Every so often, you read something so irritating that you just want to chew on a ball of tin-foil to take your mind off of how hacked off you are. Like over here, where we have commenter Dianne Wood who writes of the recent suggestion to defund the Status of Women Canada:
Why are you intolerant to another women's point of view? We can live together, as we have been. I just object to my tax money being used to support something I do not believe in.
Yes, Dianne, let's talk about tax money being spent to support things I don't believe in. Like, say, the fact that religion in Canada is tax-exempt. That kind of pisses me off -- that my tax dollars are going to prop up the churches. Why the fuck should I have to work so that those parasites can get a free ride?
And as I've written before, if you live in Ontario, it's a double boot to the nads since taxpayers also pay for the publicly-funded Catholic school system, and you have no idea how much I'd like not to have to shell out cash to keep subsidizing that rubbish.
Of course, the most amusing part of all of this is that, if you follow the links, you can end up at Dianne's blog where you learn she lives in Newmarket, Ontario and writes about Opus Dei. Yes, it takes a really breathtaking level of assholitude to be a Catholic living in Ontario and still complain about how your tax dollars are being used for things you disapprove of.
I'm betting Dianne doesn't even recognize the irony.
10 comments:
Don't most places allow you to direct where every cent of your tax money goes? Or at least withhold your taxes on things you don't agree with?
What? They dont!?
"Don't most places allow you to direct where every cent of your tax money goes? Or at least withhold your taxes on things you don't agree with?"
Uh... no. You're confusing the federal, provincial and municipal governments with the United Way.
Despite your ranting, you're not really paying anything more for these things.
"(T)he fact that religion in Canada is tax-exempt. That kind of pisses me off -- that my tax dollars are going to prop up the churches".
What tax dollars are going to prop up the churches? They are tax-exempt (don't pay taxes), not publicly subsidized or funded, as SWC is.
Further, whether your "hard-earned" tax dollars were going to a Catholic or public school, it would still be going to a school to teach children. If there were no Catholic schools, and all public schools, there would still be the same amount of children and the same amount of schools and the same amount of your tax dollars going to those schools, whether or not the Principal is the Pope.
So you can disagree with the fact that Catholics all gather in one school system, as if it matters to you, but not as if you are single handedly paying for something you wouldn't otherwise have to pay for.
Olaf;
Surely you can see that taxing some people less means you must tax other people more in order to generate the same amount of tax revenue. If you can come up with a meaningful difference between a tax break and a public subsidy I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.
And I'm sure you are aware that the Catholic school board curriculum includes the taxpayer-funded teaching of Catholicism.
You can argue that tax dollars should be funding these things, but don't argue that they aren't.
Point taken, adam. However, surely you can see a difference between self-funded organizations which are tax-exempt(Churches) and those which are funded by the tax payer; one owes its existence to the tax payer, and thus should be accountable to it, the other does not. Without the tax payer, SWC would not exist, although churches would.
Although funding the teaching of Catholicism, the tax-payer, assumedly, is not asked to pay more than they would for a public school. Just because catholicism is on the curriculum, and catholics choose to send their kids to that school, does not mean that CC is burdened anymore than if it did not teach catholicism.
I don't like the government, and I don't agree with some of the stuff they do. Is there anyway I can make sure my taxes aren't paying their salaries? Especially that useless environment minister who values the oil fields over the health of Canadians.
Churches likely would still exist without taxpayers? who's attending?
But more seriously, lots of things would exist without the government. To pick one that is far more vital and fundamental to the human way of life: farmers. Farmers still have to pay income tax, property tax, etc. Yes, they do get some tax breaks, but food growers do not exist due to the government, but are required to pay taxes like everyone else.
And I suspect, Olaf, that if you don't see how offensive it is to others to have a tax-funded organization (catholic school board) teaching children their religion, you won't be brought around by 100 words on an internet page. But note that it's far more than just catholics with children in catholic school, often with little choice otherwise.
" However, surely you can see a difference between self-funded organizations which are tax-exempt(Churches).. "
If they are tax exempt, then they are not self-funded. They are getting a break at my expense.
Actually, Olaf, the only difference I see is between full-funded and partially-funded, and it's a pretty minor distinction that is irrelevant to CC's point.
As well, his point was not that he wanted to pay less tax, but that he didn't want his tax money to fund religious education.
How much was Dianne out of pocket each year to pay for SWC? One penny? Two?
Prefacing with the disclaimer that I'm strongly supportive of the seperation of church and state, hated the catholic school my parents forced me into, and really think religious schools shouldn't be taxpayer funded...
Where I live (Ottawa) we get a registration type thing mailed to us asking us to choose which schoolboard we want our taxes to support: English Catholic, English Public, French Catholic or French Public, so our tax money is only funding the schools we want it to. I think that might only apply to property taxes, though.
Post a Comment