Another nail in the coffin

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Aug 31 2004, 02:18 AM
To me this is a non starter, people who want to go to school in this province will go to school, I haven't run into one person who hasen't been able to apply for a student loand to go to college. the day and age of universal free education is over, its just not affordable.

I bet you could find someone who could not afford law school, U of C is 10, 252 dollars in 2004 and going up and the maximum amount that you can receive through a student loan is 11, 600, leaving 1300 hundred dollars to live off of for 8 months, barring employment. This is also assuming that one does not buy law book or pay mandaroty student fees. With the cost of books and fees, you are looking at over 11, 600 dollars, more than the maximum loan. You would have to have a part time job making at least 1200 dollars a month to just live in the city of Calgary. Good luck studying while working 25 hours a week.

And why do they have to pay the "differential tuition fee", because they are supposedly going to make more money. Only in Alberta would someone assume that just because you are a lawyer or a doctor you will choose a career path where you make x amount of dollars. So much for legal work in the fields of human rights, civil liberties, crown prosecution and onward corporate law and oil and gas interests. What a joke.

My apologies as I digressed to all who want to talk military.

So what do you feel is a solution that will work?

Throw open the doors to all programs and let the government foot the bill?

Free education for all?

Where's the money going to come from?

There has to be some sacrifice for education, we can agree on that, but if you want the government to cover 74% or 80% of education then the qualities of schools are going to drop due to a lack of funding.

Its become clear that the day and age of free health care and education is going to end, the economics of that don't work

I decided to go to an american school and I had to work my way through it, but it was my decision to to do this, and I didn't starve, I wasn't rich, and I sacrificed a lot.

[EddyBeers]

All I'm saying is that you can definately find someone who can not go to law school. What should the system be? In my opinion there should be more student grant funding for poorer students, so that lucrative careers are not just for the affluent. I have no problem with the son of a millionaire paying more for their education, they have the ability to. But to restrict a higher education to affluent is just not fair. If someone did desire to become a lawyer and they came from the poorest of Canadian families, they would likely go into debt to the tune of 75,000 while having to work during that time. Once they reached the workforce, they would be paying prime + 2.5 on that loan, meaning that they would eventually pay around 140,000 back to the banks for that loan money over 15 years. They would be forced into certain fields of law if they were a lawyer, just to pay off their student loans.
If you do not have a system with some form of subsidy for poorer students, you either have to lower tuition fees for everyone or have a system where only the affluent can attend university long enough to go into certain fields. I do not necessarily support universal free education, but I do support universal access to education, regardless of income.

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess I have a problem with the whole only the affluent can go to school

A little background

I come from a family of 4, 3 sisters and me.

My folks started thier own business and everything went pretty well until we hit the recession and we lost our car and my parents savings, the whole shot.

when it came time for college there were some choices to be made. Being the youngest I put it off and joined the Military, came out decided to go to school in the states for the experience and worked my way through.

My oldest sister en route to becomeing a career criminal went to work for Husky Oil and decided to not go to university, she's still there 25 years later

My parents helped out my sisters where they could, but being older and having thier retirement fund vanish gave what they could, which wasn't huge and the girls had to pretty much bank on Student Loans, and whatever small scholarships that they could get.

One sister became an immigration lawyer and graduated from Osgood hall. she finished in the top 3rd of her class, and then worked hard and paid back her student loan, and paid my parents some money after my dad was run down by a car and could no longer work. After she paid the loans off she decided she didn't like working for the government and gave up her license to write books on employment standards.

My other sister went to McGill medical school using mostly student loans and the little bit that my parents gave them, she graduated did her residency in Calgary and then went into Hemotology (sp?) and became one of Canada's top doctors in the field. She also worked hard and paid back her student loans.

The moral of the story is that we weren't in the upper echelon of wealthy families, but the sisters who wanted higher education, found a way to get it, and certainly didn't default on thier student loans.

It wasn't like this was a thousand years ago. It was more like 10 or 11 years ago.

so this whole only the elite can chose thier elite career paths dosen't really wash with me. there are opportunities and if you want it, the way you get it might be hard, and it might suck, but it can be done without free handouts.

[EddyBeers]

I would suspect that your sister paid around 3000 a year for her tuition at Osgoode, whereas now it would cost her 12800. Here is a link to a breakdown of how much money it would cost her to go to Osgoode today

http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/financialservi...lbbudgeting.htm

now you could nitpick on certain amounts, but it would likely cost 26,000 dollars a year to go to Osgoode law today. But I am quite sure that it did not cost nearly that much when she went to Osgoode. I would argue that only in the past 3-5 years has education become unattainable for those that are not wealthy. At the number that they quote, you would have to earn 17,000 dollars over eight months assuming about 3000 in savings and 11,600 in loans. Those numbers may be reduced marginally with some scholarship support, but even if you only had to earn 10000 over eight months, that would be hours 26 a week at 12 bucks an hour. And that is assuming a pretty lofty 7000 in grants and scholarships.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Aug 31 2004, 05:56 AM
I would suspect that your sister paid around 3000 a year for her tuition at Osgoode, whereas now it would cost her 12800. Here is a link to a breakdown of how much money it would cost her to go to Osgoode today

http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/financialservi...lbbudgeting.htm

now you could nitpick on certain amounts, but it would likely cost 26,000 dollars a year to go to Osgoode law today. But I am quite sure that it did not cost nearly that much when she went to Osgoode. I would argue that only in the past 3-5 years has education become unattainable for those that are not wealthy. At the number that they quote, you would have to earn 17,000 dollars over eight months assuming about 3000 in savings and 11,600 in loans. Those numbers may be reduced marginally with some scholarship support, but even if you only had to earn 10000 over eight months, that would be hours 26 a week at 12 bucks an hour. And that is assuming a pretty lofty 7000 in grants and scholarships.

