The rich are getting richer...

[LancsLad]

Actually it is wrong to assume that private school education is more expensive than public and that spending more is a direct cause of better results.

In addition to the high property taxes we paid in lovely York region we paid for private school for our son all the way thru. As a cost comparison exercise I would do a comparison of the all in cost we paid to his school which covered everything to the figures from the York Region Board of education site. If you took their total budget and divided by the number of students they said were enrolled, note i said enrolled and not attending classes, then the cost per student was higher than my sons fees. the school board numbers are the minimum , to that you would need to add all the other govt depts that feed into and subsidize the schools plus the proration of the Min of Ed general overhead.

Based on that simple broad stroke look. i would conclude that it is not the absolute quantum of dollars that are spent but how wisely they are spent. Teachers at my sons school were always on one year contracts and could be fired if need be, as some were over the years. You don't get that in the wasteland of the public system. The school was driven by academic excellence and not some soft feel good fuzzy coddling philosophy.

Simply put, as a private business, the Private schools neded to be more efficient and results oriented. They don't have the luxury of revenue by theft ( taxation) that the Public system has. If the Private schools were not performing parents would look elsewhere.

Gotta love CAPITALISM.

 

[someone]

For the original paper, see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508

I just happened to come across this. If anyone is interested in a counter view see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=938400
Unfortunately, in this case, only the abstract is free.

 

[someone]

There's nothing protectionist about my argument.
Jobs are being lost. The middle age and middle
class working stiffs are being caught in the
transition. I don't think a 40-50 yr old worker
who lost his job finds much comfort in global
trade without a level playing field to be
protectionist.

First, the fact that someone losses a job does not mean a playing field is unlevel. The gains from trade is about countries specializing in the production of goods and services they have a comparative advantage in. Implying otherwise, is protectionist. Second, it is the case that there will be winners and losers from free trade. However, the fact is that the gains outweigh the losses. If you think the losers should be compensated, fine. The best way of doing that is through the tax system. However, protectionism is not the answer to addressing inequalities in the distribution of income. Moreover, the empirical evidence is that trade does not have that much of an effect on income distribution anyway. To the extent it does and you don’t like the effect, the best way to address that issue is through the tax system. Protectionism simply makes a country poorer. I would suggest that you do a search for “comparative advantage” I think that you will find many sites that will give good introductory explanations of these issues. Also, Krugman has some very easy to read books on these issues. It never hurts to become informed on issues like this.

 

[someone]

Would you consider huge trade deficits for
the last five years to be economically beneficial?
How long can we sustain that imbalance in trade?

I’ve tried to explain before the trade deficits have nothing to do with an “unlevel playing field”. I don’t really want to repeat myself in detail (and given that you seemed to ignore the explanations the first time, I doubt if repeating them would accomplish anything), so I’ll just summarize. If you don’t like the trade deficits, increase private savings and reduce the budget deficit. Blaming foreigners for domestic problems will not solve anything. The only sense in which foreigners are to blame is that they keep lending you money to finance the trade deficit. It is like blaming a bank for allowing a person to spend more than he earns by giving him loans when he asks for them. Why is the bank to blame if you run up your credit card?

 

[someone]

In the American system, I would have thought that high education costs would encourage savings (i.e. saving so you can pay your kids tuition when they go to university). Perhaps I’m missing something.

 

[onthebottom]

... correct me if I'm wrong here OTB - education spending in most States is community based taxation - in other words schools in poor communities have lower funding per student than wealthier communities.

As with so many things involving the government, it's not that simple. Yes, as a gross generalization you could think of property taxes as going for education. Most states have funding systems that redistributes money from wealthier communities to poorer. Is it perfect, no - again it's the government. Is the key issue a lack of money - not even close.

[/QUOTE]
Grant it, I find that throwing money at education without goals and standards is generally a waste but at the same time we see a desire to move from Public Schools to more expensive Private schools by Middle Class families - leading one to think that the more money you spend on education actually improves education.

Look not everything comes down to hard work and desire - luck of the draw, the family you are born in to etc play a very important role.

I can't tell you the number of nimrods that I met in my career that were lucky they had the big education, wealthy families to fall back on, because without that support I would be surprised that most of them couldn't manage a hot dog stand let alone justify a six figure income.

Personally I think we miss an opportunity in not investing in poorer families/schools. I sometimes wonder how many people and their potential are overlooked or misguided.


bbk[/QUOTE]

Yes the starting line is not in the same place for everyone - I think that will always be true (I'm trying to give my kids a jump start on their life...). The key is, does the opportunity exist to succeed if you work hard, I think the overwhelming answer to that is yes.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

The costs have skyrocketed. I practice tax
law and am like a canary in the mine.

