Alberta Politics Big Government Bullies Politics Public Education Socialism The left Uncategorized

Who is subsidizing whom?

Dave 07The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human rights, Article 26, Subsection 1 says: “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.”

Subsection 3 says: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” That means that they have school choice. Or they are supposed to.

Now, Alberta parents, the Smiths, send their kids to public schools. As per Subsection 3, above, the Joneses choose to send theirs to so-called private, or charter schools.

The Smiths and Joneses pay the same level of taxes to the provincial government, but currently, the Joneses school receives only 70% of the per capita student funding, from the government, that the Smith’s school receives. The Joneses have to make up the 30% deficit, out of pocket.

Meanwhile, the other 30% of the property tax that the Joneses paid to the government, stays with the government, to help fund public schools. That obviously subsidizes the Smiths.

Furthermore, by having to pay the extra 30% of the cost of their children’s education, after having paid the full amount of tax to the government; does this not mean that the Joneses have less money for food, clothing, and entertainment for their children? And does this not go against the spirit of the UN declaration that: “Education shall be free…”

As for the Smiths; does this subsidy from the Joneses not mean that they have a lightened burden for the education of their children, and therefore, more money left over for food, clothing, and entertainment for their children?

Please tell me again, who is subsidizing whom?

We’ve recently been hearing from an organization benignly called Public Interest Alberta, that insists that all tax money should go to public schools. This group makes the patently absurd claim that Alberta taxpayers are subsidizing private schools. The truth is obviously, exactly the opposite.

No one but the most intellectually or mathematically challenged could make such a claim – and I’m going to assume that these people are intelligent – so the conclusion I draw is that they have an agenda.

NotleyI strongly suspect that Public Interest Alberta is simply a front, and that they are preparing Albertans for the NDP government to ram through more of their left-wing ideology.

This particular doctrine holds that children are the property of the state, and in spite of the UN declaration, it’s Notley and friends who get to decide on your child’s education. It further insists that every teacher should be a unionized teacher, whether they want to be, or not.

Prove me wrong.

I’m Dave Reesor

9 replies on “Who is subsidizing whom?”

Dave, I’m taking this article, changing Alberta to Syracuse, NY or some other U.S. state run by liberals…and making sure the words color and honor are spelled the U.S. way. I could republish it with only minor changes. (You don’t write is ‘minour changes’ do you? The left has the same failed arguments to defend the same types of failed schools.

Different sides of the line. Same story.

Go ahead. I’m a Canadian, but have spent so much time on business in the States and have relatives from Florida to Washington, that I spell it either way. Z is Zed when I’m talking to Canadians or Brits, and Zee when I’m talking to Americans.
Re the blog, I have a follow up coming which is that here in Alberta, no portion of the cost of building the school, or the busing of the children, is covered by the government. So parents that send their kids to private schools are making a real sacrifice.
The left is lying about this.
Well, isn’t that a surprise!

Hi Donna
I used to write letters to the Herald all the time but they gradually began publishing only those which fit into Naomi Lakritz’s left-wing worldview. So I started this blog.
With social media we can present our ideas to the whole world with no cost for printing or distribution. But to make it effective we all have to get involved. I can write the blog but it has to be shared, liked, forwarded etc. etc., and then together will all make an impact.
Last week you shared on Facebook something from Teresa Ng. I’ve since contacted her and on Monday we had a conversation lasted for nearly an hour and a half. She is an amazing young woman, and a real asset to the conservative cause
I have other contacts with other excellent organizations.
I spoke at the Essentials of Freedom conference here in Calgary last weekend and I said that if we’re going to be effective, we conservatives have to Cooperate, Contribute, and Communicate.
Conservative citizens and organizations must cooperate to achieve critical mass.
Concerned citizens must begin to contribute regularly, as you do. Ask you concerned friends to get involved.
And we must Communicate using social media. I am currently working on producing 60 to 12o second videos, directed specifically at young people, to be delivered on their smartphones.
Videos cost money to produce; not much, but they’re not free. People like you that support me on a regular basis are the key to restoring the culture. I need hundreds and then thousands of people like you so together we can support the work organizations like Therese’s, John Carpay’s and many others.
We can win this war, but only if we get organized to fight.
Thanks again for your support!

Good, but you’re banging your head against a brick wall. Do you send these blogs to the Herald or other places where you would present a new viewpoint?

I think all citizens should help fund one public education system. One does not need to look far to see the results of societies that do not have a reasonable education system. Parents can subsidize any special interest like religion on their own dime and time. Speaking of subsidies, I think churches should pay property taxes and the clergy should not get a CRA housing tax break.

I’m all for one public education system, but with different schools within it to meet parents wishes. After all the United Nations declaration on human rights says that parents have a prior right to decide on the education of their children. How can that possibly mean that a Secularist worldview, or for that matter, a Conservative worldview must prevail?
Why does the left insist that everyone must conform to their worldview?
Subsidies? Maybe churches should pay property taxes and the clergy shouldn’t get a break, but the churches I’ve gone to spend a lot of money helping people that are down and out, thereby relieving the burden on taxpayers.
We attended a church for 15 years and their ministry focus was on those with addictions. Their success rate was several times higher than the provincial programs, and it didn’t cost the taxpayers a dime.
I think that if Atheists get organized and start programs to help the homeless and the addicted and the marginalized, they should get tax breaks too.

One system with different schools to fit parents interests is a bit contradictory. It would be interesting to see how that would work in rural areas, never mind urban areas!

The worldview that matters is pretty basic: communication, facts, skills and nurturing self actualization with the ability to think independently and objectively. Personal interests, especially religious, must be a private matter.

Perhaps if churches and ministers paid taxes the government would be able to afford to do a better job.

Atheists, at this point, do not need to organize. We live in a democracy (as flawed as it is) and paying our taxes we pay for all the programs government provides (and the subsidies as well…).

Leave a Reply to Donna F. Eliason Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: