount on the necessities of life?

 

[danmand]

I think those extremes are more an American thing (as with the tuition numbers you quoted). Still, I agree that even in Canada there is a big difference between a business or liberal arts degree and something serious.

I recall getting a resume from a girl who had attended Lakehead University and sent me her modelling portfolio.

Is Denmark not a bit unusual in this regard? If I recall correctly, they call their first degree a masters degree and it take about 5 years. Based on exchange students I have had, it does seem to be a high quality degree. However, my understanding is that they then go on to research only PhDs (two levels, if I recall correctly but both are research only) which is more like the British system (which I have never been impressed with).

I can explain how the system worked in the field of engineering. There were 3 levels,

1. academic engineers, (M.Sc. Eng)
2. College engineers (B.Sc Eng)
3. Technikum Engineers

There was one institution for academic engineers, 5-6 years of study after High school, one for college engineers, 3-4 years after high school, and half a dozen institution for technikum engineers.

2 was not a stepping stone for 1. Ph.D. available only to graduates from 1, as is a "real" Doctorate.

Generally, there was a strict separation between Universities and what here would be called colleges. Teaching colleges, nursing colleges, engineering colleges etc. So Universities were much more elitist than here, hard to get into and hard to stay in.

I’m not sure I said that but it is a point. I don’t really see how causation could go the other way. You’re saying that education leads to uniformity of ethnic groups, erases differences due to geography, etc I don’t understand.

There are obviously different ways of skinning a cat. The scandinavian way is to create a uniform population, by education, welfare, peer pressure, culture etc. It is the result of generations of policies in that direction. The ugly duckling was written in 1844.

It is almost like the public transit conundrum. It is not cost effective and useful before it is fully built, and it is too expensive to build before it is effective.

 

[onthebottom]

In the US we have a wide variety of choices in higher education. Not always are quality and cost tightly correlated. For example, Stamford is about 75k per year (plus plus plus) while UC Berkley is less than 10k (in state). Both of these schools would be in the top 25 in the world. Here in Ohio I could send my kids to Ohio State (large Big 10 school) for about 8,500 a year or Miami University (where DQ sent his daughter) for about 35k.... similar quality, although different environments.

Like the market for any good or service, a wide variety of choices is optimal.

A strange, and madingin footnote. Our state schools (the UC system in California, Ohio State here....) are subsidized by state taxes thus local (in state) students get lower rates. In California, illegal immigrants get in state tuition where as my daughter would have to pay out of state..... Truly farked up.

OTB

 

[markvee]

Can you name a Canadian university with tutition that high? Perhaps medicine but even than that sounds high.

Here are the highest Canadian university professional school fees I can find:

http://www.dentistry.ubc.ca/academic_programs/dmd/financial_information.asp

UBC dental school charges close to $50,000 per year in fees (Close to $200,000 over the total 4-year program).

Just $14,000 is called tuition, but another $23,000+ is extracted as "new clinic innovation fee". Just like McGuinty's "health care premium" is a broken-promise tax increase, that "new clinic innovation fee" is extra tuition.

 

[someone]

Here are the highest Canadian university professional school fees I can find:

http://www.dentistry.ubc.ca/academic_programs/dmd/financial_information.asp

UBC dental school charges close to $50,000 per year in fees (Close to $200,000 over the total 4-year program).

As I said even for medical schools, the fees quoted by Demand are high. For undergraduate degrees, the only places I can think of that might be over $5 000 a year would be in Nova Scotia where although you don't get any big name faculty (they tend to pay faculty badly) and I don't think much of the product they graduate, you do get small class sizes. Also, part of that 50 000 you quoted is for expenses like textbooks. Still it is a lot of money (expecially for a Canadian institution). That being said, the students will make a lot of money when they graduate so it is not a bad investment.

I recall getting a resume from a girl who had attended Lakehead University and sent me her modelling portfolio.

That is funny but was it actually part of her program or just something a weird student submitted.

 

[slowpoke]

You can't be serious.

My student loans had a 6 month grace period without interest and then I had to start paying.
Some were provincial and some federal and the interest was 1-2% more than prime which at the time was quite high.
Now the provincial loans still give a 6 month grace on payments but not the interest.
http://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/not_secure/repay.htm

Hardly ridiculously flexible to me.

