In article , heidigraw{at}shaw.ca says...
>
> >"Mark Borgerson"  wrote in message
> >news:MPG.1c53687c95dccba0989698{at}news.comcast.giganews.com...
> (snip)
>
> >Mark B. wrote:
> > I would probably have done better to say
> > that "feminism has little direct impact on my life in a social, legal,
> > or financial manner."
>
> Perhaps not in a social or legal sense.  However, I would think feminist
> policies do affect you financially, ie. via taxation.
>
> Take the proposal for a national child-care stategy that is before
> Parliament in Canada.  If implemented, our tax-dollars will be used to help
> finance it.  Is it worth it?  Do I want to help pay for it?
>
> Given that way too many children are not adequately supervised or are not
> given a stimulating and safe learning environment at home, and we do have
> latch-key kids, I have to decide whether or not I want my taxes used to
> support an expanded prison system or the early childhood education programs
> and care facilities.
>
> Also consider when corporations on their own premises offer child-care to
> working parents.  Some of those programs are not
"self-supporting" by the
> working parents.  The corporation kicks in money to help defray the costs.
> This is an employee benefit.  That benefit is, however, calculated into the
> price of the goods and services that the corporation provides.  You, as the
> consumer, pays for that day-care centre at that workplace.
>
> There are also women's shelters which receive *our* tax dollars on top of
> any charitable donations and grants that they can rustle up.
>
> Consider also those many single moms struggling to raise their children on
> their own and who are receiving taxpayer support for a variety of
> reasons...be it for housing, clothing, food, school support and other social
> services, ie. counselling.
>
> ...and family court...how much does that cost the tax-payers?
>
> >there are steps you can take to minimize
> > the impact of even such misguided social policies as those espoused
> > by  radical feminists.
>
> Social policies cost money.  The taxpayers are on the hook for those
> policies.  If you pay taxes, you're directly affected.
>

That's probably a bigger issue in Canada than it is here.  In the
US, the tax increments due to those policies are kept in check
by the increasing defense spending  and medicare and social
security costs.

As a self-employed person, variations in my annual income may
be 30 or 40%.   The changes in my taxes as a result of those
variations are much greater than the changes due to feminist
policies.   Then there's the overall reduction in tax rates
that has come along with the recent tax cut legislation.

I think it's also a bit naive to belive that if the inequities
in spending policy visited on us by feminists were to disappear,
the government would reduce tax rates and  cut my tax bill.

My experience with taxation and government spending here is that
the government collects as much as it thinks the voters will
accept.  Then it spends everything it collects, (and more in the
case of the federal government).  Here in Oregon we have an
unusual law that says that if the state revenues are more than
10% above the amount  projected when the balanced budget was
written, the excess must be returned to taxpayers.  I think
such laws are rare throughout the US and Canada, though.

Mark Borgerson

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/16/05 6:40:04 PM ---