I was listening to Great Big Seas's song "When I am King", and I got to thinking. Most of my friends know that I have ambitions to lead this country eventually, however maybe it's time to actually put out what I stand for, and let you know what I would do, to coin the Great Big Sea song, when I am king. Feel free to comment, ask questions, or what have you - I'll be happy to answer because in the end, each and every one of you (to my friends) has a place on my team, and to my unknown readership - I'll be answerable to you, so I need to know what you think. I'll be releasing my ideas over the next couple weeks, so please keep checking back in - I value your input.
It's been my long-standing belief that the taxes that we pay are, essentially, an investment in the country by the people, in trust of the government. In the same way that a mutual funds broker, or an investment company is entrusted the funds of it's investors with the aim of maximising the return on that investment, so too, the federal government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to maximise the return on the "investment" of taxes. This is a primary pillar that will be seen throughout any financial policies that a government under my leadership will put forward.
To begin, I'd like to invest in our post-secondary education system - increasing access to higher education for everyone in the country, and rewarding those who are successful who choose to put the skills learned to good use here. On the flip side, it's a poor investment to simply give a free ride to everyone, regardless of whether they manage to succeed or not. Furthermore, expanding an already onerous beaurocracy to manage this "investment" is expensive, as well as being inefficient. So what's the solution?
I'd like to change the extant student loan system to something that rewards success, and repays those who continue to invest in the country for their efforts. I'd like to do it in a fashion that costs the system - you the taxpayers - as little as possible, and ensures a positive benefit. To do this, I'd like to set in place a plan to essentially pay for the first degree/diploma (up to a 5 year maximum timeframe) of all students who successfully graduate any accredited Canadian college or university. How am I going to do this without expanding the beaurocracy, and without allowing those who are not successful to get a free ride through? I'm going to use the existing government student loan system. The government will issue the students enough money for tuition, books, and residence/rent based on whether the student is going part time or full time, based on the location of the institution, and based whether they will be attending for an 8 month year or a 12 month year. Interest will accrue on the loan as usual. Upon graduation (proven), successful students who find full time employment in Canada will have 20% of their loan forgiven every year for 5 years. This time-elapse process will help to ensure that the student remains in the country, and should help solve some of the brain-drain problem as well. Those who are unsuccessful, or who attain employment outside of the country will be made to repay their student loans in full via the usual means. Additional degrees will not be covered. Students who successfully complete a degree/diploma program over a period of more than 5 years will have forgiven the total debt accrued over the first five years of the degree.
How does this policy benefit the taxpayer? The increase in qualified personnel in the country will increase both recreational (and taxable) spending, as well as bring a net increase over the periods of their working lives to their salary (also taxed). To give you an example from personal experience. The degree that I was working towards when I left school was an Engineering degree. At my tuition rates, over the course of a five year degree, the total cost of my degree would be approximately $65000. To be fair, my time-average salary, over a 40 year career, would be approximately $80000 per year. Over 40 years, on the basis of income tax alone (rate of %35 on $80000, I believe), I would pay $1,120,000 in taxes. Negating sales taxes, that's a tidy profit of $1,055,000. In contrast, as an uneducated (no college, no university, no trade-school) person, I could reasonably hope to make an average of $14/hr over a 40 year career, provided I keep the same job for the entirety). That gives a total taxable income over 40 years (40 hrs/wk, 50 wks/yr) of $1,120,000, which, when taxed at a rate of %17 (which I believe is the taxation rate for that bracket), brings in a rousing $190000. Net profit per person (including the cost of a $65000 engineering degree) - of almost $850,000. That money can be further invested in the country, or can be returned directly to the taxpayers through taxation reductions.
Just something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi Tucker, At one time I wanted to go into politics. And, of course, wanted to be PM. My mum told me two things. First, that I should know why, that I should have a vision. I think that you want to improve Canada, and for good reasons, but your preamble hides this. Second, my mum said not to promise positions to friends. Imagine that you do get elected as PM, your 240 Facebook 'friends' all have a claim on you. Politics is as much about truth as about lies and by inviting us onto your team, you promise something you either can't deliver on, or shouldn't deliver on, or it was a [white?] lie.
So much for the preamble. As for your post-secondary strategy. I think it is by and large a good one. I like the emphasis on slowing brain drain, and on improving access to education. You might want to emphasize / think more about merit based scholarships too.
One criticism is that your plan seems top heavy. I mean that while it is important to have a healthy 'educated class', so to speak, my bet is that as much or more can be done to improve per capita prosperity if you also work to bring those who don't make it college up to a level where they have disposable income.
As for whether your plan will work, I don't know enough about education economics to say.
Thank you for opening up this conversation, I have been having a hard time with a particular aspect of my thesis, but my response to you has shed light on a solution. Speaking of which, I have linked to your blog. My site is folk.ntnu.no/webb if you would like to check it out.
Tucker, our politics differ enough that I think it is safe to say I am prima facie against your success for PM. However, I hope that this just spurs you to present better arguments, which I hope it will. Thanks again for the conversation and ideas, Lee
Your political career is at a stage right now where developing policy is hardly significant; you first need to enter politics at all. You have yet to run in a single provincial or federal (or even municipal) election. Join your party of choice (even if it's the conservatives...) and run for an office. Get yourself out there.
Lee, thanks for your input, and I'm glad I could help you find an answer to a problem for your thesis. I think that more merit-based scholarships is a good idea, however good grades in high school does't necessarily equate to university success. If the scholarship recipients aren't successful, or don't remain working in Canada, then we've lost the investment. On the issue of the improving per capita prosperity - perhaps including colleges/tradeschools under the umbrella would work as well? As an aside, I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, even if we differ on some things - the fact is that people who agree with me won't be the ones to point out how to improve my ideas - making my detractors just as important a part of my team (intellectual division) than some of my strongest supporters.
Jason - actually, I've done just that - not running for office yet, but joined the riding association. Also, thanks for your input.
H Tucker,
Thanks for the link, first off, I really appreciate it.
Also, I'm glad that my criticism (specifically my first and my last criticisms, I guess the message at RC of couching criticisms in praise got turned inside out for me somehow) are beneficial, and I'm glad you don't take them personally.
If I were to admire nothing else about you, although I do admire other things about you, it is that you are a very level-headed when it comes to criticism. It is a flaw in my character that your levelheadedness makes you into a more attractive target for my criticism. Hopefully though, I will only ever change you mind, rather than succeed in demoralizing you.
All the best,
Lee
Lee, there's no need to take non-malicious criticism personally, or badly. I have no doubt that you're my friend, and I believe that, taking a broad view, we both want the same thing - a better future - we just have different ideas on how to build that future. Your criticism may help make that a reality.
Post a Comment