Alberta Politics Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You say this as if you think you have some right to other people's money to fund your life choices.

But isn't that what's happening when my tax dollars go to fund tax breaks for people with kids? For me personally, I would benefit more from my tax dollars going to fund cheaper post-secondary.

This is all kind of a moot point because I've already said in this thread that I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help out people with kids. I've even said in the past that I'd be okay with my tax dollars going towards a national daycare program for single-parents.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Agreed. I think having too many children you can't afford is a big problem in our society.


You do realize that those who benefit from my tax dollars are in large part individuals who have made this decision though right?

I think I already answered this in the post above, but anyways, my argument in favour of free post-secondary is that I think it benefits society as a whole. Theoretically, the more barriers you remove from people bettering themselves the more you likely increase your country's talent pool.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think I already answered this in the post above, but anyways, my argument in favour of free post-secondary is that I think it benefits society as a whole. Theoretically, the more barriers you remove from people bettering themselves the more you likely increase your country's talent pool.

"Free" means that it just transfers debt from private individuals to the government/tax payer. It doesn't make much of a difference to the talent pool or economic output. Most of Europe uses this model.

Just be honest, you want "free" post-secondary for yourself because you want "free" post-secondary for yourself.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by heep223

"Free" means that it just transfers debt from private individuals to the government/tax payer. It doesn't make much of a difference to the talent pool or economic output. Most of Europe uses this model.

Just be honest, you want "free" post-secondary for yourself because you want "free" post-secondary for yourself.

Isn't this the same with any government program?

Child credits transfers debt from private individuals (parents) to the government/tax payer.

I think the premise is that we get rid of child tax credits and move it to fund free (or more subsidized) post-secondary.

As a childless adult that's finished school already, I'd much prefer that than giving money to people with kids.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think I already answered this in the post above, but anyways, my argument in favour of free post-secondary is that I think it benefits society as a whole. Theoretically, the more barriers you remove from people bettering themselves the more you likely increase your country's talent pool.

To be clear, I think affordable post-secondary is important, 10000% per cent. I'm also very much in favour of student loans being available to everyone regardless of income.

That being said, making it "free" just reduces the value of a post-secondary degree whereby a masters becomes the baseline. Furthermore, to take on this increase in students we'll open up more, poorer quality, universities which doesn't really help either.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Agreed. I think having too many children you can't afford is a big problem in our society.


You do realize that those who benefit from my tax dollars are in large part individuals who have made this decision though right?

So how to you treat that problem?

The answer is to ensure that their children are successful and educated and therefore will have less children.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

I have to fund your kids life. I really wonder how much of the tax I pay goes to child related areas....

Obviously people don't complain about it cause funding society's future makes sense. Just funny that we're bringing up paying for life choices when the taxes from people without kids are pouring tons of money in for schools, playgrounds, youth programs and recreation for children.

Personally, I'd like it if we converted every playground to a strip club and instead of funding school buses we funded limos to take me to said strip clubs.

Have you paid back your taxes for being alive yet? If not you are not funding other kids life.

Its 2-3k to be born, plus 10k if you had complications, Its about 5k a year for school from k-12. Tuition is 1/3 the funding of university last time I looked so another 10k a year there. Plus lets call it 2k a year a health care costs.

So society paid about 150k not including tax breaks your parents got for you or funding of other programs and facilities like parks an arenas ect to get you into a tax paying adult. So until you pay that money back with interest I don't think you are allowed to complain.

And maybe funding other people's kids is a poor way of looking at it. Since total number of kids is dropping each generation pays less for kids and we steal from other countries through immigration. Instead you pay for your cohort. There are many people who will never pay back their birth debt. So you aren't paying for kids you are paying for the failed members of your cohort.

Not to mention the debt servicing costs we are pushing to the future generation to pay Op costs today. So have you paid off your share of the debts and deficits for your cohort?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by polak

I have to fund your kids life. I really wonder how much of the tax I pay goes to child related areas....

Probably about the same amount, give or take, that was spent on you when you were a child?

[polak]

Originally Posted by GGG

And maybe funding other people's kids is a poor way of looking at it. Since total number of kids is dropping each generation pays less for kids and we steal from other countries through immigration. Instead you pay for your cohort. There are many people who will never pay back their birth debt. So you aren't paying for kids you are paying for the failed members of your cohort.

Not to mention the debt servicing costs we are pushing to the future generation to pay Op costs today. So have you paid off your share of the debts and deficits for your cohort?

That is actually a good way of looking at it.

[northcrunk]

The biggest reason tax breaks for having kids are a good idea is we need to breed to even keep Canada's population steady without a ton of immigration. To replace our current population couples need to have 2 kids and if we intend to grow then 2+. Not many people though in urban areas have more than 2 kids.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by heep223

"Free" means that it just transfers debt from private individuals to the government/tax payer. It doesn't make much of a difference to the talent pool or economic output. Most of Europe uses this model.

