Student Loan

[lint]

Originally posted by pinoyhero
You have pointd out a greeat example of discrimination. The best part is that the rich parents are the one funding the loan for the poor parents child by paying more taxes.

Wouldn't it be great if it was every man/woman/child for themselves? No social responsibilities to tie you down? Why should poor people have access to universal health care? Shit, not like they're paying anything for it. We need to maintain a clear split of the classes. Only those with the means should be able to have access to things like knowledge. Those wealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should be strung up for trying to make a difference in this world with their charity work. WTF were they thinking?

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by lint
If a parent has the means and choses not to help their children, then they fail as a parent. Between parents who want to help their children, but don't have the means or parents who have the means and chose not to help their children who should be punished?

Why should we punish anyone when it comes to education?

The socialist inside of me feels we should help all the children succeed, and that's what I've said all along. I don't support many socialist-type programs, however I feel that by having a well-educated society we are on our way to becoming a better society.

It's a loan, it will be paid back, with interest (in most cases).

We fix many, many other "failures" of parents (Fetal alcohol syndrome, etc...) so why not fix this as well?

How many poor kids whose parents CAN'T help them are there for every rich kid whose parents WON'T help them?

Neither one of us will be able to answer that question, so why bring it up? There are obviously people on both sides of the fence and that arguements doesn't help either side.

You're stating that we should sacrifice those that don't make the cut and write them off. They can fend for themselves, they're considered "rich".

Meanwhile, I'm stating that we should give everyone a chance to pursue their educational desires, regardless of their income level.

I find it amazing that you're arguing rich kids are more disadvantaged than poor kids when it comes to the accessibility of higher education.

"Poor" kids, as defined by the requirements to get a student loan have a distinct financial advantage in their education. There is no denying this, I've already illustrated above a single example of where hundreds of millions of dollars have been given away to "poor" students while the "rich" have little to no chance of ever getting it.

The facts have been outlined, you may not feel that "rich" kids are disadvantaged. However, the evidence I have provided clearly demonstrates that the "poor" have a distinct financial advantage over the "rich" because they easily qualify for loans, as well as grants/bursaries for free money that the "rich" can not.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by lint


bullshit

That's your opinion. Unfortunately, I see students daily who are forced to struggle because they don't qualify for loans and are forced to seek other means to fund their education.

It does exist, and to pretend it doesn't is ignorant.

In strictly a financial sense you can not argue with the numbers that the cost of education for someone who has to pay out of pocket/find alternative financing is lower/the same as someone who obtains an interest free (until after grad., sometimes longer) student loan and has a very good chance of receiving free money in bursaries/grants.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by lint


If a parent has the means and choses not to help their children, then they fail as a parent. Between parents who want to help their children, but don't have the means or parents who have the means and chose not to help their children who should be punished?



How many poor kids whose parents CAN'T help them are there for every rich kid whose parents WON'T help them?

I find it amazing that you're arguing rich kids are more disadvantaged than poor kids when it comes to the accessibility of higher education.

On your firts question, I vote, neither, who's being punished? In fact I don't think its a bad thing at all that parents with the means chose not to give their kids tuition and living money throughout their post secondary ed. There's nothing wrong with doing so but forcing your kid to struggling and teaching them that lesson at anearly age does not equal failure.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


That's your opinion. Unfortunately, I see students daily who are forced to struggle because they don't qualify for loans and are forced to seek other means to fund their education.

Since when are your views considered unbiased? Did Harry Potter lend you his objectivity goggles?

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by lint


Wouldn't it be great if it was every man/woman/child for themselves? No social responsibilities to tie you down? Why should poor people have access to universal health care? Shit, not like they're paying anything for it. We need to maintain a clear split of the classes. Only those with the means should be able to have access to things like knowledge. Those wealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should be strung up for trying to make a difference in this world with their charity work. WTF were they thinking?

What would be so wrong about it? Those who wanted to help out could and those who didn't wouldn't be forced to. Hand outs do not lead to people being pulled out of tough times they could argualby have the opposite effect.

I'll leave the health care isue alone as that is not the topic here.

Maintain a split of classes .. when has that ever been argued, all that has been argued against is a forced wealth redistribution synonomus with socialism.

I've already suggested that those who chose to donate should do so, it shoiuldn't be forced via taxes. What percentage of your net income have you donated this year?

[lint]

Originally posted by TrevorK


That's your opinion. Unfortunately, I see students daily who are forced to struggle because they don't qualify for loans and are forced to seek other means to fund their education.

It does exist, and to pretend it doesn't is ignorant.

I'd call it logic more than ignorance. Actually it's having an opinion. Just like it's your opinion that rich kids have more debt than poor kids. No evidence to support it, contradicts logic, but it's your position.

[pinoyhero]

Guys I think I'll bow out here, its been fun. Great arguments from both sides. Real problem is, from my end, the majority, the individualist, I'm seen as the devil and devil's don't win votes. Thus we live in a semi-socialist state but you don't see me moving.

So although I think in the long run we're not "cutting off the poor" but pushing back and putting them into a situation where they have no chouice but to struggle to get out of their bad situaion, my views will be seen as cold hearted and selfish. Sorry if I'm selfish but I just would rather keep what i've worked for rather than give it away to to those who have chosen not to.

Further I would like to reitterate for those who haven't read the thread that I am in full favour of supporting both with my tax and donated dollars those who can't work and truly need help.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero
I don't think its a bad thing at all that parents with the means chose not to give their kids tuition and living money throughout their post secondary ed. There's nothing wrong with doing so but forcing your kid to struggling and teaching them that lesson at anearly age does not equal failure.

So if the parents chose to condemn their kids to debthood to teach them a life lesson, then how is it the government's fault anymore?

