So raise tuition and lower services because you know those cuts are not coming from salaries of the higher ups.

“The college is working to resolve a predicted $1.2 million budget shortfall for the 2014/15 fiscal year, due to rising costs and stagnant overall funding.”

“Stagnant overall funding”… typical Lib-Cons, starve our kids into the highest poverty rate in Canada, then stop investing in their future by underfunding public education and post secondary education.

A Lib-Con government picking on kids shouldn’t surprise any of us, now should it?

The answer is not always to throw more money at something, People#1. Remember, the money always has to come from somewhere. No matter how much money you throw at it, there will always be hands out begging for more.

Like the medical system, the education system gets funded well. It is the high cost of administration, red tape, and bureaucracy that is eating up the lion’s share of the costs. I can’t see this changing any time soon.

JB, don’t you get tired of defending our government’s inexcusable actions, or lack of action in this case?

Investing in our children’s education is not just an investment in them, it is an investment in our society’s future!

Answer this question for us JB; Is it not possible that the cure for cancer is trapped inside the mind of someone who can’t afford an education?

Again, investing in our children’s education is not just an investment in them, it is an investment in our society’s future!!!

People: “Investing in our children’s education is not just an investment in them, it is an investment in our society’s future!”

The problem is that the money we’re spending isn’t being allocated properly, and the end result is that it just ends up costing more and more. It is being eaten up by useless costs to the system.

People: “JB, don’t you get tired of defending our government’s inexcusable actions”

Don’t you get tired of using every story to bash them? Figure out how the world works and how simplistic solutions don’t work for complex problems, and get back to me.

And here is a list of 36 countries, including Norway, who offer FREE post secondary education. Thanks for telling me to find out how the rest of the world works JB ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education#List_of_countries_with_free_post-secondary_education

People, you realize that nothing is ‘free’ right? The money always has to come from somewhere. I’m not sure why that is so hard to understand.

In BC, between the education and medical system, those two items alone eat up 2/3 of the Provincial budget. How much more should it be?

Oh I don’t know JB, how about raising corporate taxes in BC to be about average to the rest of the world, and using those billions of dollars in corporate tax revenue to invest in our children’s education and our health care.

Gee, ending the “free ride” businesses and corporations have had in our province, and making them tow the tax line like the rest of us might be an idea… ?

http://themainlander.com/2011/02/02/vancouver-has-lowest-corporate-taxes-in-the-world/

And what happens when corporations get taxed higher P#1? Whispers…. They pass it on to the consumer!

Yup NoWay. People#1 just doesn’t get it.

And what happens when they pass it on to consumers? Consumers will go to Mexico to consume, or buy more Chinese products.

But the Canadian dollar is taking a nose dive. So the Canadians have to pay more already ……. Must be the BCLiberals …. or that Harper guy.

Gasoline is $1.20 …. that because oil is now more expensive even though the price has not gone up.

I just wish we could all work together on this …. would be such a perfect world.

BTW, I doubt that CNC’s budget is being cut from what it was last year or the year before. I suspect they set a budget which was higher than last year to allow the presentation of similar types of programs, but found that payroll is going up by around 2% other costs are going up by as much, and even money form the government may be going up slightly, but tuition was not ….. so they, like all colleges, are moving the tuition up by 2%, which is the amount they are allowed to raise it, if things are the same as last year.

Check the budgets over the last few years.

JohnnyBelt and NoWay, you both need to lighten up on my dear friend People#1! After all, it was only a few months ago or so that he posted that he was just a pimply faced college student living in his mother’s basement.

Seems funny that he would be talking about investing in “our” children’s education and health care. “Our” children?? Does this pimply faced college student living in his mother’s basement have children, or is he the child that he is talking about??

If he is in fact a pimply faced college student living in his mother’s basement as he has previously stated, then he obviously has a vested interest in demanding a free college education or no increases in his current tuition fees! None of this allows him to be very objective on this subject!

Sorry People#! I’m just abiding by your mantra about facts and truths!

Ho Hum…..inflation happens, costs tend to rise as time goes by. Not sure why anyone is surprised or upset about this…….or why it’s even news worthy for that matter.

NoWay states; “And what happens when corporations get taxed higher P#1? Whispers…. They pass it on to the consumer!”