I would dispute your numbers, I know that when it was all said and done she had taken a huge hit on her student loans.

I can check when I talk to her this weekend.

[transplant99]

What should the system be? In my opinion there should be more student grant funding for poorer students, so that lucrative careers are not just for the affluent.

I know CC asked this one, but i will re-iterate..... Where will this money come from?

Take away from other social programs/military/health care?

Or, the old Liberal stand by of "More taxes"?

Niether one of those would be acceptable to a MAJORITY of Canadians IMO...so what do you do?

[Lurch]

Turfing the RCMP? How does that make sense to fund the military - I'm sure most Canadians think we should end policing of rurual CANADIAN areas so we can send people off to Iraq and police (occupy??) people who don't really want us there. Not sensible in my mind, but hey.

As for the American love in wrt to all things military spending:
1. Military families left at home are dirt poor as the Americans refuse to pay their soldiers a living wage while private contractors paid by Haliburton are making 6 figures for doing security work. How's that for wasteful.
2. Soldiers being forced to purchase their own body armour b/c the military supplied them with outdated vests.
It seems to me the Americans spend vast amounts of money on high tech equipment that terrorism is rendering useless. No body is clamoring for Canada to build walls around cities anymore b/c it does nothing to protect citizens, unlike was the case in the 1800's. I would suggest that the usefullness of fighter jets, destroyers, tanks, etc. is being downgraded dramatically by the advance of technology that allows one guy with a shoulder mounted rocket to destroy millions, or even hundreds of millions, worth of equipment with a weapon that costs in the thousands.

Furthermore, if you can convince me that terrorists are shaking in their boots over American tanks and fighters, I'll be amazed. IMO, it's the Marine on the ground building schools taking on terrorists man to man that does the damage. Tanks and bombs create 10 terrorists for every one they kill cuz when you wipe out an innocent family with your MISTAKE from an airplane, they probably won't shrug and say oh well. As such, it seems to me we should concentrate our defense spending in areas that are useful for battling the main threats as they exist today, i.e. rapidly deployable, well-equipped individuals rather than ponderous tanks and pointless artillery. The question is how much should we spend in this area.

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 31 2004, 12:31 PM
What should the system be? In my opinion there should be more student grant funding for poorer students, so that lucrative careers are not just for the affluent.

I know CC asked this one, but i will re-iterate..... Where will this money come from?

Take away from other social programs/military/health care?

Or, the old Liberal stand by of "More taxes"?

Niether one of those would be acceptable to a MAJORITY of Canadians IMO...so what do you do?

If you want my opinion on how to fund it, it would be to put a fifth tax level on that money earned over 200,000 dollars at around 33%. Currently the ceiling is 29%, but in my humble opinion if an individual is earning 600,000 dollars, particularly if they are earning it from a law degree they received in the 70's when it cost peanuts to go to school, they can afford to pay a little more in taxes to support the educational development of society. They may have to buy the 4000 sq foot house instead of the 5000 sq foot house, but c'est la vie. I think this would be an acceptable tax to the majority of Canadians, as a small minority of Canadians would be paying for it.

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Aug 31 2004, 05:59 AM

I would dispute your numbers, I know that when it was all said and done she had taken a huge hit on her student loans.

I can check when I talk to her this weekend.

I would love to know what she paid in tuition, that would be interesting. I know a lawyer in town who received his degree in the early 70's and spent his student loan money at the time on a brand new Lotus. I highly doubt that would happen today. Obviously the balance is somewhere in between the ability to buy a luxurious European sports car and the current situation, but I do not think there can be any disputing the numbers on the Osgoode law school website. There may be a probably is a dispute on how much your sister paid in tuition, but tuition has risen by about 160 per cent since the early 90's along with a one time hit known as differential tuition.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by EddyBeers+Aug 31 2004, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (EddyBeers @ Aug 31 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Aug 31 2004, 12:31 PM
What should the system be? In my opinion there should be more student grant funding for poorer students, so that lucrative careers are not just for the affluent.

I know CC asked this one, but i will re-iterate..... Where will this money come from?

Take away from other social programs/military/health care?

Or, the old Liberal stand by of "More taxes"?

Niether one of those would be acceptable to a MAJORITY of Canadians IMO...so what do you do?

If you want my opinion on how to fund it, it would be to put a fifth tax level on that money earned over 200,000 dollars at around 33%. Currently the ceiling is 29%, but in my humble opinion if an individual is earning 600,000 dollars, particularly if they are earning it from a law degree they received in the 70's when it cost peanuts to go to school, they can afford to pay a little more in taxes to support the educational development of society. They may have to buy the 4000 sq foot house instead of the 5000 sq foot house, but c'est la vie. I think this would be an acceptable tax to the majority of Canadians, as a small minority of Canadians would be paying for it. [/b][/quote]
I completely disagree with that, unless your willing to watch the people that earn that money, by being very good at what they do leaving this country

I have no problems with tax breaks for anyone, but putting a penalty on somebody for maxing out its earning potential will be more destructive than any good it would cause