# $1600 each year for university students



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Good deal?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...tform-centrepiece/article2153810/?from=sec431


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I think it's a good idea. The current RESP system favours high income earners and low income earners often miss out. It might have less admin costs as well.

Oddly enough, I wrote about this same idea a few years ago.

http://www.moneysmartsblog.com/resp-my-suggestion-for-a-better-resp-program/


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

Not for the students.. Probably a slim chance the full value of the grant will get reduced from the tuition costs (unless tuition costs magically rise by 1600 in the new year) Not too mention it'll be more motivation for the university to overcrowd courses to maximize their grant money. Will student have to pay the taxes on this grant eventhough it got paid directly to the institution?? In most cases a student wouldn't be paying much if not any tax anyhow but I did have to pay tax on my grant (apprenticeship) I got last year. If the grant was paid directly to the students and awarded based on success I think it would be better...the student would be more motivated to succeed and the institution motivated to better support them to succeed since the more cash avail to the students the easier it is too have them return....Nothing in the release today gave me any motivation to vote Liberal..see if they make any changes after they get more feedback from their plan.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Oh G*d. Here we go, being bribed with our own money again. Not too many years after grants were done away with in favour of only student loans. And after tuition costs have risen because the same provincial governments have cut back tax funding to post-secondary education.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

It's another election gimmick by the incumbents, hoping to cling on to power after 8 years of rip offs and screw-ups.

Free grants are always a great idea, but the only statement from that article that jumps out to me is:
_cost taxpayers $486-million a year._
and
_By year four, new spending would climb to $1.5-million_

How do they plan to pay for all this, while fulfilling their promise to reduce deficit.
Let me guess...more taxes.
Since the word _harmonized_ tax is already in use, I propose the ST - Solidarity Tax.
Or perhaps the Education Premium, since a premium is NOT a tax.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Harold, what about Hudak's spending plans? He wants to spend millions putting convicted inmates on the street and in parks doing community service (under heavy guard one presumes/hopes), at greater cost than hiring private citizens to do the work.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

This thread pretty well demonstrates why taxes keep going up and why they keep inventing new levies and fees.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

andrewf said:


> ... what about Hudak's spending plans? He wants to spend millions putting convicted inmates on the street and in parks doing community service (under heavy guard one presumes/hopes), at greater cost than hiring private citizens to do the work.


My two cents worth: Hudak's platform is a financial (and social) fairy tale too, but that doesn't make McGuinty's bad ideas better. That's why I despair.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Agreed. Until we demand better from the opposition than we get from the government, opposition governments-in-waiting will be content to offer the same nonsense as the incumbent and be elected on anti-incumbent sentiment.

There are some tax policy changes that I am very pleased with, but I agree that McGuinty has many failings. I don't really like many of his Premier Dad policies, such as arcane rules for young drivers, smoking in cars, etc.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I don't really like many of his Premier Dad policies, such as arcane rules for young drivers, smoking in cars, etc.


After 8 years of abuse, corruption, tax grabbing and irresponsible spending, all you hold against McGuinty are some rules about young drivers and smoking?

I guess you don't miss the $1B lost in e-Health scam.
Neither do you miss the millions it is going to cost the tax payers for the secret deals made with public sector unions.
Or the $750K paid as golden handshake to the ex health minister.
Or the huge pay increases to provincial fat cats as evidenced by the recent audit and the sunshine list.

Accusing him of some irrelevant rule about young drivers is like accusing Bernie Madoff of petty theft and giving him 3 weeks of community service.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

LOL Harold.

Also let's not forget how in 2003, McGuinty campaigned that he would neither lower nor increase taxes. He even had a media event with the CDN Taxpayers Federation where he signed the document pledging not to raise taxes. As soon as he got into power he almost immediately broke that promise and raised taxes. "Health Care Premium". Cost me several hundred dollars per year. Funny, my paycheque never had a row for that. Did yours?

As well, he was all over the PCs for a $5.6B deficit - what kind of deficit does Ontario have today after 8 years of his lies?

In the late 1990s as opposition they were being critical of the escalating gas prices of 66 cents per litre and lambasted the gov't of the day. Under McGuinty, gas prices have doubled.

HOV lanes on the highways, further adding to traffic congestion and solving nothing.

