Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!sask!alberta!ubc-vision!fornax!chapman
From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: who should pay for education. sort of.
Message-ID: <222@fornax.uucp>
Date: Wed, 4-Mar-87 15:18:01 EST
Article-I.D.: fornax.222
Posted: Wed Mar  4 15:18:01 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Mar-87 02:36:22 EST
References: <215@fornax.uucp> <2770@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Lines: 74

> In article <215@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.UUCP dreams:
                                                   ^^^^^^^
Gee what a cogent comment.  Well you've got me! Obviously my idea
is totally without merit.  Why did you bother with the rest of your
reply when you have such a convincing argument to lead off with?

I'm not going to respond to the majority of this posting since
Vincent Manis has already posted a reply to it which says most
of what I would like to have said.

However: 
> >.
> >.
> >..............  Also it is probably not reasonable to expect a
> >lump sum payment upon exiting the country but a reasonable payment
> >scheme in inflation indexed dollars at prevailing interest rates
> >would be acceptable.
> >
> >Comments?
> 
> Comment 1
> 
> I consider education to be a *right*. As long as a person has the
> ability he should be able to obtain an education at minimal cost
> (preferably almost free). If one accepts the notion that education is a
> right then it should not be possible for the state, in its infinite
> wisdom, to in effect hold education ransom. This is John Chapman's
> suggestion. Given that few "ordinary Canadians" could afford the full

Nonsense. Try reading what I wrote, not what you would like me to have
written.

.
.
. 
> Comment 4
> 
> The notion of a "reasonable payment scheme in inflation indexed dollars
> at prevailing interest rates" is impractical. Anyone leaving the
> country "on a permanent basis" will quite rightly tell the state to
> shove its repayment scheme into a certain place that net etiquette
> prevents me from mentioning. Since I doubt that many countries
> (excepting those in the Communist bloc which have already implemented
> this scheme) would go along with making this an extraditable offence,
> the state would be left with no alternative but to demand full payment
> on departure, in effect disallowing the possibility of "legal"

Really? You know most of your postings lead me to believe you like the
way the US runs it's affairs so I would expect you to know more about
them.  When a US citizen (or possibly even resident) leaves the country
they must continue paying taxes to the US government for the next 10
years (you get to deduct from this taxes paid in your new country). I
can assure you that not only will they extradite you if you fail to do
so but you will pay for reticence to fulfill your obligation.  The US
governmnet seems to have no problem enforcing this.

.
. 
> In order for it to be worth the paper work (not to mention the cost of
> the wall) it would have to be necessary for a significant percentage of

No more paperwork than is now necessary for CSL, emigration and payment
of Canada pensions to people living outside Canada.

.
. 
> J.B. Robinson
.
. 
> Never need to wonder
> How or why			RUSH - 2112

Ahhh. I wondered what the source of your "philosophy" was.