Your E-mails

Tuition Fees –April 22, 2005

I can't begin to state how frustrated I am about the provincial NDP's promise to freeze tuition fees, and especially the common misconception among my fellow students that this would be a good thing. The reason that tuition fees have jumped so dramatically in the last three-and-a-half years is because of the almost decade-long freeze put in place by the last socialist regime (NDP) in power. A university is about much more than undergraduate education. Since the freeze has melted, I have seen almost an order of magnitude increase in research funding for graduate students, better equipment and facilities –and the subsequent hiring and recruitment of some of the best minds in the world.

What the Liberals had to do was painful, but only because the university had to make up for a decade of surfeit in three short years. Now that the Liberals have capped tuition increases to the rate of inflation, we can have the best of both worlds (affordable education and world class research). I think it is much more important to have B.C. (UBC, SFU, UVic, UNBC) known as a hotbed of research in high technology and life sciences than known as a place for cheap undergraduate education.

Kristoffer Palma
Vancouver

28 Days –April 23, 2005

Great show, 28 days. But everybody always uses the percentage ploy when talking about the various tax breaks, who got what, and how much. Not all of us are rich. But basic intelligence knows no economic barriers. The poor are not as stupid as you would make them, by continually using percentages. To coin the cliche, do the fu#$ing math!!!

Ergo: Gordo's tax break for the 60K set –a three per cent decrease in taxes. For the lesser set –about a two per cent reduction? Three per cent of 60K is $1800. Two per cent of 20K is $400.

So, the wealthy ARE getting the bigger break. Wow, with that whole $400, a guy can buy a coffee a day extra, for not even a year, at Starbucks prices...

Get real, get honest on taxes. Still, your show is decent. Thanks.

Ken Driedger
Smithers

I must take issue with the conclusions drawn in your reality check segment. You came to the conclusion that Gordon Campbell's budget cuts benefited both the poor and the wealthy, although not to the same extent, and possibly favour the rich more than the poor.

Unfortunately you failed to take into account the whole story. When Gordon Campbell and his mean-spirited crew cut the taxes, they added a whole bunch of fee increases and new fees (another name for user pay taxes) Health care premiums doubled, drivers' licensing fees increased dramatically, many medical benefits such as chiropractors were cut, fees were brought in for parking at provincial parks and the list goes on. All these are tax increases that affect the poor and middle-earners in our society. When you add up these and combine them with the tax cuts he gave his Howe Street friends you come to the conclusion that only the rich benefited from his alleged tax cuts.

Ken Pearce
Nanaimo

STV – April 24, 2005

This method of ranking preferences is a very sound approach in so many fields, including mine, urban planning. I think once people get used to the idea, they will embrace it as a significant step forward toward truly representational governance.

Frank Ducote
Vancouver

STV 2 – April 25, 2005

I think the STV concept is an excellent way of selecting representatives to run our province. I am also very impressed by the process which lead to the development of this recommendation.

If the majority of voters don't agree with me, so be it - this is a democracy. However, if the STV concept is turned down because of widespread ignorance ("I don't understand it so I'll vote against it.") on the part of the voters, this result would be a tragedy.

Keep up the good work of trying to educate people.

Peter Drake
Vancouver