And how he and his cabinet voted themselves a 28% pay increase, all the while continuing to increase taxes and lie to the people who voted for his blatant deception.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

lol. My tuition (excluding fees) for fall 2005 was $3477. My tuition this year for fall 2011 is 4743. Up 5.3% every year, like clockwork. Thanks Dalton...


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> lol. My tuition (excluding fees) for fall 2005 was $3477. My tuition this year for fall 2011 is 4743. Up 5.3% every year, like clockwork. Thanks Dalton...


LOL, you young kids these days. Back in my day (harris/eves), tuition rose by 19% every year.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Oh em gee. I was an undergraduate student in Ontario during the Miller/Peterson years. 

Crap. Just realized when I started Davis was Premier.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Tuition, like housing, is one of those things that I can't understand how it could rise faster than inflation for an extended period of time. Maybe I just gotta stay in school forever and hold out for the big tuition correction


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Lol. 

The answer is deregulation of a formerly-regulated price. Prior to the 1990s, Ontario, Quebec and BC regulated tuition. When those regulations were lifted, tuition prices increased dramatically beyond inflation in BC and Ontario in particular. I think BC moved to re-regulate tuition fees a few years after deregulation (I was an Ontario student) - but tuition had doubled in the intervening years.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Government has a spending problem and all.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

> Students from families with annual incomes of less than $160,000 would be eligible for grants of $1,600 a year for university tuition and $730 for college


Anyone else have a problem with this? If it was families with incomes under $50,000 I might be ok but this is ridiculous.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> This thread pretty well demonstrates why taxes keep going up and why they keep inventing new levies and fees.


Royal, sorry to quote you here,

But your post sums it all up. Nice post.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

For the record, I'd be okay with the government completely deregulating university tuition and putting in place a much better student loans program, something like what the UK offers (everyone qualifies for at least 72% of the cost, the rest is income/asset tested, loans to be repaid as a percentage of income, interest charged at the rate of inflation).


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> For the record, I'd be okay with the government completely deregulating university tuition and putting in place a much better student loans program, something like what the UK offers (everyone qualifies for at least 72% of the cost, the rest is income/asset tested, loans to be repaid as a percentage of income, interest charged at the rate of inflation).


Isn't that what the US has, too (except for the regulations around re-payment and interest rates)?


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Joanne Chianello has an interesting op-ed piece in today's Ottawa Citizen questioning why tuition is so high in the first place. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/postsecondary+education+costly/5368293/story.html

McGuinty's new tuition subsidy plan is a band-aid solution that doesn't get at the root of the problem.


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

It never ends.

McGinty is trying to buy votes...plain and simple.

And he is using YOUR money to buy them. 

Why would anyone vote for him again?.... If he thinks that raising taxes because the governement can do a better job spending your money than you can,,,,fine,,,let him say so, and run an election platform on that premise.

But he has LIED twice about this before.......promising NO new taxes, and then raising taxes once elected.

The other day a reporter asked him if he will raise taxes this time , and he quickly siad "NO"...and quickly turned away for another question.

Why would you believe him now??

If you vote for him,,,you are as dumb as he is.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm no fan of McGuinty (In fact, he is the MP from our riding in Ottawa and no, I haven't voted for him in the past) but I'm not sure Hudak is going to be any better. Hudak is also trying to bribe us with our own money with some boneheaded ideas (IMO): getting rid of the debt servicing charge on Hydro bills, getting rid of HST on Hydro bills and making TOU meters optional. Now, I have to decide which one (with apologies to the NDP) is the lesser of two evils and vote by holding my nose. I wish there was someone I'm pleased to vote for and feel good about it. Sadly, that has not been the case.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I think Hudak will get a lot of "protest" votes.
Whether that is enough for him to get elected, I'm not sure.
His lead from a couple of months ago is already slipping.
Even Rob Ford's endorsement doesn't seem to have given him any edge.
I think we are staring down the barrel of another 4 long years of McGuinty rule.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't expect much significant change if Hudak is elected. He may or may not implement a few gimmicks, which would be unfortunate, but otherwise it sounds like he intends to maintain the status quo.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

At least with Hudak, he will get rid of the HST tax grab.


----------

