The Straight Goods Forum
Your chance to discuss articles and anything else of interest.
There is a link at the bottom of every Straight Goods article
(Please send other relevant information, links or clippings to
Already posted on Raising tuition isn't smart: (Oldest first)
From: Rob Angus - Posted: 21-May-12 - 12:39
I was astounded when I read this article, especially when it was written by someone apparently smart enough to get a university education. Did they teach any critical thinking skills in univesity in Quebec? Take the following paragraphs as an example:
"What exactly is fair? . . . as much as you can afford? . . . percentage of family income?" What kind of twisted thinking is this? How much you make has nothing to do with the cost of the product or service you want to buy. Your fair share is 100% of the fractional use of the service you are buying. As it is, in BC for example, students pay only 40% of the overall cost of the university education they receive. The other 60% is paid by taxpayers - and that's not fair. A fair tuition is the entire cost, divided by the number of students.
" . . . unfair" to subsidize fees for rich and poor alike . . ." So let's think what that means if we are to follow the writer's twisted logic. We give bursuries to the "poor" and then charge the "rich" 100% of the cost, up from the 40% they currently pay in BC, (I'm familiar with the BC environment, you can substitute your province's numbers to see what this will cost the various individuals.) So if I work, I pay will pay 2.5 times the current tuition, because I've made myself "rich." If I studiously avoid any work or money-making endeavours, I'll go to school for free. Gee, there's an incentive! And since the tuition is usually based on family income, what about the parents who studiously went to school, worked and saved . . . why should they pay two and a half times the current cost at the same time as the lazy or non-industrious parent pays NOTHING?
"Well, of course it's unfair for the poor to have to pay the same amount as the wealthy. User fees are inherently unfair. We should absolutely pay what we can afford . . ." The end result of this kind of thinking is a system in which people will orient themselves to no or low income in order to get all the benefits that accrue to them for free. The alternative is to work and have most of your income taxed away in order to pay for those who don't contribute. So ask yourself, why get a university education - to get a well-paying job? Why would you do that if all the benefits of hardwork are taxed away and those who don't plan for the future and work hard get the same benefits as those who do?
The writer needs to abandon the notion that people are born rich or poor. Drive to the marina or the airport . . . how many people inherited those boats, those airplanes? We become who we strive to be. Take away the incentive to strive by giving all the benefits equally to all, or tax away the incentive to stive, and you'll see our country headed for the economic dumpster. It will be us and Greece, the countries where no one wants to work and everyone is happy spending (consuming) more than they make or contribute. That's not my vision of my country and I'll fight every inch of the way to ensure those who share the writer's twisted logic aren't successful at ruining my Canada.
[ Send Feedback ]
[ Send Feedback ]
© Straight Goods News, 2000-13. All Rights Reserved.