dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (06/12/84)
I am annoyed. For years the Catholic "separate" school system has
been funded by Catholic taxpayers' property taxes, while Jewish
and other religious schools have had to be financed out of student
tuition fees and religious community donations. The Jewish community
has sought in the past to have this inequity changed so that, at
the least, we could direct our property taxes to our own children's
schools. The justification for allowing Catholic parents to have
this privilege was "it's always been this way" ... "historical reasons",
etc. etc.
This afternoon Premier Davis announced in the legislature that
Catholic schools will now receive funds from the general public purse.
Well, what about Jewish schools? Or those of other religions?
Those of us who send our children to certain schools for religious
reasons should have the same right to public funds as the Catholics
who send their children to certain schools for religious reasons.
It presently costs several thousand dollars a year for the education
of each child in an observant Jewish family.
I have already called Mr. Davis' office to register a protest.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davemason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (06/13/84)
I couldn't agree more, although as an atheist without children, I'm not sure
that the correct solution is for Jewish schools to be supported from general
tax funds like the Catholic ones, but rather that they both have the rights
and privileges that the Catholics had (still have I presume), that is the
rights to redirect their school tax dollars to the schoolboard of their
choice. (Even better would be if people without children were exempt from
these taxes :-). )
..D
--
Usenet: {dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision
utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver}
!utcsrgv!mason Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG
CSNET: mason@Toronto
ARPA: mason%Toronto@CSNet-Relaytony@hcr.UUCP (Tony Lill) (06/13/84)
There seem to be a few facts missing from all the flaming about the funding for Catholic schools, which I will try to provide: > I am annoyed. For years the Catholic "separate" school system has > been funded by Catholic taxpayers' property taxes, while Jewish > and other religious schools have had to be financed out of student > tuition fees and religious community donations. This "funding" has only been for the elementary level, as well an an "equivalent to elementary" funding for grades 9 and 10, which if I remember correctly, only covers 1/3 to 1/2 of the costs for these grades. For those of us going through higher grades, the costs are born through tuition fees and donations (and those damn chocolate bar campaigns). In any case, this meant that only PART of our property taxes have gone to the separate school board, the rest have gone to the public schools. This is what annoyed me the most, that the public system was getting a free ride at my expense. > The Jewish community > has sought in the past to have this inequity changed so that, at > the least, we could direct our property taxes to our own children's > schools. The justification for allowing Catholic parents to have > this privilege was "it's always been this way" ... "historical reasons", > etc. etc. This is part of the BNA act, and was one of the concessions that allowed Canada to be in the first place. (Actually, I seem to recall that as being one of the reasons brought up NOT to give us full funding :-) Now that we have gotten a fair shake, it is much more likely that Jewish and other religious schools will be able to get better treatment, since there is now a precedent for full funding of a separate school system. (Besides, you wont be competing with our claims anymore) > This afternoon Premier Davis announced in the legislature that > Catholic schools will now receive funds from the general public purse. > Well, what about Jewish schools? Or those of other religions? > Those of us who send our children to certain schools for religious > reasons should have the same right to public funds as the Catholics > who send their children to certain schools for religious reasons. I quite agree that you should, where numbers make this feasible. (How silly, obviously if you already have schools, you have the numbers) Now would be the right time to push for this, now that they have made concessions, an since an election is near (this is the second nice thing Davis has done in the past couple of weeks, there must be an election coming) The moral of the story: Don't begrudge us our victory, for it opens the way for your own. The opinions expressed herein are not those on my employer, and may not even be my own. Tony Lill Human Computing Resources Corp. 10 St. Mary St., Toronto, Ont., Canada 1-416-922-1937 {allegra,decvax,linus,utzoo}!hcr!tony SpellingLIst campains -- The opinions expressed herein are not those on my employer, and may not even be my own. Tony Lill Human Computing Resources Corp. 10 St. Mary St., Toronto, Ont., Canada 1-416-922-1937 {allegra,decvax,linus,utzoo}!hcr!tony
steve@hcrvax.UUCP (Steve Pozgaj) (06/14/84)
Actually, this is all rather silly. On the one hand, I've seen an excellent summary of facts by Tony Lill. On the other, we have emotional cries for Jews having their own cut at tax-based school funding, and atheists having to pay no school taxes. Has nobody bothered to notice that the whole [illegal and immoral] tax system, as well as welfare and other government-based programs, are not meant to be SELECTIVE, but, rather, GENERAL? Why, for example, should a single person have to pay into some fund that allows a pregnant woman to get PAID (!!!) leave while having a child? Why should the employed pay for UNEMPLOYNMENT insurance? Why should we pay taxes which contribute to ALL SORTS of things we as individuals may never use (welfare, health subsidies, education subsidies, etc.)? Why? Well, maybe because we are a SOCIETY, not individuals. However, where does one stop short of SOCIALISM, and not having ANY individual properties, worries, rights, etc.? See, this kind of argument could go on forever. The basic question is: does the historical precedent of the BNA Act hold? I.e. maybe we should pay an education tax that gets doled out among a whole mess of schools -- Jewish, Catholic, Anglican, Scientologist, Hungarian, etc. -- rather than just PUBLIC or SEPARATE. Full steam ahead! Steve Pozgaj, (whatever ...)!hcr!steve
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (06/14/84)
[The line immediately below was generated for me by rn!]
In article <698@hcr.UUCP> tony@hcr.UUCP (Tony Lill) writes:
~| In any case, this meant that only PART of our
~| property taxes have gone to the separate school board, the rest have gone
~| to the public schools. This is what annoyed me the most, that the public
~| system was getting a free ride at my expense.
That's not fair, and I would never make the argument that my taxes should
not go to the public system. Otherwise, people without children would be
able to argue that they shouldn't pay property taxes at all.
~| > The Jewish community
~| > has sought in the past to have this inequity changed so that, at
~| > the least, we could direct our property taxes to our own children's
~| > schools. The justification for allowing Catholic parents to have
~| > this privilege was "it's always been this way" ... "historical reasons",
~| > etc. etc.
~|
~| This is part of the BNA act, and was one of the concessions that allowed
~| Canada to be in the first place. (Actually, I seem to recall that as
~| being one of the reasons brought up NOT to give us full funding :-)
~| Now that we have gotten a fair shake, it is much more likely
~| that Jewish and other religious schools will be able to get better
~| treatment, since there is now a precedent for full funding of a separate
~| school system. (Besides, you wont be competing with our claims anymore)
That's a valid point. In fact, Rabbi Witty (director of the Toronto Board
of Jewish Education) is quoted today as saying exactly that.
~|
~| > This afternoon Premier Davis announced in the legislature that
~| > Catholic schools will now receive funds from the general public purse.
~| > Well, what about Jewish schools? Or those of other religions?
~| > Those of us who send our children to certain schools for religious
~| > reasons should have the same right to public funds as the Catholics
~| > who send their children to certain schools for religious reasons.
~|
~| I quite agree that you should, where numbers make this feasible.
~| (How silly, obviously if you already have schools, you have the numbers)
Yes. There are 15 schools in the Board of Jewish Education in Toronto,
and several others which aren't affiliated with it.
~| Now would be the right time to push for this, now that they have made
~| concessions, an since an election is near (this is the second nice thing
~| Davis has done in the past couple of weeks, there must be an election coming)
~|
Perhaps the tone of my article was a little strident. When I called the
Premier's office, I didn't say I objected to the Catholic funding. I said
I objected to Catholic funding without Jewish funding.
~| The moral of the story: Don't begrudge us our victory, for it opens the
~| way for your own.
~|
Time will tell, I suppose.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave