In which the tireless talking point generator experiences the logical equivalent of a general protection fault:
WARNING: Attempting to reproduce the semantic gymnastics required to redefine the per-vote subsidy as a "tax on voting" may result in confusion, irritability and spontaneous outbursts of "But that's not how it works at all!"
After all, it's not like you hand over a loonie and change to the returning officer when casting your ballot. Under the current formula, it is the total number of votes cast for a registered political party that determines how much money it receives.
There is no link between the particular party for which you voted and your identity as a taxpayer. You don't even have to pay taxes to vote -- and in fact, even if you don't vote at all, you still would still be hit by what PMO has dubbed the "tax on voting," as a portion -- an almost unfathomably minuscule one, but a portion nonetheless -- of the taxes you pay would still make its way into the coffers of every single party that qualifies for the allowance.
Also of note: the now apparently obligatory reference to the NDP's reliance on support from "large unions" and "big labour," which -- doesn't make much sense either, really, at least when described in the present tense, as such donations have been banned since 2006, as the InfoBot itself helpfully points out in the very next sentence.
Origin
Source: CBC
From: Alerte-Info-Alert
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:37 PM
To: Alerte-Info-Alert
Subject: Eliminating the Tax on Voting/Éliminer la taxe sur le vote
Eliminating the Tax on Voting
Today our government introduced the Budget Implementation Act II which includes measures to eliminate the Per Vote Party Subsidy. In November 2008, our government committed to ending this tax on voting that will save the Government of Canada around $30 million per year. This move is being heavily criticized by the NDP, who receive most of their funding from large unions and have come to rely on this subsidy for a portion of their annual funding. This disrespect for taxpayers' money is yet another reason why the NDP are not fit to govern.
In 2006, our government took big business and big labour out of politics with the Federal Accountability Act.
We are acting quickly to continue bringing transparency to government by phasing out the direct subsidy of political parties.
We think money should come from voters. Not from corporations, not from unions, and not from government.
Political parties should do their own fundraising, not live off of taxpayer funded handouts.
WARNING: Attempting to reproduce the semantic gymnastics required to redefine the per-vote subsidy as a "tax on voting" may result in confusion, irritability and spontaneous outbursts of "But that's not how it works at all!"
After all, it's not like you hand over a loonie and change to the returning officer when casting your ballot. Under the current formula, it is the total number of votes cast for a registered political party that determines how much money it receives.
There is no link between the particular party for which you voted and your identity as a taxpayer. You don't even have to pay taxes to vote -- and in fact, even if you don't vote at all, you still would still be hit by what PMO has dubbed the "tax on voting," as a portion -- an almost unfathomably minuscule one, but a portion nonetheless -- of the taxes you pay would still make its way into the coffers of every single party that qualifies for the allowance.
Also of note: the now apparently obligatory reference to the NDP's reliance on support from "large unions" and "big labour," which -- doesn't make much sense either, really, at least when described in the present tense, as such donations have been banned since 2006, as the InfoBot itself helpfully points out in the very next sentence.
Origin
Source: CBC
No comments:
Post a Comment