To try to make it easier for you, no subsidies at all also mean there will be a few that can actually pay for the cost of school.
The wages for students aren't high enough, the available part time employment not sufficient enough, to make sure all students could work their way through these costs. Some would be left out...
And this is where we run into problems. If we don't subsidise at all, many poor students won't have a chance to go to university, and some fo teh lower middle class either. Those who can afford it, however, would pay out of their own pockets, though they'd also have the satisfaction of knowing that, with fewer graduates, that they'd have less competition and so higher salaries to compensate.
If we subsidize in part, then the middle class not only gets to go, but even benefits from a subsidy, while the loser class gets nothing! You see the ethical dilemma there? Why would we want to help a higher class and not a lower one?
As for subsidies, same thing. A kid from a middle class neighbourhood gets a loan, parental support, etc. graduates, and moves on. Froma lower class family, thre's a higher risk of ending up with family responsibilities, having to care for sibings or parents, etc. etc. etc. that increase the risk of some event that could cause their inability to pay off the debt. I'm not saying it's always the case, and could even be reversed between middle and lower class at times. I'm just saying that the risk factor is different. So again, it increases the benefit for the middle class, while potentially putting some members of the lower class at risk of default for various societal reasons.
This is why it would seem that the only fair solutions are either total subsidization, or zero subsidization, and no loans. Again, I'm still undecided between those two extremes.
By the way, I'm also opposed to student bus passes for similar reasons. Those who can afford an education get their bus passes subsidized too. What about those who, for whatever reason, don't go on to a higher education? Will their bus passes ever be so subsidized?
So if we go the zero subsidy route, that's the end of that story. If we go the absolute subsidy route (would that include a free bus pass? I don't know), then I'd have to think about it. I wouldn't mind paying the higher taxes necessarily, as long as we can be sure that the system is efficient and ensures a return on the investment while not risking the future well-being of citizens by burdening them with debt. So how would we pay the taxes? Income tax? Fair enough. If we wnt that route, that's likely the tax I'd propose. Or what about encouraging charity? Well, not a guarantee we'd get enough money to pay for all students. More people would be concerned with the destitute and how to get them on their feet than on those trying to get a higher education. But maybe something worth considering. And how would we ensure that they choose the right course for them and get a job afterwords? Co-op programmes? Would their university have to be paid for through an employer through a co-op programme?
Again, I'd be open to all those ideas, as long as it's a complete subsidy option. I could maybe see a situation whereby the government pays it through an employer with a, let's say, contract to work for the employer for five years after graduation and each summer until graduation (with the employer having to commit to it too). If he breaks the contract through any fault of his own, then he has to pay it back. But if not through his own fault, then it's free. This way we protect the student from a life of drowning in debt if something should happen, fail to find work, family responsibilities, etc.
Looking at it that way, I could even see the govenrment now forgiving student loans to students who may have suffered various forms of bad luck like not finding work, family responsibilities, psychological taumas, etc. etc. etc. After all, let's face it, the current student loan programme is totally insensitive to protecting the interest of citizens against risk. No government that cares for its population would put them through such risk.
Of course we'd have to work thorugh the details, but this might be an option. For example, a student graduates from high school and applies at a local elementary school to be a teacher. If the school accepts him, then it applies to the government, the government pays all his tuition, the school promisses him a job for five years after graduation, and of course he must work for the school too, and possibly at some kind of low salary during that time.
We could maybe do something similar with the private sector. If a student graduates from high school and applies at some high-tech company, and the company hires him, then the governemnt pays his tuition, he goes to univrsity, and then has to work for the company for five years. The company has to guarantee him a job too for those five years.
Granted this would mean our personal income taxes might increse, but it's something I might accept as it protects students from the risks of the debts from student loans. And like I said, considering how insensitively the governemtn had set it up, there might even be legitimate grounds to forgive certain student loans to students who, for certain categories of hardships, were not able to pay it back. This is the government's doing, and so it should take respnsibility for some cases without a doubt.
Doing such a free educaiton programme through employers would also ensure that students get a job afterwards so that society gets back form the investment.
Realistically I don't think Canadians would be in favor of picking up my tab, as well as the other million or so university students across the country who use student loans.
