🚀 go-pugleaf

Ed (ed@inter.com) writes:
> And it's extremely
> simplistic: you have, you pay, you don't have, you don't.  No allowance
> for how you got that way.  Those who piss it all away get more handed to
> them; those who scrimp and save are punished.  The ultimate insult was
> the pension proposal of two budgets ago, which introduced what
> accountants call the RRSP tax.  Any pensioner who was income-"rich",
> i.e., over the princely sum of $13K/yr, would lose 20 cents of pension
> for every dollar of income.  Thus when you drew on your RRSP, you would
> pay tax (fair enough, that was the deal you signed up for), plus you
> would lose 20% of your pension.  For some people this would be the
> equivalent of a tax of over 70%!  Of course, the person who pissed it
> away instead of saving for retirement would be a winner, having enjoyed
> his money, then getting more handed to him. The proposals were quietly
> scrapped a few weeks ago (Paul Martin said the finances were good enough
> that the cutbacks weren't necessary - though he praised the plan as an
> improvement for seniors when he introduced it.)

In light of the above comments I wonder what people think about 
the idea of saving for their kids� education. Does it really make sense 
to try and save?

The student loans program seems to be geared towards the "have nots".  
Apparently, you cannot get a student loan if your parents are considered 
to be "haves". And again, I am really not familiar with details, those 
who do qualify for loans get them at very generous 
interest rates/ forgivable portions (?), not to talk about the thousands 
who promptly declare bankruptcy as soon as they graduate.

So, what do you think? Should parents try to scrimp and save for 
kids� education?