Now that’s funny, his statement is based on the false premise that if corporations receive a tax break, those corporations will “kindly” pass that tax break on to us consumers in the form of lower product prices… LOL

Thus his inference that if taxes are raised those corporations will pass the increase on to us consumers in the form of higher product prices.

Gasp… we know when corporations get tax breaks they just keep the savings to boost their profits, may as well raise their tax rates so we get something out of it, like better public education and post secondary education for our kids!

Or conversely, do nothing, watch our public education and post secondary institutions struggle while fat cat Corporate CEOs make millions, we already know which you prefer NoWay!

If not taxes, printing presses, and borrowing, where exactly does money come from, People#1 ? Be specific.

Why do you guys think that People#1 is a guy ? Is it the deep voice ?

Posted by: People#1 on January 24 2014 7:20 PM

Now that’s funny, his statement is based on the false premise that if corporations receive a tax break, those corporations will “kindly” pass that tax break on to us consumers in the form of lower product prices… LOL

————–

No, what happens if you raise corporate taxes the corporations end up either going out of business or taking their business elsewhere.

As a sole proprieter I guess I count as one of those evil “corporations”? If I had to pay any more in taxes I wouldn’t hesitate to move out of BC.

“And what happens when corporations get taxed higher P#1? Whispers…. They pass it on to the consumer!”

Or they threaten to not set up shop here or to close down the ones they have. Aren’t they great?

People#1, all corporations have to fully recover their costs, including the costs of any taxation levied on them. And they do this from prices. If, or when, they can’t, they can’t stay in business. That is axiomatic ~ there’s simply no sense in trying to argue otherwise.

Ultimately, only the CONSUMER pays the prices, including the taxes. Which, like all other costs, are passed on. Those prices ‘liquidate’ the costs, at the point of final retail. When he, or she, buys the products or pays for the services the corporation offers. For personal CONSUMPTION. Not for resale, which would only ‘transfer’ the costs one step further.

We PRODUCE to CONSUME. Money simply facilitates the process. What is created through a bank loan and paid out as a business ‘cost’ is liquidated through a ‘price’, and the loan is repaid.

What came “out of nothing”, as the saying goes, returns to “nothing” so far as the money goes, while the ‘production’ it enabled becomes ‘consumption’ and is utilised for ongoing human needs and desires.

The dynamic nature of this whole process disguises this FACT, and that the entire process, taken as a whole, continually allows for ‘profits’, (for corporations), ‘interest’ (for banks), and ‘savings’ (for consumers). All three are merely subtrahends from the overall flow of loans emanating from the banks, and subsequently returning as repayments to them. All three can be continually taken from that flow, but will be returned to it later. NONE of them increase debt one iota.

To attack profits, as those of the socialist persuasion are wont to do, is simply an admission that you haven’t a clue as to how the financial system actually operates. The problems that come from that system, indeed from the whole structure of ‘capitalism’, are NOT primarily the result of anyone’s profit, reasonable or excessive. The cause of those problems, including why college tuition and virtually everything else becomes increasingly more unaffordable lies elsewhere. And will NEVER be solved through attacking profits.

Dragonmaster:-“Or they threaten to not set up shop here or to close down the ones they have. Aren’t they great?”
——————————————–

Would YOU consciously do anything, or continue to do anything, that was not in some way profitable to you? Would anyone? No? Then why expect a corporation to?

“we know when corporations get tax breaks they just keep the savings to boost their profits”

And we know this how? Have you ever sat on a corporate board or worked as the CEO, or the CFO of a corporation people#1.

Just think, if corporations would never pass on savings when the taxes go down, but increase their prices when taxes go up then, all other things being equal their profits would keep on increasing over the decades to the point where they would go from say 8.35% to 57.12%, at which point they would price themselves out of the market and shut the doors and let the foreign corporations take over.

Umm… what part of the attached link does anyone NOT understand?

http://themainlander.com/2011/02/02/vancouver-has-lowest-corporate-taxes-in-the-world/

“Lowest In The World” people… so if we raise corporate taxes to be at a similar average level to every other place in the world, why would corporations leave BC to pay the SAME tax rate somewhere else in the world?

Why does our Corporate tax rate have top be the LOWEST in the world, lets raise it to be competitive with the rest of the world!!!! Let use that extra revenue to pay for better public education, post secondary education and health care for ourselves!

Socredible, it’s entirely possible that Dragonmaster is or one day will be retired. Based up previous comments, I suspect that Dragonmaster is working or did work in a unionized environment and as such, probably is or will be receiving a pension. Perhaps Dragonmaster also has personal investments in an RRSP or a tax-free saving plan, investments that are or will provide additional retirement income.

Many on this site fail to recognize that there is a definite probability that a percentage of the pension’s fund are invested in the capital markets. So, the pension plan undoubtedly owns shares in the nasty corporations that so many here like to criticize for making a profit! Profit equals dividends and also allows the pension plan to sell or buy stocks at times deemed beneficial. The dividends and/or capital gains realized, are going into the pension plan and are then probably being paid out to some of the people here that hate corporate profit and success.

Many people owning RRSP’s and tax-free savings account may also hold stocks in their portfolio and as such are able to benefit from the profits and success of the companies represented in their portfolio.

All of this constant berating of successful and profitable corporations kind of sounds like the biting of the hand that feeds you!

“all corporations have to fully recover their costs, including the costs of any taxation levied on them. And they do this from prices. If, or when, they can’t, they can’t stay in business.”

Bunch of BS …… Some are actually smart enough to do it through production improvements. The TV I bought 20 years ago for a $700 then was a different TV as far as what it does than the one I bought recently for the same price. Both, btw, were TVs from ASIA, not North America.

You spew out the same stuff all the time as if it were the answer to all our woes. I agree with the principles, but you are not providing any solutions that are viable. Far too academic and not the reality of the world we live in.

I have asked you once before whether there is any government in the world that has put you philosophy into practice. Perhaps a dictatorship somewhere? An absolute Monarchy living off the avails of oil? A small island nation living in a virtual closed economy based on resources found on the island(s)?

The closest I can get to it is a large sized commune, say around Big Sur or on Vancouver Island.

I forgot about Goa; another possible candidate.

But oh no. lets not just give these corporations the lowest tax rate in the world, because that is not good enough for them, how about supplying them with the world’ cheapest source of labour through a Temporary Foreign Workers Program. Yeah, lets all clap and cheer when these multi-billion and million corporations layoff Canadian workers to make use of these inexpensive foreign workers.

When you are a corporation, there is no such thing as too much profit!!! Let’s applaud Corporations like Glacier Media Inc., laying-off workers in Kamloops and other places in BC to ship their jobs overseas to India and the Philippines!

“Corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.” ~ Elisabeth Warren

One of the recent stories about Glacier Media’s closure of the Kamloops Daily News states the following:

“Glacier Media Inc. has signaled that it plans to close the Kamloops Daily News in the next 60 days, citing falling revenues and difficulty reducing expenses.

The Vancouver-based media company gave notice of the coming shutdown to Unifor, the union representing its staff, according to an article on the Daily News website.

“Personally I am very saddened to make this announcement,” Daily News publisher Tim Shoults said in the article. “We have struggled for the last several years, worked tirelessly and taken many difficult steps along the way which were designed to ensure our future. Unfortunately the realities of our industry, our local advertising market and our labour situation were too great for us to overcome.”

Costs are too high and revenue is too low! Although we don’t know the specifics, it seems like the Kamloops Daily News made an effort to modify and adapt in order to remain in business. Sadly, the fact that they closed isn’t too surprising given the realities of our modern internet world!

I wonder if the declining revenue had anything to do with more and more of us using the internet to get our “news” instead of buying the local papers. Where we go, the advertisers are also sure to follow. So, perhaps we are all partially responsible for the demise of the Kamloops Daily News and other papers by our desire to spend time on our computers??

I accept my part in this! I wonder how many others do?

Lowest tax rate in the world in Vancouver or BC ….. That is a bucnh of cow patties

The following have 0% corporate tax rates:

UAE
Marshall Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
British Virgin Islands
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bwermuda
Cayman Islands

These have 10% maximum

Albania
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Gibraltar
Macedonia
Mongolia
Paraguay
Qatar (0% for Qatari coroporations/partners)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kuwait
Andorra

Then come all those who are above 10%

Canada (11 to 15% federal) + 0% to 16% provincial ….. 54.75% highest personal tax

A couple of others for comparison

Sweden 22% … highest personal tax is 31.2%
Norway 28% … personal tax is 46.8% … and that is the country with lots of oil

Australia 30% and going down … personal tax is maximum 45%
—————————————

Taxes are all over the map, so to speak and the only real way to compare is to take a real example of a corporation and screen their financials date into the tax regime of several countries to see how taxes compare from one country to the next.

“So, perhaps we are all partially responsible for the demise of the Kamloops Daily News and other papers by our desire to spend time on our computers??”

Its like the stage coaches that died because of trains, cars, and buses.

Either you change the way of doing business, or you go out of business.

Hardly the fault of those that took the train, went for a ride with a friend who owned a car, or bought a ticket on a bus.

The time is coming. Some papers are changing to meet those times. An example would be the Free Press. They started changing a long time ago. I think they are getting stronger with their writing staff rather than weaker.

Love the opinion piece on the Mayor’s control of Council.

Oh, I put Sweden in there and Norway because most people think of them as socialist states who tax their people so high that they lose the interest to work harder ……. I think that may be truer of Canada these days. I do not know what the average personal tax is in any of those countries. That would be a much better measure.

All, of the countries with 0 corporate tax rates, and 0 personal tax rates are unethical tax havens for the world’s “filthy” rich!

Even emerging economic countries like China have their most greedy rich citizens immigrating on mass, with their money, to those countries with 0 tax rates.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chinas-rich-flee-country-fortunes-222032721.html

Gus, my apologies for not answering this question when you asked it before. I do recall seeing you ask about this, but the thread had expired by then, and I could not respond at that time.

There is no doubt whatsoever that improvements in process can, and do, lower costs. Old Henry Ford’s Model
T car, for instance, sold for a lower price, I believe, each year it was made than it did the year before.

And by the time Ford stopped making them in the late 1920’s or early ’30’s they had many improvements incorporated in their design that weren’t included in the earlier versions. Yet the vehicle itself was priced lower.

Ford was able to do this by greatly increasing the output of production per man/hour in his auto plant. So much so that he could pay $ 5 a day to his workers, when the average wage was half that, or less. (But they sure worked for it, too! And Fords were made under working conditions that, “…would offend even the Lord”, as one little ditty of the time sung to the tune of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” put it. But that’s another issue.)

This increased output prescription works fine so long as ALL the increased production can actually be sold. For even though production efficiencies can greatly lower ‘unit costs’, it is still the TOTAL costs of ALL the ‘units’ that have to be recovered. And at some point they can’t be. The market becomes saturated. With Model T’s, or anything else. And the more ‘units’ produced the faster, the quicker this happens.

Then we are very definitely back to the FACT that all costs have to be included in, and recovered from, prices. And if there are unsold units in one cycle of production, the cost of those units carries over into the NEXT cycle of production. And so on. RAISING the prices that have to be obtained in the future to cover the costs incurred in the PAST, which still have to be liquidated if the business is to remain in business. So what I said is NOT BS at all.

And that’s not even the half of it.

‘Financially’, the lower limit of price is always cost. Prices can not decline below cost for long or production ceases, and the business, for all intents and purposes, is out of business.

Now we get into something quite interesting. While the lower limit of price is cost, the upper limit of the price, of anything, is governed roughly by the quantity of money available in the hands of the public to meet that price.

If we increase that quantity by engaging in distributing incomes to people who are producing things which aren’t going to be immediately consumed by the public ~ things like what we’d call ‘Capital goods’, as opposed to ‘Consumer goods’, or government infrastructure, or a Winter Olympics, or an Enbridge pipeline, site C dam, or whatever ~ the prices of Consumer goods will rise as a result.

And it is intended that they do, when governments have a hand in funding these kind of projects, or are anxious to promote them.

For those increased prices enable (briefly, at least), increased business profits. And it is from those profits, in accounting, that the principal of every bank loan is repaid. (And otherwise currently could not be ~ not considering loans in their totality.)

This is part of the cruel irony governments, and their financial backers, play on us repeatedly. It financially negates the benefits of the various mega-projects proposed to a very large degree ~ and many of these projects do have some very genuine and lasting real benefits. But they also come at a grossly inflated price.

