[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I don't think the market will self-correct the issue, because I don't think the market values social mobility. In fact, I expect that the market rewards the legacy students because they add lustre - they provide a valuable social network for graduates and they reinforce that status of the university as being for the moneyed elite. Both of those are attractive.

So yeah, if we care about social mobility we need to think about how to encourage it.

"the market" does not value social mobility or the lustre of legacy students.  The market does not act as a giver of things anymore than the magic money tree in your first premise can hand out 3 billion dollars to whomever it wishes.

the market is just a poor shorthand for the uncountable decisions that people make all the time about how they are going to spend their time, money and skill.

[Jacob]

Agreed, the hallmark of a fair and just society is social mobility.  Not forcing everyone to be equally poor.

I agree with that.

In your view what are the best ways - especially policy wise - to ensure social mobility?

[Malthus]

Agreed, the hallmark of a fair and just society is social mobility.  Not forcing everyone to be equally poor.

I agree with that.

In your view what are the best ways - especially policy wise - to ensure social mobility?

Personally, I've always plugged for weighing the tax system heavier on inheritance (which is unearned) instead of income (which is of course earned).

[Barrister]

Agreed, the hallmark of a fair and just society is social mobility.  Not forcing everyone to be equally poor.

I agree with that.

In your view what are the best ways - especially policy wise - to ensure social mobility?

Personally, I've always plugged for weighing the tax system heavier on inheritance (which is unearned) instead of income (which is of course earned).

There are so many ways to get around an inheritance tax it is ineffective unless you get really quite draconian.

[Admiral Yi]

There are so many ways to get around an inheritance tax it is ineffective unless you get really quite draconian.

Sure, like it give it away before you die.  Plus that crushes people who have built up businesses they want to pass on.

[Malthus]

Agreed, the hallmark of a fair and just society is social mobility.  Not forcing everyone to be equally poor.

I agree with that.

In your view what are the best ways - especially policy wise - to ensure social mobility?

Personally, I've always plugged for weighing the tax system heavier on inheritance (which is unearned) instead of income (which is of course earned).

There are so many ways to get around an inheritance tax it is ineffective unless you get really quite draconian.

There are also ways to get around an income tax for those who aren't working on salary for a big org - like being paid under the table.

[Malthus]

There are so many ways to get around an inheritance tax it is ineffective unless you get really quite draconian.

Sure, like it give it away before you die.  Plus that crushes people who have built up businesses they want to pass on.

Income tax "crushes" people who actually earn a living.

[Barrister]

There are so many ways to get around an inheritance tax it is ineffective unless you get really quite draconian.

Sure, like it give it away before you die.  Plus that crushes people who have built up businesses they want to pass on.

That would, indeed, be 98% of the ways of getting around an inheritance tax.

[crazy canuck]

Agreed, the hallmark of a fair and just society is social mobility.  Not forcing everyone to be equally poor.

I agree with that.

In your view what are the best ways - especially policy wise - to ensure social mobility?

Personally, I've always plugged for weighing the tax system heavier on inheritance (which is unearned) instead of income (which is of course earned).

Yep, I agree. 

To further answer your question Jake, if I was king for a day I would increase government funding of universities while restricting tuition in proportion to that funding.  The proportionate part is key.  In the past when governments have put on tuition restrictions they did not make up the difference in funding.

[crazy canuck]

I hope all the "hidden agenda" types out there noticed the tongue lashing Harper gave to the pro life camp.

[Josephus]

There's a good article today which goes a bit with what we've been talking about recently.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/01/business-canada-society-report-card.html

There's this paragraph:

Many studies have pointed to the rise of income inequality in Canada over the past 30 years. The top 10 per cent have seen their average income rise 34 per cent, while the bottom 10 per cent have seen their earnings rise just 11 per cent. The report says income inequality is cause for concern, especially in education.

[Neil]

Income inequality isn't a concern in Canada, especially in terms of education.  You can get a good free primary and secondary education in Canada, and university isn't crazy US-expensive.  Mind you, the post-secondary scam in the US does have some cross-border effects, but what can you do?

[crazy canuck]

There's a good article today which goes a bit with what we've been talking about recently.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/01/business-canada-society-report-card.html

There's this paragraph:

Many studies have pointed to the rise of income inequality in Canada over the past 30 years. The top 10 per cent have seen their average income rise 34 per cent, while the bottom 10 per cent have seen their earnings rise just 11 per cent. The report says income inequality is cause for concern, especially in education.

As we have already seen the threshold for being in the top 1% is quite low in this country.  I wonder what it is to be in the top 10%.  We are probably talking about the people that do go on to university (or work in the oil sands...).  If that is the case it is not very surprising that people who went to unversity got jobs that had better pay than those who didnt.

The report is internally inconsistent.  How is income inequality a concern in education when the report also states:

However, Canada still maintains a great level of income mobility, ranking 'A'. Compared to other countries, there isn't a very strong relationship between a family's economic background and how much their children can expect to earn.

In Canada, just 19 per cent of a family's disadvantage is passed on, while that is 47 per cent in the U.S. and 50 per cent in the U.K.

This actually turns out to be good evidence that Malthus' earlier concern about access to education may be unwarranted.  Although as a matter of principle I think we should continue to strive to ensure that income mobility stays healthy.  That imo is the most important stat.

[Admiral Yi]

One objection I have to most measures of mobility is that it is measured in terms of income quintiles.  So obviously it's easier to move up (or down) in a country that has a very flat distribution.

[Josephus]

I still have issues with that "top one percent threshold is quite low."

Low is very relative. It still means that 99 per cent of Canadians don't make enough to be in that "low" threshold.

[edit]...Or at least the threshold is so high that almost all candians don't qualify.