- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, EMNofSeattle, the single mom isn't making it your business; however, to the extent that your taxes directly fund whatever parenting arrangements she makes, you and every other tax payer have the right to remark upon the nature of the disbursement of your tax dollars. If you choose to exercise your right to remark, that's you making it your business, not her making it your business, unless, of course, she entreats for your commentary.Public taxes going to private religious schools makes it my business. And teaching kids fairy tales as truth should be everyone's business too. It is child abuse, plain and simple.
No it doesn't.
I mean if that's true does a single mom collecting welfare make her parenting arraingements my business since there's the collection of public funds? Single parent households are a far greater problem to many more children then a handful of extremists taking their kids to an evangelical school.
The reality is, leftists believe people's personal decisions with public money are the public's business only when it involves people who aren't their supporters.
What remarks you have on the matter may or may not be sensible or equitable, but as they are your tax dollars she's receiving and spending, you are entitled remark on the matter. If you don't pay taxes and/or you aren't a direct or primary indirect recipient/beneficiary of tax dollars, then, no, it's not your business, and you don't have a right to remark on the matter, though the 1st Amendment allows you to do so whether you have "skin in the game" or don't.
The above philosophy is why I remarked as I did in post 35. I don't know whether federal dollars are going to the noted private school(s); thus the closest I come to having skin in the game is perhaps that my firm would have to interact with someone who graduated from the regimen of inculcation came to be interviewed and/or employed with us. That measure of "connectedness" doesn't rise to the level of "primary indirect," and it's obviously not a direct connection. Were I to know some of my federal tax monies were going to those schools, I'd have had a very different set of remarks.
What's a "primary indirect recipient/beneficiary?" Without being to "formal" in explaining it, it's the person or entity with whom a direct recipient of tax dollars spends (or instructs where to spend) tax dollars. In the "single mom" example you submitted, a babysitter or or a daycare facility would be primary indirect beneficiary, regardless of whether the cash in question flows from the government to the caregiver or from the government to the single mom and then to the caregiver.