Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Universal social programs
Message-ID: <4892@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 17:03:32 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4892
Posted: Tue Jan  8 17:03:32 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 17:03:32 EST
References:  <1299@dciem.UUCP> <907@ubc-cs.UUCP> <4839@utzoo.UUCP> <264@lsuc.UUCP> <4863@utzoo.UUCP>Re: Universal social programTue, 8-Jan-85 17:03:32 EST
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 83

Theoretically, at any rate, the taxes that people pay are for things
which the majority of people would pay for voluntarily. (I know
that it may not work out this way, but that is what it is in
theory.) When you look at the money sent to Ethiopia, one can see
that Canadians don't like to see other people starving and
improperly clothed and housed. I don't see that abolishing universal
social programs, such as Mother's allowance, is really going to
cause great starvation among Canadians -- before that happens the
same good people whom we all know will want to spend *their own*
money to alleviate suffering.

So I don't think that it is fair of you to talk of cutting mother's
allowance as:

	taking steps to make their lives so miserable that they do
	leave their husbands

because it is not the good Canadians who are generously paying money
to these people who are responsible for the bad situation. I don't
want to see people starve, and I contribute to organisations which
provide food and clothing to the truly destitute. However, i *do*
mind paying money to people who are living in relatively wealthy
households. I don't mind helping the poor, but this business of
transferring money from the middle class to the middle class really
gets my goat. 

There are only two arguments I have ever seen to justify this
transfer. The first is that it is cheaper to administer to all the
people -- but I just don't buy this one. It is very easy to
define a ``poverty level'' and then, at income tax time, send out
checks to make people who did not  reach this level match the level.
All of thse forms have to be looked at anyway.

Actually, I would rather have people look to their local churches,
synagogues, temples and non-religious charitable organisations than
to the government for relief, but that ia another issue.

The other argument is that it is necessary to transfer money from
the middle class to other parts of the middle class because some
(many? the arguments vary) women are married to people ``of means''
who are, nonetheless, not supporting them properly. 

Now, assuming that these families are divorced, the courts (again
theoretically) do a good job making sure that alimony payments are
made. Therefore there *does* appear to be a method to make
middle class wage earners support their families.

I can see why, in past times, when divorce was universally considered
both a scandal and a sin why people might think that there was something
holy about marriage which shoudl be preserved, even if it meant transferring
money from middle class kind families into middle class families headed by
creeps who don't treat their familes adequately. But today, as divorce
has become accepted (well, mostly accepted) is there any value that the
tax payers are getting out of this? The good people who still believe that
marriage is holy are perfectly free to contribute money to a religious
(or non-religious, for that matter) charity, to further these aims. The
rest of us may well question what our money is being spent for.

In giving money to women who are in miserable situations because they
are in miserable situations we may be in some way condoning their
behaviour. If, instead, we could guarantee that women leaving such
situations would have their income improved by such actions (either
through alimony or through welfare) then noone could see support of
evils through our attempt to alleviate suffering.

I don't know. If I am going to have to keep shelling out money for
others through taxation anyway, (assume that the louse won't pay
alimony and that the woman has no skills and is on welfare, which
gets paid for by my taxes) I would much rather spend it on welfare
for divorced and abandoned mothers than on keeping them in a state
of suffering. (Actually, I would rather spend it on daycare for the
children so that the woman can get a job and eventually not need my
money at all, but again this is another issue.)

Are the mental and emotional problems of a woman which keeps her in
a terrible marriage in some way more worth subsidising than the
mental or emotional problems that keeps thousands of people smoking,
or alcoholics, or spending beyond their means or what have you? If
so, why?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura