Doug wrote:
genstrike wrote:[How is free education for all not progressive?
That's simple. It amounts to giving a big subsidy to students from higher-income families who disproportionately attend PSE. Lower tuition will only make a marginal difference to this because the other costs associated with PSE are larger when you combine books, transportation, food and housing. The opportunity cost involved in not working or at least not working as much is also important. Also, the most important barriers to post-secondary education are put in place earlier in life. Poor children don't do as well in elementary school and this effect persists through high school. Poorer children also aren't as encouraged/forced to aim for PSE by their parents.
Not that I want to take over this thread with tuition issues, but...
Sorry, this is the kind of argument that neoliberal hacks like Bob Rae and Alex Usher disingenuously push in order to sucker progressives into supporting regressive policies like high tuition.
Hugh MacKenzie from the CCPA (damn it, the link isn't working) pretty much demolished this argument by showing that subsidizing tuition is a net transfer from the rich to the poor. Tuition fees themselves are regressive, the less money you make the higher the percent you have to spend on tuition. Subsidized tuition is progressive because it is supported by progressive taxation, and even after years of neoliberalism and increasing tuition fees, it is still a net transfer from the rich to the poor. Yes, people from upper-class backgrounds are a little overrepresented (although university is far from a haven of the rich, although some people want to make it that way), but they also pay more into the system due to their tax rates. The upper class pays a higher proportion than the proportion of students from the upper class who attend, and the lower class pays less than the proportion of lower class students who attend, so it's definitely progressive. Unfortunately, this system is under attack by the very same people who claim to want to help low-income students by raising their tuition then giving them a bursary.
Also, in various surveys, a majority of people have cited cost as the main reason they didn't go to university. And there are a lot of people with financial problems who have difficulty getting bursaries, or who don't know how to navigate the bursary system, and thus stay away from university.
I agree that eliminating tuition isn't the only thing that has to be done (you do lose a lot of earning potential for a few years, so some people would need programs like living allowances and such, and I know how expensive textbooks are), but ask any student who is having trouble making their January tuition payment, and they will agree that eliminating tuition would help them a lot.
Doug wrote:
So, if we have some extra money to put into education, we can blow it on lowering tuition and help a lot of people who probably don't need the help. Alternatively, we can be more cost-effective in opening up opportunities for PSE for students of working-class families and also for adults desiring to or being forced to make a career change.
So, if this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, you would oppose any sort of universal social programs because some people who use them don't need the help. Would you support bringing in tuition fees for elementary and high school, but give out bursaries to poor families? How about two-tier healthcare, as the rich don't need the help paying for it? Maybe we can bring back means tests too.
Sadly, tuition these days is higher than it has been since at least the 40s, and shows no signs of going down in the near future. Wanting to keep it that high is not a progressive position. Would you at least support cutting tuition to the levels it was at 20, 30, or 40 years ago, when my premier took out a student loan and had such difficulty paying it off that they had to garnish his salary when he was a cabinet minister?
Here's a start: FREE post-secondary education. Not a tuition freeze or 10% reduction, but no tuition. This was suggested by Cheri DiNovo at one of the Ginger Project meetings.
We need federal power or not much changes provincially. Provincial governments are still forced to fund program spending by inequitable equalization formula and reduced federal transfers since 1995. Provincial governments have no real power over the national economy and are reduced to tweaking taxes and allocating and re-allocating scarce funding, and fear of NAFTA reprisals when contemplating pubic sector expansions. And some provincial premiers from BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have even been working to arrange NAFTA-lite deals like TILMA behind closed doors on behalf of the Can-Am corporatocracy in recent months.
Building mass transit would be a good idea for sure.
Here's one way to spead investmest in areas outside of the urban cores.
Invest in on-farm environmental goods and services. Right now any work of an environmental nature that needs to be done is cost shared with farmers. Most farmers have no ability to recoup those costs from the marketplace and many are working off farm jobs just to pay the basic bills. That means a lot of potential projects are not occurring. Skip giving money to the banks. Go directly to the source and pay farmers for doing this work. This will mean many, many people from contractors to manufactures will receive work as this money will simply flow through farmers to those carrying out the work. Thousands upon thousands of employment hours could be created. Those workers will then be paying income tax which will help pay for the funding in the first place.
I've held back, because Ontario isn't my province, but since I'm in the OP, here goes:
1. Moratorium on plant closures over a certain size TBD. If you don't want to operate the plant, do something else, but leave the infrastructure in trust of the provincial government.
2. $7 per day publicly-delivered childcare, and build the necessary infrastructure. Not only creates lots of jobs, but frees parents to participate in the workforce.
3. Savings from abolition of Catholic school funding to be reinvested, dollar for dollar, in vocational "green jobs" skills delivery.
4. Public auto insurance (remember that?).
5. What LP said about FDR.
6. Buy Canadian, Buy Ontario, Buy Municipal policies for all public investment, based on feasibility.
me too
How about a massive public employment program for Ontario somewhat akin to the New Deal's WPA which would build needed industries, affordable housing, mass transit systems, etc. Such a program could be subsidized by substantial increase in taxes on the wealthy (times are too bold for the Jack Layton and Paul Summerville's "no new taxes" pledge of 2006).
[Snarky remarks removed]
Fidel, you're just making up excuses for the inevitable failure of any provincial NDP government to live up to the expectations of the people who elect it.
I also don't live in Ontario, but here is my proposal for any NDP government that is listening (Gary Doer, I'm looking in your direction):
Free post-secondary education
Some sort of public bank in to support the creation of worker co-ops by providing them with a source of capital for start-ups or retooling
Expropiration law allowing workers to take control over failing plants and operate them as a co-op
Reduce working hours to 32 hours a week with no reduction in pay (three day weekend!)
Public infrastructure projects - not just building highways, but also small-scale stuff aimed at fixing up communities. Especially impoverished FN communities. And it goes without saying that none of this will be a P3
and that's just what I can think of in five minutes
A 32 hour workweek with no loss in pay or benefits. This would increase employment as it would distribute work to more people.
Sam Gindin has suggested that trade unionists should call for a ban on overtime on the grounds that no trade unionist can defend wirking overtime when fellow workers can't find jobs.
Instead of forcing 'green' energy projects on communities that don't want them invest on individual scale generation.
Mega projects create mega problems, and frankly are often eyesores if nothing else. However, the real solution to energy issues in individual generation. Those generating with solar or wind can do it on a smaller, more community acceptable way. Allowing power inversion so that indiviudal producers can feed their surplus energy back into the grid would promote conservation (watching the dial run backwards is a pretty big incentive), create jobs, technology growth and return the government investment back into the economy in a much better and more direct way than corporate shareholder dividends. (Most current 'green' energy production is being done by the private sector and public power is being relegated to the older technologies).
Not only would this be a good idea it would serve as a wedge issue against the Liberals.
So who has the boldest economic platform of the leadership candidates?
Very expensive and not necessarily that progressive. I prefer indexing tuition to inflation and providing more student grants toward tuition and living expenses. Money has to go into creating places as well, especially for people needing to make career changes. Expanding Second Career would be a fine idea.
A good idea, especially with private finance frozen up as it is. This is probably better done working with the credit union movement than by creating a whole new organization, however.
It sounds good at first but it's not likely to be very effective, for the reason that most plants exist because they're part of some large organization's supply chain. The provincial government can expropriate the plant but it cannot expropriate the intellectual property that the plant uses (designs, patents, etc). So, a plant that becomes orphaned in this way can't produce what it used to because it might not have access to the necessary supplies, cannot legally produce the products it used to and has no market to sell to. It also discourages anyone who might want to invest in new facilities in the province.
Essentially mandates a 20% pay rise instantaneously. Perhaps not the smartest thing to do in a recession. It also generates less employment than you might think because the fixed costs of adding an employee don't change (benefits, training, etc). The public sector would have a hard time adjusting to it too. If you think there's a shortage of nurses and doctors now, just wait until they only work 32 hours a week.
No, I think we need to more gently nudge ourselves in the right direction. Increase the statutory vacation to three weeks and look at reducing the number of hours it takes before overtime pay kicks in.
Definitely needed, though a lot of this depends on finally accessing federal money that's been promised but so far not delivered. I think we also have to be strategic about it, building infrastructure that supports the transition to an environmentally sustainable economy.
I support the ONDP's five point plan to resuscitate Canada's largest provincial economy from a present near-death experience
How is free education for all not progressive?
And I think it is a lot less expensive than people realize. There's about a million students in Canada paying about 5 thousand each. That's five billion dollars. I'm sure we can find $5 billion in a $240 billion budget. How about that $18 billion that goes to those people who kill people?
And provincial governments can do it as well. My government over the past ten years could have spent $200 million a year to completely eliminate tuition. Instead, they decided to give away $800 million in tax cuts which benefit primarily the rich. And it's an NDP government. I don't think you would like to argue that tax cuts for the rich are more progressive than free education for all, would you?
All right, I might give you that one, provided these credit unions have policies in place to benefit start-up worker co-ops
Ask the guys at Zanon tile how well expropriation is working for them. There are plenty of examples where workers have been able to take over their factories and go right on producing. And if a little retooling is necessary, then we can look at the above credit unions.
Right, whatever we do, don't piss off any capitalists?
We're overproducing, destroying the environment, people are losing jobs, and you don't think it is a good idea to take a step back and have some people work less so others can work at all?
Also, there would be a lot of social and environmental benefits to reducing working hours. Less stress-related illnesses, parents able to spend more time with their families, people reducing the amount of time they spend burning gas commuting to work by 20%, more time for social development and takaing care of our own needs...
Unemployment is there for a reason. It's called the reserve army of labour. We can get rid of it. Or is that too "bold" of an economic policy for the NDP?
But here's my bold, one-point plan to end this economic crisis and prevent any further economic crisis: We all neet to tighten our belts... around the necks of capitalists!