It is also much more difficult to walk away through bankruptcy now.
I think you have to wait 10 years now.

Phone up the admin number on your student award or get it from the student awards centre at your school. Ask them about interest relief and a few of the other repayment safeguards. I think the company that administers the Student Awards is called Edulink or something similar. They'll take information about your income as well as your loan payment amounts, number of dependents etc. If your income is too low, the governmet will pay your interest portion for about 6 months. After the 6 months is up, you'll have to apply again but you can do this quite a few times. If you stay on top of your student loan and don't get into arrears, there is quite a bit of flexibility. The problem is many students don't take it seriously enough or make a point of understanding their options. Once they get into arrears, their options become more limited. The majority of those who get into arrears didn't bother to ask for help beforehand or make any effort to really understand the whole process. It is quite involved but there are options and safeguards. Eventually you'll have to get a job and start paying it back but it beats going through life without an education.

 

[slowpoke]

The last part of the sentence said that (access to) education should be strictly merit based. You are right in so far that you do not want to have every child waste time at university.

Where I come from, there was a strict merit system in place. Even access to high school was based on merit, and everybody was aware that if you wanted an education, you had to have some talent and work hard. But all education was free.
I think it was a brilliant system.

This seems a bit extreme insofar as those who don't have enough smarts to get into the good schools will have to pay taxes so all the bright lights can get a free education. It sounds wonderful for the more intelligent but it doesn't seem fair to the ones who don't make the cut. As a general rule, the "user pays" model is more equitable, IMHO.

Having said that, my original point was simply that poor people can get student loans and still get educated in Canada. That doesn't mean our system is the only way or even the best way. But it works pretty well. My neighbour's daughter became a Registered Nurse at U of T a few years ago. She'd switched programs somewhere in the early going so she ended up with an extra year of classes and student loans. Her debt totalled $44K. Shortly after she graduated, the province sent her a notice that they'd removed $11K of her debt under some kind of debt forgiveness program. This forgiveness thing wasn't a special deal because she wasn't in arrears or anything out of the ordinary. I don't know the exact details but I gather it was (maybe still is) normal for the province to forgive a portion of the debt for those who graduate. It may have only applied if the loan was over a certain amount or if the family had modest income or whatever. Bottom line, she comes from a fairly large family with modest income who couldn't afford to put all their kids through university. These are good people who work hard and own their own home etc. Now their daughter has a decent paying job doing important work for a measly 30K of debt. How bad is that?

 

[Frosty]

Should the government play Robin Hood even more than they already do?

The government is stealing from the rich and putting into their own pockets.

 

[papasmerf]

The government is stealing from the rich and putting into their own pockets.

Say it ain't so

 

[onthebottom]

The government is stealing from the rich and putting into their own pockets.

And buying votes with it.....

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

As I said—and you quoted—unsupported numbers are a burden on debate. What's the support for these "facts" of yours? While you're digging them up, how many people do you suppose benefit from one man buying a $6,000 dollar shower curtain compared to a working class family spending the same amount on the necessities of life?

IRS website, they had a listing for 2002 tax revenues by income level. If you're arguing the conclusion go find the numbers yourself....

The same, because the guy who sells the $6,000 shower curtain will buy a car with it, some food...... But nice attempt at class warfare. Your arguments are very weak in this area.

OTB

 

[oldjones]

IRS website, they had a listing for 2002 tax revenues by income level. If you're arguing the conclusion go find the numbers yourself....

The same, because the guy who sells the $6,000 shower curtain will buy a car with it, some food...... But nice attempt at class warfare. Your arguments are very weak in this area.

OTB

As are your still unsupported "facts". Nothing like shows when I Google your words. S'pose we just say I found an IRS site that says your IRS site is a fake; you can look it up yourself.

Meantime, back to shower curtains: only assuming the guy in that rarified market doesn't put his money into some bubblicious stock, or an offshore holiday—which he can likely afford to at $6K/sale—then his contribution to the economy's the same as the poor folks, who we can quite safely assume will put every cent into your favourite economy and mine. Barring a coupla bucks for government lotteries perhaps.

Modestly, I must decline credit for 'attempting class warfare' in favour of the rich who argue that every penny they spend contributes to the greater good—ignoring the wealth they do not spend—while preaching the voodoo that money collected and spent by governments—perhaps to re-balance social inequities— is somehow a loss to the economy. A generous wealthy elite would preclude class warfare; the selfish one we see growing makes it inevitable.

 

[someone]

Modestly, I must decline credit for 'attempting class warfare' in favour of the rich who argue that every penny they spend contributes to the greater good—ignoring the wealth they do not spend—

In the long run that is the part that does the most good. Savings are translated into investment which leads to long run economic growth. Although money people spend on consumption can lead to short term boosts for the economy, in the long run, it is savings and investment that leave to long run economic growth. I’ll lead OTB to answer the more class warfare related arguments.

 

[oldjones]

And just how does one invest without spending? I may put my unspent wealth into a bank, which bribes me with the interest it pays for the right to invest my money as if it was theirs. But if the bank fails—say "S&L"—then it turns out I spent it. Just about any other investment I know of is an actual, outright sale: stocks, bonds, mutual funds. That's spending by my understanding, and no different from buying a painting, or a paint job.

 

[Gyaos]

Your arguments are very weak in this area. OTB

It is true you will get $30.00 as a standard deduction on the "War on 1812 Fund" (or some war that ended a looong time ago) from the long distance telephone calls in the 2006 tax return, right? Even the US Government used the "statute of limitations" clause to steal BILLIONS from the poor. 1812 - 2006 is a very large collection pool. Thank you Republican legislation on that $30.00. Let's hope the Republicans never come back.

Oh Rudy, Mitt...save me! ***LOSERS***

Gyaos Baltar (Vice President of Caprica)

 

[someone]

And just how does one invest without spending?

Unless you keep your saving in your mattress, it is almost automatic. Even if you only put your money in a bank account it ends up getting invested (or spent by others). Banks don’t pay you interest on your money because they are nice guys. They do it because they need the funds to finance loans to others. Some of these loans will be for consumption goods which don’t lead to long run economic growth. However, the household sector (individuals, whether rich or poor) are net savers in almost ever country, so most does make it to investment goods. It is part of what is called the circular flow and is covered in every first year macroeconomics course.

Edit: I see you added the following to your post after I wrote the above.

And just how does one invest without spending? I may put my unspent wealth into a bank, which bribes me with the interest it pays for the right to invest my money as if it was theirs. But if the bank fails—say "S&L"—then it turns out I spent it. Just about any other investment I know of is an actual, outright sale: stocks, bonds, mutual funds. That's spending by my understanding, and no different from buying a painting, or a paint job.

Your understanding is completely wrong if you think it is no different from buying a painting. A painting does not produce other goods. Investments mean in increase in the capital stock which means the productive capacity of the economy is increased.

 

[LancsLad]

When you look at the posts by oldjones, gyaos and the like you realize that there truly are a lot of bitter envious people out there.


Using the Dieter voice from Sprockets. " Be quiet now, you are becoming tiresome"

 

[onthebottom]

I found a source for our old buddy oldjones:

In 2000 the Federal income tax collected was (in millions) 980,645, Those making more than 1 Million, 240 tax returns, paid 226,320 of that or 23%. If we add the 500k - 1 M segment we add 396 tax returns and add 76,022. What that gives us is 636 tax returns paying 31% of income taxes.... this in a country of 300m people with the largest GDP on the planet. Save me the class warfare and envy arguments please.

OTB

 

[oldjones]

I found a source for our old buddy oldjones:

In 2000 the Federal income tax collected was (in millions) 980,645, Those making more than 1 Million, 240 tax returns, paid 226,320 of that or 23%. If we add the 500k - 1 M segment we add 396 tax returns and add 76,022. What that gives us is 636 tax returns paying 31% of income taxes.... this in a country of 300m people with the largest GDP on the planet. Save me the class warfare and envy arguments please.

OTB

And do tell us what the source is and where we might check it out. You already told us you found it in a earlier post.