Now if you also factor in what is called generically, “labour displacement”, through technology and automation, but also now increasingly through outsourcing jobs formerly done here abroad, you start to get into the other half of the problem.

For though production efficiencies and outsourcing definitely DOES lower production costs, and prices, too (sometimes), they also simultaneously displace the incomes of labour. And it is from the spending of those incomes in meeting prices that the costs of production are liquidated.

Telling the displaced to go get retrained and get another job might be sage advice to that individual as regards to getting on with his life. But it does NOTHING to liquidate the cost of the machine that’s replaced him, for the wages he makes in his new job, if he finds one, will now be part of the costs that will flow through into the prices of whatever he’s doing now. So now we’ve TWO sets of costs coming forward into prices, but only ONE income being distributed to meet them. Prices can fall, but not below costs. Or there’s no business. And if there’s a fall in profits, in general, the banks can’t lend. For they can’t be repaid.

And if we do as we’re wont to do, and borrow and spend more on ‘Capital goods’ and ‘infrastructure, etc.’, we only end up making the situation ‘financially’ worse, not better. We build up a debt load that can never be repaid. And eventually we can’t even pay the interest on it ~ even at an artificially low rate of interest, as we’re experiencing now.

Now I’m not going into the solution here, this post is already too long, but there is one, and it involves, fundamentally, changing a few things in accounting at the macro-economic level of the economy.

It has nothing to do with ‘communes’, nor taxing anyone more to ‘re-distribute’ wealth.

And it has been attempted, albeit in an incomplete way, in Austria for a few years after World War One, and in Alberta, just prior to World War Two. It showed success in both instances, and in both instances external forces prevailed in quashing those successes.

There’s much more that could be said about that, and should be, but that aside, just look at the alternatives. What are they? Ever increasing prices and taxes accompanied by ever declining quality of products and services? Is that the best we can do? Surely not, but tell me an alternative answer that’s better, I’d really like to hear it.

Gotta pay to earn.

“All, of the countries with 0 corporate tax rates, and 0 personal tax rates are unethical tax havens for the world’s “filthy” rich!”

I did not read anywhere that ethics was part of the criteria which would exclude those countries from being considered in the ranking.

That notwithstanding, there are at least 11 other countries that have lower corporate tax rates.

Now, I do not know how often you get to Hongcouver, People#1, but it is difficult to not notice the growth of Chinese in Vancouver over the last 30 or so years. The phenomenon of Chinese migrants from Hong Kong and now even from mainland China is nothing new and had much more to do with the 100 year lease of Hong Kong drawing to a close and the wealthy wanting to hedge their bets about the continuing freedom that those who were not part of the government of China enjoyed there.

A 2% increase in tuition is a small amount when considering it’s an investment in your future.

“Investing in our children’s education is not just an investment in them, it is an investment in our society’s future!”

I hate this argument. I’m supposed to give up my future and my retirement so that someone else’s kid can get a cheap education? I’m expected to bust my ass for 40+ years so that someone else’s kid can have it easy?

Where the hell did that mentality come from? The world does not owe anyone a comfortable and affordable life.

No axman, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read my previous comments! I am saying the corporations should be paying for our children’s education.

Notice how business now expects government (us) to pay for the education of their trades people? Use to be a time when industry would make sure they had enough qualified workers to meet their operational requirements, not anymore. Our government now works for those multi-billion dollar corporation, and not us!

Wake up sheeple!!!

People#1, it all comes out of the same pocket whether governments pay or corporations pay for worker training. The pocket of those who ‘consume’ ~ all of us, in other words. Corporations make and distribute products or provide services. Unless the corporation is a bank it does not, in any sense of the word, ‘make’ money. It can only ‘get’ money from someone else who has some. Ultimately that someone else is us. The only issue is whether the money belongs to ‘us’, as unattached purchasing power, or to the ‘bank’ as a debt we have to pay, (if we only had the money to pay it.)

People 1st. Apprenticeships have for a long time had financial assistance from the government.. But when Bond was education minister she cut back the funding to apprenticeship programs and we are feeling the impact now.

Also the baby boomers retiring has an impact too of course, the government knew this and still cut funding.