I recently prepared a tax return. H - 62;
W - 58. He retired when TRW was bought
out. Their health care insurance is $19K/yr.
Neither have serious medical problems.

The college I attended in the '60s was
$2K with tuition, room, board and books.
The same school is now $32K. I couldn't
pay my kids tuition at that college though
I was able to earn my own way without
loans or gifts from parents.

My per annum college costs for my kids was
$18K/yr/kid. That number has now increased
by 15%.

I consider education and health care essentials.

You can't save that much to make up for the
spiraling increases in cost.

I'm looking at it through the micro lense.
You're looking at it through the macro
lense.

You can't sustain those cost increases.

Ohio State - a VERY good university, is $ 8,500 a year...... if you are poor (more importantly, if your parents are poor) you can get substantial financial aid and student loans. I attended the University of Minnesota, we were offered health care as part of our student fees..... don't know if this is still true. I know I can carry my kids on my insurance until they are 24.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

OSU is NOT $8,400/yr. Bowling Green and Miami of Ohio
cost me $18K/yr. There are additional costs of books,
fees, room and board and sundry items like toilet paper,
tooth paste, etc. It's at least $18K. Don't play Rush
with me. Been there, done that.

I don't think the cost of toilet paper is up... You can find tuition costs at OSU here: http://undergrad.osu.edu/costs.html

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Talk the truth for a change.
That's not the real cost.
That's the basic of costs.
Not books, fees, etc.

You're twisting the truth.

So books are a grand a year, I don't know what fees are at OSU, my point stands, you can go to school if you want to......

OTB

 

[danmand]

Of course the problem is that in some cases it will be possible to rehabilitate him and in others it is not. The question is how you distinguish between the two types. This is a topic I’m currently interested in and I’m currently working on an aspect of it regarding juveniles. You can actually explain a lot of characteristics of the justice system as a way of trying to do both. Examples include treating first time offenders more leniently than repeat offenders. Likewise, treating juveniles more leniently than adult offenders. Indeed, almost all western countries have a separate justice system for juveniles which is more focused on rehabilitation. This is despite the fact that empirical evidence shows deterrent effects of punishments is at least as great for juveniles as adult offenders (I can cite a very good paper on this by Levitt, the same guy OTB and OldJones like so much). One reason for this is that the present discounted value of rehabilitation is much higher for juveniles. However, there are always going to be those for whom rehabilitation is going to be unlikely. For these people, the deterrent and incapacitation effects of punishment are going to be more important. I’m really not sure the Europeans are better at making the distinction (although I admit that when it comes to Europe, I’m more familiar with the British data so my impression may not generalize to other countries). Thus, I’m not sure you can really say their “ROI” is higher without more evidence. If you are aware of any empirical studies in this regard, I would be very interested in them (especially if they deal with juvenile and adult offenders separately). You might try to cite the fact that they have lower crime rates than the United States (I’m not sure how they compare with Canada) but you should remember that causation goes both ways in this regard.

When I was mentioning European countries, I did not think of the UK, which I believe has less of a focus on rehabilitation and a markedly higher prison population than the traditional continental european countries.

The following document, which shows the prison population by country, proves that rehabilitation works:

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf

Because there is no evidence that scandinavians, germans or frenchmen are less prone to crime than the british, the fact that they have only half the prison population, must mean that they have succeded in turning 70 out of each 100,000 into productive members of society. They pay taxes.

PS: Rehabilitation can have some unintended results. It was once the case that the majority of locksmiths in Copenhagen had received their training in the prison system. I guess you have to channel your passion into work.

 

[danmand]

danmand is a Pink Conservative.

We in the party call them "kinder, gentler conservatives". They come from a wing of the party with roots in Denmark. Pink Conservatives were expelled from their homeland due to their propensity for kinky behavior.

I am not pink in any way, far from it, and not very kind and gentle either.
I am a fiscal conservative, who only want the government to spend the money
on programs that work, i.e gives a good ROI. It is in the interest of society to
rehabilitate criminals and drug users, to educate the population, provide
good health care for the population etc. etc. I question spending money
based on romantic ideas, like the canadian military.

You are a romantic conservative.

 

[someone]

When I was mentioning European countries, I did not think of the UK, which I believe has less of a focus on rehabilitation and a markedly higher prison population than the traditional continental european countries.

The following document, which shows the prison population by country, proves that rehabilitation works:

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf

Because there is no evidence that scandinavians, germans or frenchmen are less prone to crime than the british, the fact that they have only half the prison population, must mean that they have succeded in turning 70 out of each 100,000 into productive members of society. They pay taxes.

