Brendan Kergin, News Editor Ω
Student grants, or the lack of them, brought the B.C. NDP leader to TRU Monday.
Adrian Dix, leader of the official opposition in the Legislative Assembly was on campus to make an announcement promising students of B.C. more money in the provincial grants system if the NDP are elected next election.
“As part of the NDP platform for the next election we have made a specific commitment to $100 million non-repayable student grant to be paid for by reinstating a minimum tax on banks in B.C.,” said Dix at a small press conference in Common Grounds on Nov. 7.
The tax had been in place up until 2004 when the B.C. Liberals removed it.
Dix believes bringing the tax back will cover the $100 million grant program and some extra.
When the tax was scrapped in 2004 it was collecting about $80 million.
Part of the reason Dix and the NDP wish to increase funds towards students is the worry that B.C. will lack skilled labour force.
He said the transfer of money from banks to students will help the economy.
“In our economy today we need young people to get training, to get the education they need, to get the jobs.
The governments own statistics say that by 2020, 80 per cent of the jobs will require some form of post-secondary education.”
Dix said that previous generations are doing much better than those under 35.
He related this to the lack of a grant program and increased tuition compared to when his generation was in school.
“This is not what our generation should be doing.
“It’s in our own interest, surely, that young people have access to the training they need so that we don’t have a future where we have jobs without people and people without jobs,” said Dix.
“Our generation needs to do better than we have.”
Dix was surrounded by local NDP politicians and TRU faculty and student members supporting the announcement.
“I want to say that we are very excited to hear an announcement like this, it makes education more affordable at TRU and across B.C.
“It also helps students facing financial burdens and barriers,” said Jordan Harris, TRU External VP.
The next scheduled provincial election is May 14, 2013, though one may be called before then.
It is misleading to say that more money will come from an NDP government. That money will come from a new tax on banks, and that tax will simply be transferred to bank customers in increased fees and service charges. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
I agree there is no such thing as a free lunch, but I do think that more money being made available for education will be a benefit to society in general, and if that money comes from bank surcharges, etc. then so be it. At least those bank surcharges will be going to help people who need and deserve it, and not into the pockets of those who don’t.
And this is in no way a plug for the NDP, it just happened to be an NDP party member who said it.
“At least those bank surcharges will be going to help people who need and deserve it, and not into the pockets of those who don’t.”
The problem is those bank surcharges will come from some poor people who do need that money. In fact, most fees are waived for customers wealthy enough to leave certain amounts in their account.
I agree, more money for education is great, but taxing banks doesn’t make sense. Why not raise the carbon tax, or other taxes that discourage negative activity?
Any time a business is taxed more heavily, they will try to pass that expense on to their customers, I’m afraid.
That’s capitalism.
The idea that raising the carbon tax (or other taxes) would not make it back to the consumers is naive.
I think this tax on banks is, in fact, a tax that attempts to “discourage negative activity,” like borrowing more than you can afford to repay, or overpaying for unnecessary fees. Maybe people will stop using those bank machines that charge you two bucks to take out your money on top of whatever your bank is charging you if they pay an extra couple bucks a month for the privilege of having a bank account. And maybe people would stop taking out mortgages on homes they wouldn’t be able to pay back (if their rates change even a little) if their banks are passing off a few more fees here and there. It would save people more money in the long run to actually think about their finances as they go along, which a few more fees for services might force them to do.
I’m not saying it’s the ideal way to generate money for education, but money for education needs to be generated, and I support those willing to at least seriously explore some options.
Now if someone would finally suggest that we stop subsidizing professional sports franchises and renovating (or creating) their buildings for them….
Thanks for engaging with us, Josh…intelligent, engaged discussion is how we will accomplish things in this world…and keep reading and letting us know your thoughts.
“The idea that raising the carbon tax (or other taxes) would not make it back to the consumers is naive.”
The carbon tax would make it back to consumers, and that’s the point. If the price of fuel, home heating, etc goes up, people will use less of it, and it will help the environment. The NDP claims to be for the environment, yet their against the carbon tax.
In the case of banking, it really doesn’t make sense to try to “discourage it” because the types of people that overextend themselves will likely do so even if there are more fees.
“I’m not saying it’s the ideal way to generate money for education, but money for education needs to be generated, and I support those willing to at least seriously explore some options.”
Unfortunately, the options that the NDP explore always seem to be simple “back of a napkin” solutions. “Tax the rich, they have the money. Tax corporations, they should pay their fair share. Tax those greedy banks”. Some people don’t consider though that ultimately everyone will pay a price through lower growth, less jobs, higher prices/fees. Also consider that major shareholders of the banks are pension funds of teachers, professors, etc.
I agree with you completely on not subsidizing professional sports, but the NDP is not innocent on subsidizing pet projects either (remember the fast cats?).
There’s a few things we agree on here. But a few we don’t.
I completely agree that the “Fast Cats” was a horrible waste of money (and did so at the time).
I disagree that forcing people to think about their finances won’t help people not get in trouble financially. I also think banks should be held more accountable for enabling (and in many cases encouraging) people to live outside their means. This might not help that, but I do think that taking some of that ill-earned profit back and giving it to education is at least worth a look.
And I don’t see how charging more for “fuel, home heating, etc.” isn’t harming those who can least afford increases in expenses, as you made a point of in an earlier comment.
I’m not promoting any specific political party. I’ll gladly give some ink to any high-ranking political officer that comes to our campus and explores some options to make education more accessible for people. It just so happens that the NDP are the only ones to do that so far this year (other than a 20 minute photo op with Christy Clark while she campaigned…and actually that was last school year). As soon as Clark, or John Cummins, or Jane Sterk, (or any of their post secondary education representatives, etc.) would like to join us in a discussion, we’ll happily oblige. (as Michelle Mungall did here)
Again I thank you for engaging with us on a level where ideas actually get discussed intelligently. Some people want to comment (or argue) but have nothing to contribute to the discussion themselves. I’m glad you are not one of those.