chapman@fornax.UUCP (03/02/87)
I was talking to the dean of a medical school once and he told me that it costs approximately 6 times as much per semester to put a medical student through school as it does for typical university students. Part of this is because of the low student/teacher ratio and part because of the expensive equipment and materials. Around here student fees are about $1300 for a two semester year. According to the university this covers only %25 of the actual cost per student - leading to a figure of about $5200 per year. So a medical student would cost about $30,000 per year to educate. A doctor typically takes 8 years for a total cost of $240,000. The student themselves pay only a very small portion of these fees. What is the point? Well partly it's that I was quite pissed off during the doctors strike in Ontario a year or so ago. Here were all these doctors whining because they only make $80,000 a year on average and they have to see so many patients if they want to make $100,000 a year; and threatening to go to the US if they didn't get their way. There was also some intimidation of patients to publicly (by signing petitions) take the doctors side. So here are all these people given an expensive education virtually gratis, making what any reasonable person would consider good money and yet their response is to threaten to leave. My reaction at the time was to let em go but on reflection I think they should have been asked to repay the complete costs of their education to the people of canada if they were not willing to use the fruits of that education in Canada. Not only this but they had probably prevented someone else from gaining that education who might have been quite happy to stay in Canada. I thought about this a little while and have come up with the following thoughts. It benefits society as a whole if the general educational level is increased. People do not pay that much of their educational costs anyway (although to them it can be quite a large figure). School is a full time job if you are going to both do well and get through in a reasonable amount of time. So a suggestion: make tuition free or nearly so as long as grades are acceptable, i.e. give everyone who can benefit from school a scholarship for their tuition. Allow people whose academic performance is not acceptable to attend but have them pay the true cost of the education. Insist that people whose tuition is paid sign a promissory note for the full cost of their education which would become payable if and when they decided to leave the country on a permanent basis. I think there would also have to be some exceptions to this, e.g. if someone could demonstrate that it was not going to be possible to get a job in their field then they should be allowed to emigrate at no cost, e.g. in BC the government started laying off teachers and newly graduated teachers had about 0 chance of obtaining a posting so a lot of them ended up going to California which seems reasonable to me. Also it is probably not reasonable to expect a lump sum payment upon exiting the country but a reasonable payment scheme in inflation indexed dollars at prevailing interest rates would be acceptable. Comments? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (03/02/87)
In article <215@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >Insist that people whose tuition is paid sign >a promissory note for the full cost of their education which would >become payable if and when they decided to leave the country on a >permanent basis. Reasonable, if you allow them to deduct, yearly from their debt the difference between their taxes and the mean income tax of the average Canadian. If the medical education costs $200,000, and they make $100K per year, this should not take long. Current figures show the government collecting over 50% of the GNP. Perhaps the figure is higher for people in higher brackets. (The incremental tax rate is 50%, and once you add sales taxes and numerous other taxes, we're looking at a pretty big chunk) Anyway, paid off in about 5 years. We may also wish to consider letting the parents, if they pay above-mean tax, to deduct an appropriate portion of their above-mean tax from the debt. Otherwise this concept of imprisoning people within an area until they pay off their debt or renounce their career is about the last thing I ever expected to hear from a noted leftist like Mr. Chapman! All in all a silly idea. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
chapman@fornax.uucp (03/02/87)
>Reasonable, if you allow them to deduct, yearly from their debt the difference > between their taxes and the mean income tax of the average Canadian. > Why? After all they don't have to do this. > should not take long. Current figures show the government collecting over > 50% of the GNP. Perhaps the figure is higher for people in higher brackets. > (The incremental tax rate is 50%, and once you add sales taxes and numerous Actually the maximum marginal rate from the federal government is 34% on taxable income over $62,657. Each province then adds a different percentage of this as their tax. > > We may also wish to consider letting the parents, if they pay above-mean tax, > to deduct an appropriate portion of their above-mean tax from the debt. > > Otherwise this concept of imprisoning people within an area until they pay > off their debt or renounce their career is about the last thing I ever expected > to hear from a noted leftist like Mr. Chapman! > > All in all a silly idea. > -- Let me try and put it in terms you'll understand Brad. Someone wants something so we give them the money to do it with the understanding that we get some benefit from this investment. They must then provide the benefit or refund the money. Sort of like business, you know? As for being a "noted leftist", it's flattering Brad but I'm afraid this (illusory) notoriety is undeserved. It may interest you to know that with the exception of a couple of "grunt" jobs while a student I've spent 15 years running my own business, filing corporate returns, making sure balance sheets balance etc. and hustling my butt getting business. Successfully. I doubt the left would consider me one of their own. Your postings show a certain lack of broad experience. Perhaps you ought to travel a bit outside your circle. Talk to more people with differing viewpoints. Try to develop a world view that isn't so black and white. > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (03/02/87)
In article <215@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >So a suggestion: make tuition free or nearly so as long as grades >are acceptable, i.e. give everyone who can benefit from school a >scholarship for their tuition. Allow people whose academic performance >is not acceptable to attend but have them pay the true cost of >the education. Insist that people whose tuition is paid sign >a promissory note for the full cost of their education which would >become payable if and when they decided to leave the country on a >permanent basis. WARNING: SARCASTIC REMARKS FOLLOW. IF YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR, STOP READING NOW!!! The above is a proof that John Chapman is a Communist. In Russia, tuition is essentially free, and to leave the country, you need an exit visa. This system could never work in a free country. What we libertarians want is the reverse: society owes us an education, but we should have to pay for it. People who can't afford an education should go and get a job. If they want to go to school badly enough, they can save money for it. No jobs: that can be solved if only we eliminate the minimum wage. But once we have an education, the state has no right telling us where we can go. It's a good deal: you get a cheap education here in Canada, then emigrate to the U.S. where you can make a lot of money. Who says you can't have it all? ----- Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet (604) 228-6770 or 228-3061 "BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."
chrisr@hcrvx1.UUCP (Chris Retterath) (03/02/87)
I (almost) agree with Chapman, but I have completely different conclusions. I think an even better approach would be to NOT make tuition free, but rather to provide 'equity' funds for education. This is not my own idea; it is due to Friedman in 'Free to Choose'. The idea is something like this: - universities & colleges charge tuition that covers the true cost. - individuals can pay these full costs, or, they can be loaned this money by the state. The loan is to the individual, not the school. - the state cannot designate 'covered' programs or schools. This means that the state will have no control over curriculia, programs, or even school openings. - these loans are 're-paid' from future earnings. The state owns 'equity', which implies that a person making a very high income would pay more back, wereas people who make low incomes do not have to pay as much, when they do start to work. - people who live longer pay more for their education. - people who leave the country still owe this money. - the repayments are high enough to cover all the costs of the program. An large initial state fund would be required to pay the first people to start, but within 10 years the entire system would be on its own. The existing programs (CSL, et cetera) could be used to provide the seed capital. This solves some problems I see in Chapman's proposal: (1) he asserts that society as a whole benefits from a higher educational level. This may be; however it is not proven, and in fact a case can be made that at a certain level (post-secondary), further education only increases expectations and leads to dissatisfaction. Also, degree 'inflation' (where a degree no longer means anything) would be less likely. People would be far less likely to stay in school as long as possible, given that they could see the large payments they would have to make subsequently. By charging tuition, the schools would only have serious students. (2) I also feel that scholarships et cetera should be available for the better students. Of course, many scholarships are due to endowments, but the state may also set up extra scholarships for academic prowess, as Chapman suggests. (3) allow people to leave the country, given that the original loan is the same as Chapman's promissary note. The advantages of this system in a province like Ontario are great: - The Federal government, by administering the program, takes credit for the money it has put into the province for education. (In Ontario, transfer payments are not targetted). - The province need not run parallel student loans programs. - Universities can charge what they like for programs, as the province no longer is paying for the 4/5 or more of the program, and thus no longer has any say in university affairs. - Universities can no longer be diploma mills, whereby they try to attract as many 'warm bodies' for undergraduate programs as possible, to get matching grants. - As the students are paying directly for the courses, they will be much more aware of the true costs of their education, and much less inclined to waste their time on some of the silly courses now offered. - it would get the entire matter of post-secondary education out of the hands of the provinces, who should NOT have as much control of the universities as they do now. Instead, the universities themselves should have this control. Chris Retterath.
chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (03/03/87)
WARNING COMMENTS FOLLOW FROM A NOTED LEFTIST!! > In article <215@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >Insist that people whose tuition is paid sign > >a promissory note for the full cost of their education which would > >become payable if and when they decided to leave the country on a > >permanent basis. > > Reasonable, if you allow them to deduct, yearly from their debt the difference > between their taxes and the mean income tax of the average Canadian. You mean those who benefit the most (financially) will have to pay back the least ? I would find it reasonable that a certain portion of your debt be retired every year after you leave school. Say 5%-15% per year. . . > We may also wish to consider letting the parents, if they pay above-mean tax, > to deduct an appropriate portion of their above-mean tax from the debt. What do your parents have to do with this? You are presumably an adult when you are old enough to attend university. You incur the debt - you pay it off. If your parents support you thats between you and them. > > Otherwise this concept of imprisoning people within an area until they pay > off their debt or renounce their career is about the last thing I ever expected > to hear from a noted leftist like Mr. Chapman! > > All in all a silly idea. It may interest you to know that some Canadians don't think it is silly at all. In particular the Canadian Armed Forces. They will pay your way through school (not just fees but living expenses as well) and in return you promise to provide your services for a certain period of time. I know people for whom this was the only realistic way to get an education- without a program like this they would have been stuck for life. Just what do you find so silly about this? > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (03/03/87)
WARNING! EVEN MORE COMMETNS FROM A NOTED LEFTIST! . . . > Otherwise this concept of imprisoning people within an area until they pay Hardly imprisoning - after all everyone would always be free to pay for their education up front and as they went. If you felt the above type of arrangement would be beneficial you could avail yourself of it. > off their debt or renounce their career is about the last thing I ever expected > to hear from a noted leftist like Mr. Chapman! > > All in all a silly idea. Well I think the silly idea is expecting taxpayers to lay out tens of thousands of dollars for your education and then see you whistle of to some other country afterwards. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (03/03/87)
In article <215@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.UUCP dreams: >So a suggestion: make tuition free or nearly so as long as grades >are acceptable, i.e. give everyone who can benefit from school a >scholarship for their tuition. Allow people whose academic performance >is not acceptable to attend but have them pay the true cost of >the education. Insist that people whose tuition is paid sign >a promissory note for the full cost of their education which would >become payable if and when they decided to leave the country on a >permanent basis. >. >. >.............. Also it is probably not reasonable to expect a >lump sum payment upon exiting the country but a reasonable payment >scheme in inflation indexed dollars at prevailing interest rates >would be acceptable. > >Comments? Comment 1 I consider education to be a *right*. As long as a person has the ability he should be able to obtain an education at minimal cost (preferably almost free). If one accepts the notion that education is a right then it should not be possible for the state, in its infinite wisdom, to in effect hold education ransom. This is John Chapman's suggestion. Given that few "ordinary Canadians" could afford the full cost of university tuition, he would have the state say to us "If you agree to behave in a manner that we find acceptable, then we'll permit you to get an education". This is Big Brother in all his glory. Comment 2 Another way of looking at what John is suggesting is to consider it as an emigration tax (and a hefty one at that). Since the free movement of the citizenry is one of the basic tenets of a free society, I find the notion of an emigration tax, and therefore John's suggestion, to be extremely abhorrent. Comment 3 Why stop at university education, John? Don't you know it costs several thousand dollars just to deliver a baby? And how about the cost of primary and secondary education? What about other medical costs? Why shouldn't these costs have to be reimbursed as well? They also represent investments in the individual. Seems to me post secondary education costs are just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, I bet that with a bit of creative accounting the state could arrange it such that one would have to be a Bronfman to be able to afford to emigrate. Comment 4 The notion of a "reasonable payment scheme in inflation indexed dollars at prevailing interest rates" is impractical. Anyone leaving the country "on a permanent basis" will quite rightly tell the state to shove its repayment scheme into a certain place that net etiquette prevents me from mentioning. Since I doubt that many countries (excepting those in the Communist bloc which have already implemented this scheme) would go along with making this an extraditable offence, the state would be left with no alternative but to demand full payment on departure, in effect disallowing the possibility of "legal" emigration for most. So you see, Mr. Chapman, it would be necessary to build a big wall along the "longest undefended border in the world". The state could mine it and place machine gun wielding sentries around it and ..... well I'm sure you get the gist of it. Comment 5 It is quite possible that this suggestion violates our gutless Charter. Comment 6 In order for it to be worth the paper work (not to mention the cost of the wall) it would have to be necessary for a significant percentage of this country's professionals to be fleeing. Since this is not the case now, I tend to wonder what other interesting ideas may be floating around in the heads of those-who-know-what's-best that could result in such a dramatic turn of events. Anyone care to enlighten us? Comment 7 At the risk of stereotyping I have to say that John's suggestion is extremely typical of socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) thinking: First off, decide what is "best" for society, giving only minor considerations as to whether the individual's rights suffer as a result. Then, when the individual refuses to go along with this latest version of Utopia, enact oppressive legislation that forces him to do so. J.B. Robinson We've taken care of everything The words you read The songs you sing The pictures that give pleasure To your eye One for all and all for one Work together Common sons Never need to wonder How or why RUSH - 2112 I'm sure that any and all self-respecting nationalists know who RUSH is.
chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (03/03/87)
>Otherwise this concept of imprisoning people within an area until they pay >off their debt or renounce their career is about the last thing I ever expected > to hear from a noted leftist like Mr. Chapman! > > All in all a silly idea. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473 Well let me try to put it in simpler terms for you. Suppose universities decide to charge the full cost for each student. Do you have a problem with this - people paying for what they get? Then suppose Canada student loans are increased to cover these higher fees. Reasonable, no? So far we haven't changed things very much from what we have today. Now we say : having "you" educated benefits the whole country so we will forgive your student loans as long as you remain a member of this country. That's it. What is so radical or silly Brad? Yours in notoriety....... *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (03/03/87)
John Chapman made a suggestion about having the state pay all post-secondary education contingent upon good grades. Actually, Mexico does this already. You have to have a certain (large) minimum average to stay in school free. Basically a policy whereby only the rich kids can afford to be lazy or stupid. Seems fairly reasonable to me, but the problem is that everybody ends up with grades at or above the minimum, since the government wants everyone to have an education. Mexican students recently went to the streets to protest proposed changes to the policy. Actually, Mexico has a lot of policies which are somewhat more anti-American than ours concerning the same topics. No foreign control of Mexican corporations, for example. It seems that we could profit by emulation of some of these policies. -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (03/04/87)
In article <221@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >Well let me try to put it in simpler terms for you. > >Suppose universities decide to charge the full cost for each student. >Do you have a problem with this - people paying for what they get? >Then suppose Canada student loans are increased to cover these higher fees. >Reasonable, no? >So far we haven't changed things very much from what we have today. >Now we say : having "you" educated benefits the whole country so we will >forgive your student loans as long as you remain a member of this country. >That's it. What is so radical or silly Brad? Suppose hospitals decide to charge the full cost for each patient. Do you have a problem with this - people paying for what they get? Then suppose Canada health loans are implemented to cover these higher costs. Reasonable, no? Now we say : having "you" healthy benefits the whole country so we will forgive your health loans as long as you remain a member of this country. [Naturally, if the patient refuses to sign the required promissory note we refuse to provide him with free health care; and if he can't afford the full cost of a triple bypass - tough, he had his chance] That's it. What is so radical or silly John? J.B. Robinson
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) (03/04/87)
In article <2770@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >At the risk of stereotyping I have to say that John [Chapman]'s suggestion is >extremely typical of socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) >thinking: > >First off, decide what is "best" for society, giving only >minor considerations as to whether the individual's rights suffer as a >result. Then, when the individual refuses to go along with this latest >version of Utopia, enact oppressive legislation that forces him to do >so. FLAMAGE AHEAD!!! At the risk of stereotypying I have to say that Jim's remarks are extremely typical of fascist (or reactionary, if you prefer) thinking: First off, take a dying cat, and bash its brains out against a wall. Then, when people are grossed out, say it's your right. (If you've seen Bertolucci's 1900, you'll know about the dead cat.) Enough with the ad hominem arguments. My point was to show that things aren't true simply because we say they are. First, John's suggestion is not that far from the present situation: if you take out a Canada Student Loan, default on it, and leave the country, the govt, through its collection agency, can take legal action against you for recovery. If you don't reenter Canada, you can successfully avoid repaying. All John was really suggesting was that CSL's be available for 100% of your tuition, and be forgiven if you're an excellent student. Second, Jim has a somewhat distorted view of socialism. As a committed socialist, I'm the first to argue that socialism is not a complete philosophy of the world, any more than any set of beliefs except Biblical literalism. I'm therefore quite happy to learn from liberals and conservatives, not to mention libertarians. I wish they could return the compliment. To get to the point, socialism has a different view (or different views: put 3 socialists together in a room and you get 4 opinions) of the state. This view may or may not work (it's never been tried), but you can't simply identify it with things you don't like, without further ado.
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (03/04/87)
>From: cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) >Actually, Mexico does this already. You have to have a certain (large) minimum >average to stay in school free. Basically a policy whereby only the rich kids >can afford to be lazy or stupid. Seems fairly reasonable to me, but the problem >is that everybody ends up with grades at or above the minimum, since the >government wants everyone to have an education. Mexican students recently >went to the streets to protest proposed changes to the policy. Relatively similar to the situation in France. Tuition is virtually free (even cheaper than in Quebec :*) ), and students have wide leaway in choosing university and program of their choice. The government wanted to "crack down" by raising tuition (from something like $100 to $150 per year) and by requiring that students diplomas be imprinted with the name of the institution that the degree was granted from. Students marched in protest of this radical policy. The result of Frances education policy is that universities generally consist of a small group of run down buildings, with no maintenance or upkeep, and extremely out-of-date equipment. Everyone chooses to become a doctor or lawyer, and people returning from France are usually most amazed at the fact that there are lots of lawyers/doctors in France that are on the equivalent of Canadian UI. I suppose that some people would not be too upset about doctors/lawyers having to earn a living :*) as opposed to having artificially high salaries maintained by a professional body which restricts entry to the field, but I don't think anyone will say that Frances education system can match the quality available in Canada. >Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (03/04/87)
> In article <215@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.UUCP dreams: ^^^^^^^ Gee what a cogent comment. Well you've got me! Obviously my idea is totally without merit. Why did you bother with the rest of your reply when you have such a convincing argument to lead off with? I'm not going to respond to the majority of this posting since Vincent Manis has already posted a reply to it which says most of what I would like to have said. However: > >. > >. > >.............. Also it is probably not reasonable to expect a > >lump sum payment upon exiting the country but a reasonable payment > >scheme in inflation indexed dollars at prevailing interest rates > >would be acceptable. > > > >Comments? > > Comment 1 > > I consider education to be a *right*. As long as a person has the > ability he should be able to obtain an education at minimal cost > (preferably almost free). If one accepts the notion that education is a > right then it should not be possible for the state, in its infinite > wisdom, to in effect hold education ransom. This is John Chapman's > suggestion. Given that few "ordinary Canadians" could afford the full Nonsense. Try reading what I wrote, not what you would like me to have written. . . . > Comment 4 > > The notion of a "reasonable payment scheme in inflation indexed dollars > at prevailing interest rates" is impractical. Anyone leaving the > country "on a permanent basis" will quite rightly tell the state to > shove its repayment scheme into a certain place that net etiquette > prevents me from mentioning. Since I doubt that many countries > (excepting those in the Communist bloc which have already implemented > this scheme) would go along with making this an extraditable offence, > the state would be left with no alternative but to demand full payment > on departure, in effect disallowing the possibility of "legal" Really? You know most of your postings lead me to believe you like the way the US runs it's affairs so I would expect you to know more about them. When a US citizen (or possibly even resident) leaves the country they must continue paying taxes to the US government for the next 10 years (you get to deduct from this taxes paid in your new country). I can assure you that not only will they extradite you if you fail to do so but you will pay for reticence to fulfill your obligation. The US governmnet seems to have no problem enforcing this. . . > In order for it to be worth the paper work (not to mention the cost of > the wall) it would have to be necessary for a significant percentage of No more paperwork than is now necessary for CSL, emigration and payment of Canada pensions to people living outside Canada. . . > J.B. Robinson . . > Never need to wonder > How or why RUSH - 2112 Ahhh. I wondered what the source of your "philosophy" was.
chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (03/04/87)
> In article <221@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >Well let me try to put it in simpler terms for you. > > > >Suppose universities decide to charge the full cost for each student. > >Do you have a problem with this - people paying for what they get? > >Then suppose Canada student loans are increased to cover these higher fees. > >Reasonable, no? > >So far we haven't changed things very much from what we have today. > >Now we say : having "you" educated benefits the whole country so we will > >forgive your student loans as long as you remain a member of this country. > >That's it. What is so radical or silly Brad? > > Suppose hospitals decide to charge the full cost for each patient. > Do you have a problem with this - people paying for what they get? > Then suppose Canada health loans are implemented to cover these higher costs. > Reasonable, no? > Now we say : having "you" healthy benefits the whole country so we will > forgive your health loans as long as you remain a member of this country. > [Naturally, if the patient refuses to sign the required promissory note we > refuse to provide him with free health care; and if he can't afford the full > cost of a triple bypass - tough, he had his chance] > That's it. What is so radical or silly John? > > J.B. Robinson I hope people can see the obvious flaws in this attempt at an analogy so I won't waste a lot of space explaining it. However Jim, the next time you voluntarily decide to get a brain tumour I shall try to see to it that you are billed the full cost for treatment.
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (03/05/87)
In article <884@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: > >First, John's suggestion is not that far from the present situation: if >you take out a Canada Student Loan, default on it, and leave the country, >the govt, through its collection agency, can take legal action against you >for recovery. If you don't reenter Canada, you can successfully avoid >repaying. All John was really suggesting was that CSL's be available for >100% of your tuition, and be forgiven if you're an excellent student. [Just some more twaddle for the fire] I don't think it was John's intention (to his credit) to limit the benefits of his plan to excellent students. His criterion was that the student's grades had to be "acceptable". At any rate, the part that Vince omitted, and that I take exception to, is that the "forgiven" loan suddenly becomes unforgiven upon emigration. Thus, what we have is an emigration tax; a concept alien to most free societies and one which should bother those who believe in the free movement of a country's citizens. [Note that John also suggested raising tuition to its real cost, thereby making it impossible for your average 18 year old Canadian to pay for his education without participation in this plan.] BTW, Vince, I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that socialists considered education to be a right. As a self-proclaimed socialist could I implore you to set me straight on this? (no cop-outs about 3 socialists giving 4 different answers allowed :-) Also, if socialists do believe that education is a right, then how does a socialist in good standing rationalize making what is supposed to be a right effectively conditional on the recipient remaining in the country? [Who said I wasn't willing to learn from socialists?] J.B. Robinson
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) (03/05/87)
In article <222@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes, in response to Jim Robinson: >Really? You know most of your postings lead me to believe you like the >way the US runs it's affairs so I would expect you to know more about >them. When a US citizen (or possibly even resident) leaves the country >they must continue paying taxes to the US government for the next 10 >years (you get to deduct from this taxes paid in your new country). In 1978, I filed a non-resident U.S. tax return (actually 2, one to the state of Massachusetts). Even though I indicated on the return that my residence was in Canada, and that I did not plan to return to the U.S., I carried on a lengthy correspondence with the IRS centre (oops, center) in Philadelphia for several years, which only ended when I moved and didn't give them a forwarding address. They get quite fussy if they think that they're entitled to taxes. (For the record, in case a tax snoop is reading this: I still earn money in the U.S., but live in Canada. I report all the income on my Canadian income tax return, as I was instructed to do by Revenue Canada and by the IRS.) I guess the IRS is really a communist front, eh? ----- Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet (604) 228-6770 or 228-3061 "BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (03/05/87)
Jim Robinson asks some (very) non-twaddle questions:
1) Why is it reasonable to make the loan repayable on emigration? The present
CSL program makes the loan repayable on emigration from the ivory tower.
I don't see that much difference here, it's just that fewer people would
have to repay their loans (and those who wish to emigrate without repay-
ment merely have to sneak out of the country in dead of night). The
primary reason for this justification is a moral one. Education is a
social investment in an individual. The person who gets an elaborate
education at Canada's expense, and then *immediately* leaves the country
is really ripping Canada off, and as a Canadian I resent that.
Of course, someone who stays in the country for 20 years after graduation,
and then emigrates, would obviously have repaid a considerable part of
his/her loan, merely by working here. The formula should thus take into
account the amount of time spent here after graduation.
Finally, I'm strongly opposed to emigration taxes or exit visas. The loan
should become payable on emigration, which in turn means that one must
make arrangements for its repayment, not necessarily that one has repaid
it, prior to leaving the country.
2) Is education a right? Yes and no. Clearly primary and secondary education
are rights, and therefore we must not raise any barriers to participation
in the school system. Post-secondary education is not a right: one has no
right to become a doctor if (like me) s/he faints at the sight of blood.
The right here is to get the sort of education at which one will achieve
something. I don't see any right to participate in a program in which
one's grades vary between 50% and 52%. If you can afford to pay your own
costs, fine. Otherwise, go somewhere else.
Is this consistent with socialism? Yes. Remember the prime marxist slogan,
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
(Sorry about the sexism.) "Needs" aren't the same as "wants".
There is a wide spectrum of socialist thought (no, Jim, I'm not waffling).
However, I don't know any serious socialist who would argue that people
have the right to play the state for a sucker.
-----
Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis
Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn
Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet
(604) 228-6770 or 228-3061
"BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (03/07/87)
In article <223@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) expounds: >> In article ??? moi writes: >> Suppose hospitals decide to charge the full cost for each patient. >> Do you have a problem with this - people paying for what they get? >> Then suppose Canada health loans are implemented to cover these higher costs. >> Reasonable, no? >> Now we say : having "you" healthy benefits the whole country so we will >> forgive your health loans as long as you remain a member of this country. >> [Naturally, if the patient refuses to sign the required promissory note we >> refuse to provide him with free health care; and if he can't afford the full >> cost of a triple bypass - tough, he had his chance] >> That's it. What is so radical or silly John? >> >> J.B. Robinson > >I hope people can see the obvious flaws in this attempt at an analogy so >I won't waste a lot of space explaining it. However Jim, the next time >you voluntarily decide to get a brain tumour I shall try to see to it >that you are billed the full cost for treatment. What about the 18 year old kid from a low-income blue collar background? What other *real* option does he have than getting a subsidized post-secondary education, thereby making himself indebted to the state, if he wants to make a better life for himself? Is his position really any less involuntary than that of the brain tumour patient? Neither one asked to be placed in their respective predicaments, yet, because of high costs, both would be required to seek government assistance in order to redress their situations. Also, just because John's plan would not initially consider medical subsidies in the same manner as education subsidies does not mean that future governments are required to do likewise. Since there would already exist the concept of the state having a recoverable investment in the individual (I'm starting to wonder whether we're talking about people or mutual funds), it would not be that difficult to redefine the extent of this investment to include medical and possibly other subsidies. If it so happened that emigration was running higher than the government of the day preferred, increasing the breadth of this coverage would be a convenient means of decreasing said emigration. J.B. Robinson
chapman@fornax.UUCP (03/08/87)
> >you voluntarily decide to get a brain tumour I shall try to see to it > >that you are billed the full cost for treatment. > As I said I am not going to waste time and space explaining the flaws in your analogy. However I will point out they are more than just the question of choice. > What about the 18 year old kid from a low-income blue collar > background? What other *real* option does he have than getting a Not getting a formal education is generally not as lethal as not having a tumor removed. > subsidized post-secondary education, thereby making himself indebted to > the state, if he wants to make a better life for himself? Is his > position really any less involuntary than that of the brain tumour > patient? Neither one asked to be placed in their respective > predicaments, yet, because of high costs, both would be required to > seek government assistance in order to redress their situations. He could do exactly what he will have to do now. Save up or take out (and eventually pay off) loans. > Also, just because John's plan would not initially consider medical > subsidies in the same manner as education subsidies does not mean that > future governments are required to do likewise. Since there would ahhh the familiar conservative refrain...we better not do anything cause good gosh who knows where it might end, why you give those pesky commies an inch and they'll take a mile. Why let them socialize medicine and next thing you know everybody'll be sick an there'll be damn lines a mile long just to get a flu shot. You can't trust those pinkos boy I'll tell you, better not to change a thing than give *them* a chance to get their evil paws on things....... sigh it never changes. how flexible.