You were so caught up in being antagonistic and stubborn to lint, that you just made a good point against your own argument.

I hope you're smart enough to see how stupid you are.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Since when are your views considered unbiased? Did Harry Potter lend you his objectivity goggles?

I've already provided proof for my claims, such as the bursaries that are available to "poor" students and not "rich" students.


I've yet to see a shred of proof of anything coming from you other than what you feel and what you think. Perhaps you should look towards yourself before coming after others when asking for things such as objectivity.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero
Thus we live in a semi-socialist state but you don't see me moving.

Ignorantism rarely budges.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by lint


I'd call it logic more than ignorance. Actually it's having an opinion. Just like it's your opinion that rich kids have more debt than poor kids. No evidence to support it, contradicts logic, but it's your position.

The math is clear that "rich" kids are at a financial disadvantage when compared to "poor" kids.

You may feel there is nothing wrong with that, but it does not change the fact that it is true.

[Rav4Guy]

^ I'd like to see the math behind this one... quite interesting.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
So if the parents chose to condemn their kids to debthood to teach them a life lesson, then how is it the government's fault anymore?

Our society revolves around helping those that make poor decisions, so why shouldn't we help those who's parents made poor decisions in terms of education?

For instance, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is completely preventable. Yet the government has programs in place to help treat those affect by it, affected by the poor decisions of their parents.

Hell, even look at McDonalds. A lady made a poor choice and spilled her coffee on her lap. Yet she was able to successfully sue McD's and state that the coffee when too hot, when common sense would dictate that you should be careful when handling coffee because it is assumed to be very hot and has the ability to cause burning?


I'm not against what you're saying - I wish completely that the parents who are able would fund their childs education. However, that is not always the way that it works out and I feel we need to do something for those affected by it.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


I've already provided proof for my claims, such as the bursaries that are available to "poor" students and not "rich" students.


I've yet to see a shred of proof of anything coming from you other than what you feel and what you think. Perhaps you should look towards yourself before coming after others when asking for things such as objectivity.

I feel you've missed what I'm getting at. You're saying that you see rich students inundated with debt. Well ok, how many? What percentage? Did you conduct a randomized controlled trial? I can say I see always see rich students with no debt - but what does that mean? Nothing. Anyone can sit and spout off what they've seen and pass it off as fact, but just because you happen know some friends with debt, doesn't mean it's the norm. You can't base your arguments on that.

As for me, well, I haven't really made any arguments at all. I'm just being critical of your arguments. And as I mentioned before, when you learn to see the world in shades of gray, it gets tough to pick black or white. I envy the people who can.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK
For instance, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is completely preventable. Yet the government has programs in place to help treat those affect by it, affected by the poor decisions of their parents.

It also has programs in place to educate people on the risk on FAS, such as the commercials on TV. But y'know, a lot of the disadvantaged, the ones who experience higher instances of FAS, are probably less likely to own a TV. Ever thought of that?

And in the meantime, what are we supposed to do about all the FAS babies floating around? Leave them to a shitty life because their parents made some bad choices? Shoot them and post up pictures of dead FAS babies as a deterrent?

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by Rav4Guy
^ I'd like to see the math behind this one... quite interesting.

It relatively simple.

If a "rich" student is forced to pay $10,000 for school they are either paying it immediately, or seeking loans to pay it.

If they are paying it immediately they are forced to lose the use of their money, and the income it could earn. This is an issue because the "poor" student is able to access an interest free loan (until after grad.).

If the "rich" are getting a loan, then it's more obvious because they are forced to make interest payments on it while in school (I know RBC is like that, I'd assume there are none that charge 0% interest.), while the "poor" are getting it interest free.

Even ignoring the fact of all the bursaries/grants that the "poor" student has access to (Which puts them at a distinct financial advantage), we can see that the "rich" student, in a financial sense, comes out behind the "poor" student.


Some may not appreciate the first point above, however it is completely true.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
It also has programs in place to educate people on the risk on FAS, such as the commercials on TV. But y'know, a lot of the disadvantaged, the ones who experience higher instances of FAS, are probably less likely to own a TV. Ever thought of that?

1997

Canadian TV Ownership (Canada)

* Nearly all Canadian homes (99 per cent) have at least one TV set, and nearly two thirds (59 per cent) own more than one.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/englis...ing_habits.cfm

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


It relatively simple.

If a "rich" student is forced to pay $10,000 for school they are either paying it immediately, or seeking loans to pay it.

If they are paying it immediately they are forced to lose the use of their money, and the income it could earn. This is an issue because the "poor" student is able to access an interest free loan (until after grad.).

If the "rich" are getting a loan, then it's more obvious because they are forced to make interest payments on it while in school (I know RBC is like that, I'd assume there are none that charge 0% interest.), while the "poor" are getting it interest free.

Even ignoring the fact of all the bursaries/grants that the "poor" student has access to (Which puts them at a distinct financial advantage), we can see that the "rich" student, in a financial sense, comes out behind the "poor" student.


Some may not appreciate the first point above, however it is completely true.

That's funny, here's some even more simple math:

Rich student:

+10000 Bank of M+D
-10000 Tuition
=0

Poor student:

+10000 Government
-10000 Tuition
=0

And if the rich parents won't cough up a few bucks because they'd rather spend it on a trip to Hawaii...don't blame it on the government.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


1997

Canadian TV Ownership (Canada)

* Nearly all Canadian homes (99 per cent) have at least one TV set, and nearly two thirds (59 per cent) own more than one.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/englis...ing_habits.cfm [/B]

Come on, read between the lines here.

It's easy for you and I to watch an ad on TV about FAS and think about it, but for some poor teenage girl that's beaten at home and doesn't have money to eat 3 meals a day, and whose only fun in life comes from alcohol, the last thing she's going to care about is some ad on TV.