Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
This thread and the media seem to be focused on the PC and Wildrose perspective exclusively. There seems to be crickets chirping about the Liberal's policies. I was wondering what poster thought of their plan to incerase taxes on people who make over $100,000/year.
My thoughts: - Is someone making $100,000/year really 'rich' and deserving of punitive taxation in a province where an average single family home costs 4 times that amount? Is $100,000 / year the right bar to set that at (And also would this be linked to inflation?)
|
Politicians seem to be attracted to the whole goofy Occupyer if you make over a $100,000 your rich and should be punished for it. $100,000 per year doesn't make you rich anywhere, it makes you well off but your not rolling in money. Its the biggest piece of vote pandering to the lower income people out there because the unspoken thing is that your porttraying yourself as Robin Hood, you're going to take from the rich and shower the poor with social programs.
I would have far more respect for someone that came out and says everyone pays a minimum of X dollars in taxes with a more fair division of tax revenue.
I already pay a ton in taxes because of my income level, sometimes I think it would be smarter to go and work in a lower paying less stressful job in a lower tax bracket because my tax home would probably be the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
- Raj Sherman has tried to link the higher income taxes to eliminating tuition fees by 2025. Is making the marginal cost of a post secondary education zero really good public policy? I can see more people taking advantage of going to school but not being really serious about their studies if it costs them nothing in tuition.
|
There is such a thing as over subsidization of tuition. Quebec has over subsidized their tuition to a point that its not sustainable and either the services offered goes in the toilet, or they increase tuition and have their students rioting in the streets. I believe in free education up until university or college but your making an investment in your future and better future earnings so you should be willing to pay a price.
There are student loans out there and I believe that there are write downs on Student Loans, I got 20% of my student loan written off when I graduated because of my GPA and the fact that I had found a job in my chosen field. I don't know how it works nowdays. The bottom line is that you have to be willing to pay something for your education, and you have to be willing to compromise your education a little bit. If you want to go into some weirdo field that has 3 jobs in North America or into jobs that are poorly paid, that's your choice, but don't expect the government to subsidize your whole education if its merely built on a whim and nothing else.
I don't think that I would be in favor of reduced tuition increased subsidizations, I might be interested in voting for a party that funds some writeoff of student loan debt if you go into a in demand field, or for example if you graduate med school and go practice in some isolated spot in need of medical help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
- Is this really just a ploy to try and hold onto their seats in ridings that have major universities in them, knowing that ultimately they won't win the election and have to actually answer to or implement the policies?
|
That's the big political theory for fringe parties, promise things that you'll never ever have to deliver and then b$tch about it when the government doesn't implement your brilliant idea. The NDP has been doing that for years federally.
PS if it wasn't so expensive I would love to run as the Wild Boar Candidae for Calgary South.
I'm sure all of you would vote for me so I could get my pension right.