PS: Rehabilitation can have some unintended results. It was once the case that the majority of locksmiths in Copenhagen had received their training in the prison system. I guess you have to channel your passion into work.

I’ll look a the link later when I have more time but if it is only concerned with prison populations, it really doesn’t prove anything as the direction of causation goes both ways. Undoubtedly on reason the United States has more people in prison than any other country is because they have more crime and politicians are responding to the political pressures that creates. Moreover, the fact that a country has few people in prison does not mean it has less crime. Sentences may just be more lenient. In addition, if you’re looking at “ROI” you have to consider costs and benefits in dollar terms. I.e. even if a crime rate of zero were possible, it does not mean it would be worth the cost. I’ll be interested in seeing if the link says anything about costs and benefits. Otherwise, your opinion is just based on “romantic ideas”. BTW, for many reasons, different groups are prone to different levels of crime. A cross sectional analysis of the population in any country will show this (i.e. urban areas, versus rural, different ethnic groups, etc). Isolating the reasons for different crime rates is not that easy. It depends on many factors such as availability of birth control/abortion (a much bigger factor in New York City’s crime drop that so called innovated policing), the age distribution of the population, religion, etc. An additional factor is the way crime is measured. This is one reason U.S. cross sectional data is really good. The U.S. department of justice tries to standardise state statistics so you get data from 50 different states in a comparable form which helps to see what type of differences lead to differences in crime rates (given that a lot of criminal law is state law in the United states, this gives a lot of variation you can study). BTW Levitt has a really easy to read paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives on the reasons for the major drop in American crime rates in recent years. You will find it more informative than just looking at prisons populations.

 

[danmand]

I’ll look a the link later when I have more time but if it is only concerned with prison populations, it really doesn’t prove anything as the direction of causation goes both ways. Undoubtedly on reason the United States has more people in prison than any other country is because they have more crime and politicians are responding to the political pressures that creates. Moreover, the fact that a country has few people in prison does not mean it has less crime. Sentences may just be more lenient. In addition, if you’re looking at “ROI” you have to consider costs and benefits in dollar terms. I.e. even if a crime rate of zero were possible, it does not mean it would be worth the cost. I’ll be interested in seeing if the link says anything about costs and benefits. Otherwise, your opinion is just based on “romantic ideas”. BTW, for many reasons, different groups are prone to different levels of crime. A cross sectional analysis of the population in any country will show this (i.e. urban areas, versus rural, different ethnic groups, etc). Isolating the reasons for different crime rates is not that easy. It depends on many factors such as availability of birth control/abortion (a much bigger factor in New York City’s crime drop that so called innovated policing), the age distribution of the population, religion, etc. An additional factor is the way crime is measured. This is one reason U.S. cross sectional data is really good. The U.S. department of justice tries to standardise state statistics so you get data from 50 different states in a comparable form which helps to see what type of differences lead to differences in crime rates. BTW Levitt has a really easy to read paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives on the reasons for the major drop in American crime rates in recent years. You will find it more informative than just looking at prisons populations.

I am not discounting your arguments, because they are all valid, especially if you compare two very different populations like the US and Scandinavia, and especially New York and scandinavia.

That is why I compared the UK to the rest of Europe. I don't think the UK has any more diverse population, or that its people are more prone to be criminals.

I think it is fair to say that the continental european states makes an effort to have less people incarcerated, primarily by focussing on rehabilitation for both criminals and drug users. Rehabilitation, which many people in North America equates with leniency, has the effect, if successful, of lowering crime rates. Putting first time offenders together with hardened criminals creates more hardened criminals.

And my comments about ROI was just to emphasize that it is better to have a person working productively and paying taxes than for society to pay for his lodging and meals. Clearly, not all offenders can be rehabilitated, and to argue for 100% is "ad absurdum".

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I am not pink in any way, far from it, and not very kind and gentle either.
I am a fiscal conservative, who only want the government to spend the money
on programs that work, i.e gives a good ROI. It is in the interest of society to
rehabilitate criminals and drug users, to educate the population, provide
good health care for the population etc. etc. I question spending money
based on romantic ideas, like the canadian military.

You are a romantic conservative.

Please. You say keeping the military is a romantic notion?

You want to spend money rehabilitating drug users and question spending money on the military? You don't believe Canada has a responsibility to NATO?

Maybe we should kill two birds with one stone. Get rid of the military and send all the drug addicts to Afghanistan. If that doesn't rehabilitate them, nothing will. Those who can't be rehabilitated will enjoy themselves in the poppy fields.

Now that is a return on investment worth talking about.

 

[danmand]

Please. You say keeping the military is a romantic notion?

You want to spend money rehabilitating drug users and question spending money on the military? You don't believe Canada has a responsibility to NATO?

Maybe we should kill two birds with one stone. Get rid of the military and send all the drug addicts to Afghanistan. If that doesn't rehabilitate them, nothing will. Those who can't be rehabilitated will enjoy themselves in the poppy fields.

Now that is a return on investment worth talking about.

My point was and is that the role and size of the canadian military should be questioned
just as any other part of the government expenditures. Remember the money is best left
in our pockets, we can spend our money more thoughtfully than the government. To consider
the military spending unquestionable is romanticism.

Rehabilitation of drug addicts is simply good business, saves society money and reduces our taxes.
If you want to do it in Afghanistan, provided the afghanis agree, and it is cheaper to do it there
than here, I am all for it. I guess if we can afford to fly soldiers and leopard tanks there we can afford
to fly drug addicts there also.

 

[someone]

Rehabilitation, which many people in North America equates with leniency, has the effect, if successful, of lowering crime rates. Putting first time offenders together with hardened criminals creates more hardened criminals.

And my comments about ROI was just to emphasize that it is better to have a person working productively and paying taxes than for society to pay for his lodging and meals. Clearly, not all offenders can be rehabilitated, and to argue for 100% is "ad absurdum".

I agree with the above. The qualifications I might add to the other parts of your post are minor.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

My point was and is that the role and size of the canadian military should be questioned
just as any other part of the government expenditures. Remember the money is best left
in our pockets, we can spend our money more thoughtfully than the government. To consider
the military spending unquestionable is romanticism.

I have no problem with questioning the role and size of the military but this is not the same thing as abolishing it. It appears you've made an about face on this issue (sorry, I couldn't resist using military terminolgy).

Rehabilitation of drug addicts is simply good business, saves society money and reduces our taxes.
If you want to do it in Afghanistan, provided the afghanis agree, and it is cheaper to do it there
than here, I am all for it. I guess if we can afford to fly soldiers and leopard tanks there we can afford
to fly drug addicts there also.

I believe the role of the Canadain miltary and NATO in Afghanistan is an honourable one. You don't feel the same?

 

[danmand]

I have no problem with questioning the role and size of the military but this is not the same thing as abolishing it. It appears you've made an about face on this issue (sorry, I couldn't resist using military terminolgy).

You are unwilling to question the role of the military. You wrote in the other thread:

The Canadian forces are a major part of the Canadian identity. After WWII, Canada had the world's 4th largest military behind the U.S., GB and USSR.
The military has many roles and purposes. What ever it costs to keep it is worth it IMO.

I believe the role of the Canadain miltary and NATO in Afghanistan is an honourable one. You don't feel the same?

I don't ever think that war and killing people is honourable. Necessary, sometimes yes, but not honourable. And I do not think it is necessary for Canada to defend itself halfway around the world.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

You are unwilling to question the role of the military. You wrote in the other thread:

Sorry. That wasn't a denial of questioning the role of the military. It was an explanation of past roles and an admition that roles can be defined differently depending on circumstances ("the military has many roles and purposes" is not a denial of questioning it's role). Of course the role of the military is to be questioned and my quote in no way denies this. Nice try.

I don't ever think that war and killing people is honourable. Necessary, sometimes yes, but not honourable. And I do not think it is necessary for Canada to defend itself halfway around the world.

Canada isn't defending itself, its defending the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban. A large majority of Afghan people want this and we are helping them. Canada wasn't defending itself from Germany in WWI or WWII either. Do you think it was wrong for Canada to participate in those wars?

Maybe we should pull out of NATO too. It's okay, big brother south of us will protect us and it wont cost us a cent. You may consider this fiscally conservative but in reality, it's irresponsible and lacks honour.

Speaking of honour, after reading your post, I realize you have no idea what honour is.

 

[danmand]

As for honour, after reading your post, I realize you have no idea what honour is.

Nice try, to lump me in with the Godless liberals. But I forgive you, because you only said that out of frustration.

Will you at least admit that the Canadian Military is not there for defense of our country (and yes it is also my country)?

The only country that could possibly invade Canada is the US, and I think everybody would agree that any defence against that would be futile. I have inside information that Denmark has no intention of declaring war over Hans Island.

Trying to interfere in civil wars around the world may give canadians a good feeling, and peacekeeping sounds good, but it is essentially ineffective and futile, as has been demonstrated several times.

Keeping quebecers in Canada by killing them seems also a bad idea. Let them go, if they want to that badly.

Clearly, Canada needs a coast guard to do search and rescue operations, and to enforce our costal waters, including the arctic waters, which are not being adequately patrolled today.