Just be honest, you want "free" post-secondary for yourself because you want "free" post-secondary for yourself.

I'm done post-secondary, dude.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

That being said, making it "free" just reduces the value of a post-secondary degree whereby a masters becomes the baseline. Furthermore, to take on this increase in students we'll open up more, poorer quality, universities which doesn't really help either.

The first point is debatable and the second doesn't match up with what we've seen in Europe. The quality of education received at German and Scandinavian schools is some of the best in the world.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The biggest reason tax breaks for having kids are a good idea is we need to breed to even keep Canada's population steady without a ton of immigration. To replace our current population couples need to have 2 kids and if we intend to grow then 2+. Not many people though in urban areas have more than 2 kids.

Heaven forbid we have a ton of immigration.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The first point is debatable and the second doesn't match up with what we've seen in Europe. The quality of education received at German and Scandinavian schools is some of the best in the world.

I think you meant to say "worst". What Germany does have that I wholeheartedly endorse and want to emulate is the split "practical/apliied" stream for the less intellectually advantaged...
This free education debate is so nuanced... Allow me to riddle you this - if I/taxpayer/government cover the cost of your education, should I not be able to direct you to study something that would benefit society? I don't need you to get a Philosophy degree or even a B.Ed., given the oversupply of teachers. So, if you want a free education, study Nursing, Comp.Sci., etc. If you want to study history (I have 2 History degrees, so that you know I am not an ENG nerd dumping on the social sciences), pay your own way. Is that not the fair trade-off?
I think that "free" leads to valueless, so that loans are a better way to go, but there is a great deal of scope for debate...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Heaven forbid we have a ton of immigration.

Immigration is bad globally because it allows us (the 1st world) to skim the best of the rest, leaving the parent countries worse off. Ideally, you want those "desirable" people to help their own societies. Speaking as an immigrant.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I think you meant to say "worst". What Germany does have that I wholeheartedly endorse and want to emulate is the split "practical/apliied" stream for the less intellectually advantaged...
This free education debate is so nuanced... Allow me to riddle you this - if I/taxpayer/government cover the cost of your education, should I not be able to direct you to study something that would benefit society? I don't need you to get a Philosophy degree or even a B.Ed., given the oversupply of teachers. So, if you want a free education, study Nursing, Comp.Sci., etc. If you want to study history (I have 2 History degrees, so that you know I am not an ENG nerd dumping on the social sciences), pay your own way. Is that not the fair trade-off?
I think that "free" leads to valueless, so that loans are a better way to go, but there is a great deal of scope for debate...

http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...=false+search=

That's a list of the top 100 universities worldwide. On that list you have:

Denmark - 2
Sweden - 2
Finland - 1
Germany - 4

Just outside of the top 100 are quite a few more German, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and Finnish schools. Considering their respective populations, the Scandinavian schools are definitely punching above their weight class.

To your second point, I suppose it's worth debating so long as we stop using the tuition fees of arts and social science students to subsidize the costs of the engineering and earth sciences.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...=false+search=

That's a list of the top 100 universities worldwide. On that list you have:

Denmark - 2
Sweden - 2
Finland - 1
Germany - 4

Just outside of the top 100 are quite a few more German, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and Finnish schools. Considering their respective populations, the Scandinavian schools are definitely punching above their weight class.

To your second point, I suppose it's worth debating so long as we stop using the tuition fees of arts and social science students to subsidize the costs of the engineering and earth sciences.

The top universities in the world are overwhelmingly American. They attract the best instructors and the most ambitious students from around the globe. Whatever else you may think about American institutions and values, their elite universities are the envy of the rest of the world.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by rubecube

http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...=false+search=

that's a list of the top 100 universities worldwide. On that list you have:

Denmark - 2
sweden - 2
finland - 1
germany - 4

just outside of the top 100 are quite a few more german, norwegian, danish, swedish, and finnish schools. Considering their respective populations, the scandinavian schools are definitely punching above their weight class.

To your second point, i suppose it's worth debating so long as we stop using the tuition fees of arts and social science students to subsidize the costs of the engineering and earth sciences.

usa - 29

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by polak

I have to fund your kids life. I really wonder how much of the tax I pay goes to child related areas....

Obviously people don't complain about it cause funding society's future makes sense. Just funny that we're bringing up paying for life choices when the taxes from people without kids are pouring tons of money in for schools, playgrounds, youth programs and recreation for children.

Personally, I'd like it if we converted every playground to a strip club and instead of funding school buses we funded limos to take me to said strip clubs.

What a short sighted statement. I don't go to strip clubs so why should i pay for you to get your jollies?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The top universities in the world are overwhelmingly American. They attract the best instructors and the most ambitious students from around the globe. Whatever else you may think about American institutions and values, their elite universities are the envy of the rest of the world.

Yep, and it's also inaccessible to most of the population.