pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (01/01/70)
In article <10468@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes: >In article <5958@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >>> Say there are 10 people paying taxes to support a $100 budget. >>> Assuming roughly comparable means, everybody would pay $10. >>> Now, exempt one of those 10 people from paying taxes. Now it's >>> approximately $11.11 per person for the other 9. The smaller >>> tax base caused by exemption increases the tax load on non- >>> exempt people. >>In the example you use above >>you seem to be implying that the church would count as one of the >>10 "people". How's that? Does the govenment serve the church, or is it >>entitled to a certian amount control over the churches assets? Any >>instance is which tax money is provided to serve church interests is touted >>as a violation of the separation of church and state. Doesn't the >>"wall" of separation work both ways? > >Well, I should have been a bit more explicit. In this country, >corporations pay taxes. If certain curches were not tax exampt, they >would also pay taxes. Thus, they are a potential part of the tax base, >who are exempted because of their religion. The portion of taxes they >would otherwise pay has to be picked up. This constitutes a subsidy, >in just the same way we taxpayers subsidize Greenpeace, the American >Cancer Society, and any other organization that would normally pay >taxes under our laws. *Normally* pay taxes? Why is it that the church should *normally* pay taxes? On what basis can the state claim this kind of control over the assets of the church? >As I said at the end of my last letter, this is quite a reasonable >thing to do with tax codes. The question is how to choose what to >subsidize in this way. I have two main problems with using this kind >of subsidy for religious groups. The first is that it mixes church and >state, because the laws of the state (tax laws in this case) are being >used to subsidize certain relgions and not others, and also to favor >organized religion over non-organized (disorganized?:-) religion. And taxing the church does not mix church and state? What kind of representation in government could the church get in return for its tax money? >Before you flame me on this, think about how you get to be tax exempt. >You petition the IRS, and they say yea or nay. Obivously they can say >"nay", and they do at times. Thus, some organized religions are >subsidized, and others are not. And the IRS does not have to have the final say. How many religious organizations can you name that are not tax exempt? Again, if tax exemption is to be construed as a subsidy, then the amount that you are exempted from your personal income tax (e.g. 70% is you are in a 30% tax bracket) can also be considered a subsidy and a expenditure of the state. They subsidize everything you own by that reasoning. >Which leads me to the second part of my objection, which is that it >places the government in the position of deciding what is a valid >religion, and what is a valid religious expense That is not its >business, and intrudes upon the independence of religious belief. They >not only subsidize, they *validate* religions and religious beliefs. No, not validate; recognize (validation implies giving a right to exist). The state must recognise places where it has no right to intrude. The Church is such and institution if the wall of separation means anything. >Well, now, what would I like to see? After all, many religions operate >to the benefit of society at large in the same way that the Berkeley >Free Clinic does, in that they act as charitable and/or educational >organizations (in what follows I will say "charitable" and mean >"charitable and/or educational"). It would seem wrong to only allow >tax exemptions for non-religious charities. What I would like to see >is tax exemption for religious groups eliminated, but allow churches to >apply for tax exemption *for that part of their operation which is >charitable* in the same way any other charity asks for it. This would >get the gov't out of the business of judging religions and their >expenses, and me out of the business of subsidizing the building of >cathedrals, icons, altars, bible classes, and other religious >activities and things which are not part of my religion. > > Ken Arnold What claim does the state have to the assets of the Church in the first place? How would you define what constitues a "charitible" organization? Is that *all* the church is? What you are advocating allows tremendous state interferrence in church affairs. You seem to grant the state the right to control all other instutions by viewing tax exemption as tax expenditure. Should the state be in the business of "defining" what is "charitable" if not "religious"? Church and State are two separate, human institutions. One ought not to have control over the other. We need this to maintian religious and political freedom. The one keeps the other in check. If the Church is not allowed to "tax" the state (i.e. demand direct support in the form of tax dollars) then the state ought not to be able to tax the Church. I think we're asking for a lot of trouble when one of these institutions thinks it has claim to everyone's property and views any exemption from that claim as a grace rather than a right. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
jj@alice.UUCP (01/01/70)
Paul, NOT taxing the church makes me subservient to the church, against my free choice, ethos, and the like. While (as the recent Senate behavior proves) it is illegal (or at elast frowned on) to be a "pagan", etc, it's OK to be a christian. As a result, I have to support the "established" churches via tax laws, regardless of my desire, ethos, etc. Your support yours, Paul, and I'll support mine. Just don't force me to help you. <Nobody in the world should be able to stop you from asking, politely.> -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "From the cradle to the grave, from the cradle to the grave..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/20/85)
In article <1673@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >I thought that the US already did support all churches with tax money. >Aren't they tax-exempt, which is the same thing as paying the proper tax >and then being given it back. The taxes on some of those churches >would be pretty high, if they were based on the same rules as for other >properties. If being tax exempt means the same thing as paying the "proper" tax and then giving it back, who defines what the "proper tax" is? Maybe the state is benefitting us by letting us keep part of our paycheck. If tax exemption is going to be construed as tax support, then the govenment may easily take the view that it owns all of your paycheck. If you pay 30%, then the 70% is exempted by grace. That 70% may then be seen as an expenditure of the state, therefore giving the state a vested interest in what you do with your money. Hopefully, tax exemption itself (whatever the amount "exempted") is a right recognized by the government, not a benefit granted by it. The latter implies government control over the one receiving the benefit. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (09/23/85)
In article <5945@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >In article <1673@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >> >>I thought that the US already did support all churches with tax money. >>Aren't they tax-exempt, which is the same thing as paying the proper tax >>and then being given it back. > >If tax exemption is going to be construed as tax support, then the >govenment may easily take the view that it owns all of your paycheck. >If you pay 30%, then the 70% is exempted by grace. That 70% may then >be seen as an expenditure of the state, therefore giving the state >a vested interest in what you do with your money. > >Hopefully, tax exemption itself (whatever the amount "exempted") is >a right recognized by the government, not a benefit granted by it. >The latter implies government control over the one receiving the >benefit. > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Hm. Let's see. I have to agree that Martin is wrong to state the exact equivalence he does. Choosing not to tax is not exactly the same as collecting and returning the money. The paper work is *much* less :->, and, for essentially the reasons enumerated by Paul, there is a lack of exact moral equivalence. However, tax exemption is a form of subsidy. If we ignore deficit spending (pretend we are talking about taxation in a state where the budget must be balanced by law), it works out about something like this: Say there are 10 people paying taxes to support a $100 budget. Assuming roughly comparable means, everybody would pay $10. Now, exempt one of those 10 people from paying taxes. Now it's approximately $11.11 per person for the other 9. The smaller tax base caused by exemption increases the tax load on non- exempt people. This is not a statement of intrinsic pre-ownership of resources by the government (which is bad), but a matter of simple bookkeeping. If, by exempting one group, you make me pay more, I am *de facto* subsidizing that group. If I didn't pay more to cover what would otherwise be their contribution, they would have to use resources on paying taxes that they currently, under their exemption, get to use elsewhere. In this fashion, under current tax law, I support charities, political groups, environmental groups, energy savings (and thereby energy saving companies), schools, medicine, corporate capital improvements, and many other things. If you pay taxes, you do too. Now that we have that clear, some discussion of which exemptions are valid for public policy reasons, and which are not, is in order. I have strong views on this, but, one thing at a time... Ken Arnold
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (09/23/85)
Why should a church be considered "tax exempt"? It seems then that
we'd have a problem defining religion (not "mainstream" religions,
but "cults").
I have always felt that churches should NOT be tax exempt, instead
they can file to be a non-profit organisation, and therefore tax
exempt. The churches which attempt to make profit ought to pay
their share of taxes.
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
It is a highly directional ultrasonic beam of rock and roll! It kills!
-who said it, what story?pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/23/85)
In article <10447@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes: >In article <5945@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >>In article <1673@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >>> >>>I thought that the US already did support all churches with tax money. >>>Aren't they tax-exempt, which is the same thing as paying the proper tax >>>and then being given it back. >> >>... >>If tax exemption is going to be construed as tax support, then the >>govenment may easily take the view that it owns all of your paycheck. >>If you pay 30%, then the 70% is exempted by grace. That 70% may then >>be seen as an expenditure of the state, therefore giving the state >>a vested interest in what you do with your money. >> >>Hopefully, tax exemption itself (whatever the amount "exempted") is >>a right recognized by the government, not a benefit granted by it. >>The latter implies government control over the one receiving the >>benefit. > >Hm. Let's see. I have to agree that Martin is wrong to state the >exact equivalence he does. Choosing not to tax is not exactly the same >as collecting and returning the money. The paper work is *much* less >:->, and, for essentially the reasons enumerated by Paul, there is a >lack of exact moral equivalence. > >However, tax exemption is a form of subsidy. If we ignore deficit >spending (pretend we are talking about taxation in a state where the >budget must be balanced by law), it works out about something like >this: > Say there are 10 people paying taxes to support a $100 budget. > Assuming roughly comparable means, everybody would pay $10. > Now, exempt one of those 10 people from paying taxes. Now it's > approximately $11.11 per person for the other 9. The smaller > tax base caused by exemption increases the tax load on non- > exempt people. > >This is not a statement of intrinsic pre-ownership of resources by the >government (which is bad), but a matter of simple bookkeeping. If, by >exempting one group, you make me pay more, I am *de facto* subsidizing >that group. If I didn't pay more to cover what would otherwise be >their contribution, they would have to use resources on paying taxes >that they currently, under their exemption, get to use elsewhere. > >In this fashion, under current tax law, I support charities, political >groups, environmental groups, energy savings (and thereby energy saving >companies), schools, medicine, corporate capital improvements, and many >other things. If you pay taxes, you do too. > >Now that we have that clear, some discussion of which exemptions are >valid for public policy reasons, and which are not, is in order. I >have strong views on this, but, one thing at a time... I guess I have strong views on it too. In the example you use above you seem to be implying that the church would count as one of the 10 "people". How's that? Does the govenment serve the church, or is it entitled to a certian amount control over the churches assets? Any instance is which tax money is provided to serve church interests is touted as a violation of the separation of church and state. Doesn't the "wall" of separation work both ways? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (09/24/85)
>I guess I have strong views on it too. In the example you use above >you seem to be implying that the church would count as one of the >10 "people". How's that? Does the govenment serve the church, or is it >entitled to a certian amount control over the churches assets? Any >instance is which tax money is provided to serve church interests is touted >as a violation of the separation of church and state. Doesn't the >"wall" of separation work both ways? If a church catches fire, I would assume that the local fire company will go to put out the fire. Is that a violation of church and state? Isn't is a situation where a government does serve a church? -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa It is a highly directional ultrasonic beam of rock and roll! It kills! -who said it, what story?
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/25/85)
In article <880@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >>I guess I have strong views on it too. In the example you use above >>you seem to be implying that the church would count as one of the >>10 "people". How's that? Does the govenment serve the church, or is it >>entitled to a certian amount control over the churches assets? Any >>instance is which tax money is provided to serve church interests is touted >>as a violation of the separation of church and state. Doesn't the >>"wall" of separation work both ways? > >If a church catches fire, I would assume that the local fire company >will go to put out the fire. Is that a violation of church and state? >Isn't is a situation where a government does serve a church? >-- >James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa Maybe, if the fire dept. is not volunteer. But the government also has an interest in any adjoining properties and the lives that might be in danger. Churches are also compelled to obey local fire and saftey codes. I think that is a reasonable demand and expense in return for fire protection. The insurance companies that insure church buildings don't want them burning to the ground. No, I don't think this is a violation of separation, any more than it is for public employees to receive the services of the local church on sunday (and supporting the church is not cumpulsory). Support for the church does come from taxpayers who have an interest in the protection and insurability of the property. If it is a violation, then maybe public fire depts. should let churches burn to the ground, and the police shouldn't bother investigating crimes that occurr on church property, etc. Is any one in favor of this? If not, and you still accept it as a violation, why not accept other violations also (like direct support with tax money)? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
bill@persci.UUCP (09/25/85)
In article <880@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >If a church catches fire, I would assume that the local fire company >will go to put out the fire. Is that a violation of church and state? >Isn't is a situation where a government does serve a church? >James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa Hardly. The original expression is something on the order of: "..shall make no laws respecting any establishment of religion..". This is read to mean that the government is not to declare that one religion is preferable to another, nor to enact laws to the same end. This is what is commonly referred as the separation of church and state. This is not to say that certain laws do not work to the advantage of one church over another. For example, a church I know, part of the Continuing Episcopal Church (an "offshoot" of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA) is trying very hard to get established, and build a building. Property taxes, building permits, etc, are draining their very limited finances, making it very hard to get going. A PECUSA church doesn't have that problem, because of their wealthy backers. This does not mean that the law is being preferential to PECUSA churches over this Traditional Episcopal church. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (09/26/85)
In article <5958@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >> Me: >> Say there are 10 people paying taxes to support a $100 budget. >> Assuming roughly comparable means, everybody would pay $10. >> Now, exempt one of those 10 people from paying taxes. Now it's >> approximately $11.11 per person for the other 9. The smaller >> tax base caused by exemption increases the tax load on non- >> exempt people. >> > >In the example you use above >you seem to be implying that the church would count as one of the >10 "people". How's that? Does the govenment serve the church, or is it >entitled to a certian amount control over the churches assets? Any >instance is which tax money is provided to serve church interests is touted >as a violation of the separation of church and state. Doesn't the >"wall" of separation work both ways? > >Paul Dubuc Well, I should have been a bit more explicit. In this country, corporations pay taxes. If certain curches were not tax exampt, they would also pay taxes. Thus, they are a potential part of the tax base, who are exempted because of their religion. The portion of taxes they would otherwise pay has to be picked up. This constitutes a subsidy, in just the same way we taxpayers subsidize Greenpeace, the American Cancer Society, and any other organization that would normally pay taxes under our laws. As I said at the end of my last letter, this is quite a reasonable thing to do with tax codes. The question is how to choose what to subsidize in this way. I have two main problems with using this kind of subsidy for religious groups. The first is that it mixes church and state, because the laws of the state (tax laws in this case) are being used to subsidize certain relgions and not others, and also to favor organized religion over non-organized (disorganized?:-) religion. Before you flame me on this, think about how you get to be tax exempt. You petition the IRS, and they say yea or nay. Obivously they can say "nay", and they do at times. Thus, some organized religions are subsidized, and others are not. Which leads me to the second part of my objection, which is that it places the government in the position of deciding what is a valid religion, and what is a valid religious expense That is not its business, and intrudes upon the independence of religious belief. They not only subsidize, they *validate* religions and religious beliefs. Well, now, what would I like to see? After all, many religions operate to the benefit of society at large in the same way that the Berkeley Free Clinic does, in that they act as charitable and/or educational organizations (in what follows I will say "charitable" and mean "charitable and/or educational"). It would seem wrong to only allow tax exemptions for non-religious charities. What I would like to see is tax exemption for religious groups eliminated, but allow churches to apply for tax exemption *for that part of their operation which is charitable* in the same way any other charity asks for it. This would get the gov't out of the business of judging religions and their expenses, and me out of the business of subsidizing the building of cathedrals, icons, altars, bible classes, and other religious activities and things which are not part of my religion. Ken Arnold
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/26/85)
Look, the issue here is very simple. Does it cost the government money to fight fires, maintain the streets, patrol neighborhoods to discourage blatant criminality, and pick up the garbage? Obviously it does. Do churches benefit from these services to the same extent secular organizations do? Obviously they do. Do churches pay for them? Obviously they don't. Do secular organizations pay for them? Obviously they do. Are churches being supported by the taxes paid by secular organizations? Obviously they are. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
bill@persci.UUCP (09/29/85)
In article <569@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Look, the issue here is very simple. > >Does it cost the government money to fight fires, maintain the streets, >patrol neighborhoods to discourage blatant criminality, and pick up the >garbage? Obviously it does. > >Do churches benefit from these services to the same extent secular >organizations do? Obviously they do. > >Do churches pay for them? Obviously they don't. > Tim, the issues are *ALWAYS* simple when you don't use real facts, but invent them up out of your own prejudice. You really should go sit on the board (the "vestry" in Anglican churches) of a church, participate in the community outreach programs of that church, and sit in on their budget committee meetings, before you go spouting off again about how the churches get a free ride from the state! Does Tim *really* know what goes on in a church? Obviously he doesn't. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (10/01/85)
> = Paul Dubuc >> = Me >>... think about how you get to be tax exempt. You petition the IRS, >>and they say yea or nay. Obviously, they can say "nay", and they do >>at times. Thus, some organized religions are subsidized, and others >>are not. > >And the IRS does not have to have the final say. How many religious >organizations can you name that are not tax exempt? Well, let's see. There have been several cases of churches which inducted people via mail having their tax-exempt status revoked. Now, this may seem quite reasonable to you (it certainly does to some people I know), but isn't that the point? This religion seems fake *to you*. It seems so the IRS also. But it is not the gov't's place to make such a judgement. They may have any one of a number of reasons to consider their methods valid, and it is only personal judgement, not governmental judgement, which should aid or hinder a religion. Oh, and note the term "religious organizations". If you only help religious organizations, you also favor organized religions over decentralized ones, such as most of the new age religions. >Again, if tax exemption is to be construed as a subsidy, then the >amount that you are exempted from your personal income tax (e.g. 70% is >you are in a 30% tax bracket) can also be considered a subsidy and a >expenditure of the state. They subsidize everything you own by that >reasoning. Oh, not really. The amount I pay gov't for the services they provide does not mean that what I keep is a subsidy. I am simply paying what is my fair share, or some rough approximation thereof. However, if I receive services without paying for them, that IS a subsidy. Churches receive public services. Police protection, for example. Roads bring them needed supplies, religious and non-religious. Need I go on? >>[tax exemption] places the government in the position of deciding >>what is a valid religion, and what is a valid religious expense That >>is not its business ... They not only subsidize, they *validate* >>religions and religious beliefs. > >No, not validate; recognize (validation implies giving a right to exist). >The state must recognise places where it has no right to intrude. The >Church is such and institution if the wall of separation means anything. The IRS has engaged in several well-publicized investigations of the spending practices of various small religions. It is, in effect, determining if it is a valid religious expense to keep the leaders in the lap of luxury. Is it? Well, some religion might find it so (the Catholics do a pretty good job of this), and others might not. What is right? The IRS knows... >>What I would like to see is tax exemption for religious groups >>eliminated, but allow churches to apply for tax exemption *for that >>part of their operation which is charitable* in the same way any >>other charity asks for it. > >What claim does the state have to the assets of the Church in the first >place? How would you define what constitues a "charitible" organization? >Is that *all* the church is? What you are advocating allows tremendous >state interferrence in church affairs. You seem to grant the state the >right to control all other instutions by viewing tax exemption as tax >expenditure. Should the state be in the business of "defining" what is >"charitable" if not "religious"? How do you define what is a charitable institution? We seem to be able to make that decision in some fashion now. The IRS is not infallible in this choice, but it does pretty well. I would rather they be judging charitable-ness than valid religion. It is more subject to relatively judgeable criteria. But what type of gods exist and what is the best way to serve them is a bit harder. The state has the same claim to the assests of a church as it has to the assests of the March of Dimes. Under current law, if it did not have explicit sanction from the law, it would be taxed in order that it pay its share of the public services it receives. If one admits the right of the government to tax organizations at all, then all organizations are potential parts of the tax base. Then you list what kinds of organizations you will exempt, and these regulations lead to a list of actual organizations exempted. Why should one religion be on that list, and another not? What if Paul Zimmerman founds an organization to refine study of the Damager-God? Should it be tax exempt? As far as the equivalence of tax exemption and tax expenditure, there is a rather strong connection, though not, I believe, an exact equality. If the effect of exemption and and expenditure even out in the end, it would be hard to argue that there is much significant difference.
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/01/85)
This argument merely serves to point up the idiocy of taxing income. If we really need to tax at the Federal level -- a need we avoided until the middle of the 19th Century -- then we should probably consider raising the tax in a less odious and intrusive manner: such as per capita consumption. A 15-20% across the board VAT would raise sufficient revenue, and it would rid our lives of a humbug agency which presumes to dictate which religions are valid and which -- at whim -- may peer into each detail of our lives. It is an enormous pity that Justice Douglas, who in Roe v. Wade found a general right to privacy in the Constitution (if memory serves me correct, in the "penumbrae" of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amendments) did not extend that right to a person's financial affairs. -- Rick.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/01/85)
In article <10505@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes: ... >>And the IRS does not have to have the final say. How many religious >>organizations can you name that are not tax exempt? > >Well, let's see. There have been several cases of churches which >inducted people via mail having their tax-exempt status revoked. Now, >this may seem quite reasonable to you (it certainly does to some people >I know), but isn't that the point? This religion seems fake *to you*. >It seems so the IRS also. But it is not the gov't's place to make such >a judgement. They may have any one of a number of reasons to consider >their methods valid, and it is only personal judgement, not >governmental judgement, which should aid or hinder a religion. The government *has* to make those judgements. Religion is recognized by our Constitution. The Supreme Court has to make rulings on what constitutes good separation of Church and State. Both Church and State have to recognize what is not in their realm of control. >Oh, and note the term "religious organizations". If you only help >religious organizations, you also favor organized religions over >decentralized ones, such as most of the new age religions. The term is not a discriminatory one, but a practical one. Only organizations are impacted by taxes. Taxing religious groups discriminates against organized religions (i.e. those with property subject to tax). >>Again, if tax exemption is to be construed as a subsidy, then the >>amount that you are exempted from your personal income tax (e.g. 70% is >>you are in a 30% tax bracket) can also be considered a subsidy and a >>expenditure of the state. They subsidize everything you own by that >>reasoning. > >Oh, not really. The amount I pay gov't for the services they provide >does not mean that what I keep is a subsidy. I am simply paying what >is my fair share, or some rough approximation thereof. However, if I >receive services without paying for them, that IS a subsidy. Churches >receive public services. Police protection, for example. Roads bring >them needed supplies, religious and non-religious. Need I go on? So who decides what your fair share is? How is it decided? The Church is supported by people who already pay their fair share of taxes (supposedly). The church is not a profit making organization, yet it does provide services to the community. Is the money that is given to support the church going to be taxed twice? Can the Church tax the state for the services it provides? Can it start taxing the people who use church services? What kind of representation in government is the Church going to get for the taxes it pays? How can the Church *not* benefit from using roads and the police and fire protection that is provided for the community? It is the people in the community that support the church who also pay for those services. Taxing the church itself for facilities it cannot avoid using is taxing the very existence of the Church. This is an infringement of the State upon the Church's right to exist as apart from State control. >>>[tax exemption] places the government in the position of deciding >>>what is a valid religion, and what is a valid religious expense That >>>is not its business ... They not only subsidize, they *validate* >>>religions and religious beliefs. >> >>No, not validate; recognize (validation implies giving a right to exist). >>The state must recognize places where it has no right to intrude. The >>Church is such and institution if the wall of separation means anything. > >The IRS has engaged in several well-publicized investigations of the >spending practices of various small religions. It is, in effect, >determining if it is a valid religious expense to keep the leaders in >the lap of luxury. Is it? Well, some religion might find it so (the >Catholics do a pretty good job of this), and others might not. What is >right? The IRS knows... So who's going to define what the "lap of luxury" is? Clergy *do* pay income taxes, you know. The IRS already has to decide what is a valid tax deductible expense (e.g. "business" expenses that keep executives in the "lap of luxury") for anyone, not just the Church. >>>What I would like to see is tax exemption for religious groups >>>eliminated, but allow churches to apply for tax exemption *for that >>>part of their operation which is charitable* in the same way any >>>other charity asks for it. >> >>What claim does the state have to the assets of the Church in the first >>place? How would you define what constitutes a "charitable" organization? >>Is that *all* the church is? What you are advocating allows tremendous >>state interference in church affairs. You seem to grant the state the >>right to control all other institutions by viewing tax exemption as tax >>expenditure. Should the state be in the business of "defining" what is >>"charitable" if not "religious"? > >How do you define what is a charitable institution? We seem to be able >to make that decision in some fashion now. The IRS is not infallible >in this choice, but it does pretty well. I would rather they be >judging charitable-ness than valid religion. It is more subject to >relatively judgeable criteria. But what type of gods exist and what is >the best way to serve them is a bit harder. The IRS does not have to rule on the truth claims of a religion to recognize it as one. The Supreme Court has already recognized a broad definition of religion. You don't even have to believe in God. (So the Humanist Fellowship in Columbus is a church). Shifting from the definition of religion to "charity" does not solve any problems and only narrows the criteria. What are going to be the criteria for a "charity"? Of course the State is going to decide that, and since "charity" can be defined in much narrower terms than "religion" the state gets more power over religion. What if certain churches have beliefs that some political organizations don't like? Well, then those churches become "uncharitable" and get slapped with a tax. This is a powerful way to ensure that only state-approved religious activity gets promoted. >The state has the same claim to the assests of a church as it has to >the assests of the March of Dimes. Under current law, if it did not >have explicit sanction from the law, it would be taxed in order that it >pay its share of the public services it receives. If one admits the >right of the government to tax organizations at all, then all >organizations are potential parts of the tax base. Then you list what >kinds of organizations you will exempt, and these regulations lead to a >list of actual organizations exempted. Why should one religion be on >that list, and another not? What if Paul Zimmerman founds an >organization to refine study of the Damager-God? Should it be tax >exempt? Yes. So should Satanists (gasp!) and occult groups. Tax exemption is not a subsidy. It is part of the right to freedom of religion apart from state control. Granting tax exemption does not constitute approval of any particular religion, since it is not a subsidy but a right to to religious freedom unhindered and uncontrolled by the State. Some cult groups (e.g. *real* Satanists) perform activities that are illegal (e.g. human sacrifice, drug abuse, mutilation of animals). They can be prosecuted for those actions under the *criminal* code (the tax code is not the place for such judgements). Because of the nature of these activities, I doubt very much whether Satanists would be affected either way by the tax code (e.g. they aren't going to want to build conspicuous temples for human sacrifices). >As far as the equivalence of tax exemption and tax expenditure, there >is a rather strong connection, though not, I believe, an exact >equality. If the effect of exemption and and expenditure even out in >the end, it would be hard to argue that there is much significant >difference. You keep avoiding the moral and Constitutional issue here. What gives the State any right to control of the Church? Charitable, and service organizations don't have any ideological stance that will balance that of the State (many of them also get *direct* support with tax money as well as receiving a tax exemption). That balance of power must be maintained where Church and State are concerned. The unchecked power of the State has the same inherent dangers as the unchecked power of the Church. I think your argument takes a very statist posture, Ken. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (10/02/85)
In article <421@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan) writes: >In article <569@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >>Look, the issue here is very simple. >> >>Does it cost the government money to fight fires, maintain the streets, >>patrol neighborhoods to discourage blatant criminality, and pick up the >>garbage? Obviously it does. >> >>Do churches benefit from these services to the same extent secular >>organizations do? Obviously they do. >> >>Do churches pay for them? Obviously they don't. > >Tim, the issues are *ALWAYS* simple when you don't use real facts, >but invent them up out of your own prejudice. You really should go >sit on the board (the "vestry" in Anglican churches) of a church, >participate in the community outreach programs of that church, and >sit in on their budget committee meetings, before you go spouting >off again about how the churches get a free ride from the state! > >Does Tim *really* know what goes on in a church? Obviously he doesn't. > >William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill I know of many public service agencies which are tax exempt. Few of them add to their overhed the costs of maintaining a meeting hall, usually fancy, purcheases of Bibles or other religious texts and objects, and all the other things which churches do that are not part of community outreach or any other charitable program. The *portion* of a churches budget which goes to charitable causes should be just as tax exempt as any other charitable process. The religious part of it should not be. Ken Arnold
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/02/85)
In article <421@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan) writes: > In article <569@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > >Look, the issue here is very simple. > > > >Does it cost the government money to fight fires, maintain the streets, > >patrol neighborhoods to discourage blatant criminality, and pick up the > >garbage? Obviously it does. > > > >Do churches benefit from these services to the same extent secular > >organizations do? Obviously they do. > > > >Do churches pay for them? Obviously they don't. > > Tim, the issues are *ALWAYS* simple when you don't use real facts, > but invent them up out of your own prejudice. Which of the above do you dispute, Bill? They don't look invented to me. Let's have something at least as substantial from you. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (10/03/85)
In article <10506@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >A 15-20% across the board VAT would raise sufficient revenue, and it would rid >our lives of a humbug agency which presumes to dictate which religions are > -- Rick. However, the person who needs to spend 100% of his/her income on products ends up paying 15-20% of their income on taxes, whereas, the person making $250K may end up paying less than 1% of their income. This sounds fair?
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/03/85)
(Forgive me, but this one just has to be quoted....) >In article <569@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) >writes: >>Look, the issue here is very simple. >> >>Does it cost the government money to fight fires, maintain the streets, >>patrol neighborhoods to discourage blatant criminality, and pick up the >>garbage? Obviously it does. >> >>Do churches benefit from these services to the same extent secular >>organizations do? Obviously they do. >> >>Do churches pay for them? Obviously they don't. > >Tim, the issues are *ALWAYS* simple when you don't use real facts, >but invent them up out of your own prejudice. You really should go >sit on the board (the "vestry" in Anglican churches) of a church, >participate in the community outreach programs of that church, and >sit in on their budget committee meetings, before you go spouting >off again about how the churches get a free ride from the state! > >Does Tim *really* know what goes on in a church? Obviously he doesn't. >-- >William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill The really fun thing about this response is that I am accused of not providing facts, by someone who ignores every fact I cited and provides no facts of his own. I will repeat, typing slowly so as not to over-run Mr. Swan's limited buffer space. Churches receive the benefits of many government services. Among these are (1) fire fighting, (2) maintenance of the public roads, (3) garbage collection (except, of course, where it's a billed utility), and (4) police discouragement of criminality. There are plenty of others, but I think these will do for a start, particularly since you have not responded to any of them yet. Since they receive government services without paying for them, unlike secular organizations, then they are being supported by taxes. Bill, respond with facts and to my point next time, or don't expect a response. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (10/03/85)
>>>, > = Paul Dubuc >> = Me (not too much re-inclusion, I promise) >>>And the IRS does not have to have the final say. How many religious >>>organizations can you name that are not tax exempt? >> >>Well, let's see. There have been several cases of churches which >>inducted people via mail having their tax-exempt status revoked. > >The government *has* to make those judgements. Religion is recognized >by our Constitution. The Supreme Court has to make rulings on what >constitutes good separation of Church and State. Both Church and State >have to recognize what is not in their realm of control. If there were no tax exemptions for religious reasons, the seperation of Church and State would be accomplished, in that the Congress would have made no law establishing a religion or prohibiting anyone from belonging to any religion they chose. Currently, the IRS judges an organization's claim to religiousity, and can find them wanting. It has done so in the past, and will again. The Constitution does not *recognize* religion by granting it special powers, only by forbiding the government from favoring one religion over another, and by protecting people's choice of religious worship (1st Ammendment quoted in full below). The following example, generally drawn from real life, illustrates: Church A resembles standard church worship (say they are mainstream protestant or some such). Church B advertises in the paper that, given a $25 fee, they will make you a priest Church C holds meetings on Sundays, and provides for its pastor a private plane, a large mansion (in which it also headquarters his preaching), a limousine and driver, etc. Now, pure neutrality would say either all are tax exempt, or all aren't. The problem with complete tax exemption for anyone who claims religious belief are obvious, since anyone can invent a "religion" and profess it publicly. In the current situation, the result is the following Church A is tax exempt, no problems from IRS Church B has its tax exempt status revoked Church C is investigated for tax fraud, and is judged guilty. Prove to me that Church B is not a valid religion. Prove to me that Church C has no valid (within their religious beliefs) reason to put their pastor up in grand style (without paying him much salary, which would be taxed). Now, I may be wierd, but it looks like Church A, and similar religions, are favored by the governement over Churches like B and C. If you want seperation, describe why this is not favoritism of one religion over another by a U.S. governmental agency acting under its authority from laws passed by Congress. Again, the above example is drawn from real life examples. Specific names of religions are not used because they are not relevant. Ken Arnold First Ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the fight of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (10/03/85)
I seem to remember that there was some very early court case involving some
state vs. the Federal Government, where the state wanted to tax federal land.
The judge said something to the effect that "the power to tax is the power to
destroy", and ruled that the Federal Government was immune from the tax since
it should not be subject to interference from the state.
It seems to me that the people on this net who are attacking tax exemptions
for churches are the people who invoke "separation of church and state" most
often. This seems inconsistent: if giving government the "power to tax" is
giving government the "power to destroy", then making churches anything other
than tax-exempt gives the government the "power to destroy" churches, which
most definitely goes against the idea of separation of church and state.
(Note: I'm not in favor of either creationism or secular humanism. The former
presents bogus 'science' using religion as justification; the latter presents
a particular set of moral/ethical codes as being the 'objective' set, when in
fact science can only give us information and NOT moral/ethical values.)
-- Thomas Newtontim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/03/85)
Tom, thanks for a thoughtful message on an emotional topic. I disagree with you very strongly that making churches tax-exempt is respect for the principle of separation of church and state. It puts the government in the position of deciding what is or is not a religion, and is therefore the very opposite of separation of church and state. Did you see the message by Bob Brown telling of a UPI story on 9/27 that said the Senate had agreed to deny tax-exempt status to Wiccans? Is that separation of church and state, or is it the exercise of a discriminatory power? I feel that all non-profit organizations and corporations should be tax-exempt, and churches which do not make a profit, but re-invest into charitable and missionary pursuits, should be considered non-profit corporations. To give the government the right to declare a religion "a non-religion" is a frightening, Orwellian power. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/03/85)
In article <10519@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes: >(not too much re-inclusion, I promise) I think you should have included more *response* to the points of my article that you left out. >>>Well, let's see. There have been several cases of churches which >>>inducted people via mail having their tax-exempt status revoked. >> >>The government *has* to make those judgements. Religion is recognized >>by our Constitution. The Supreme Court has to make rulings on what >>constitutes good separation of Church and State. Both Church and State >>have to recognize what is not in their realm of control. > >If there were no tax exemptions for religious reasons, the separation >of Church and State would be accomplished, in that the Congress would >have made no law establishing a religion or prohibiting anyone from >belonging to any religion they chose. Currently, the IRS judges an >organization's claim to religiousity, and can find them wanting. It >has done so in the past, and will again. The Constitution does not >*recognize* religion by granting it special powers, only by forbidding >the government from favoring one religion over another, and by >protecting people's choice of religious worship (1st Amendment quoted >in full below). How long am I going to have to go on repeating myself? Taxing the Church subordinates it to the State. What right does the State have to do this? Church and State do not *grant* each other anything! The State does not *favor* religion by offering tax exemption. It has no right to tax in the first place! >The following example, generally drawn from real life, illustrates: > > Church A resembles standard church worship (say they are > mainstream protestant or some such). > > Church B advertises in the paper that, given a $25 fee, they > will make you a priest > > Church C holds meetings on Sundays, and provides for its pastor > a private plane, a large mansion (in which it also headquarters > his preaching), a limousine and driver, etc. > >Now, pure neutrality would say either all are tax exempt, or all >aren't. The problem with complete tax exemption for anyone who claims >religious belief are obvious, since anyone can invent a "religion" and >profess it publicly. But what income are they going to necessarily get by doing so? There must be property to tax or be exempt. This doesn't come just by declaring a religion. There must be followers to support it. If there is, then who has a right to tell those followers that theirs is not a valid religion? You agree that no one has. If there are no followers, then what is there to tax in the first place? Nothing worth bothering about. >In the current situation, the result is the following > > Church A is tax exempt, no problems from IRS > > Church B has its tax exempt status revoked > > Church C is investigated for tax fraud, and is judged guilty. > >Prove to me that Church B is not a valid religion. Prove to me that >Church C has no valid (within their religious beliefs) reason to put >their pastor up in grand style (without paying him much salary, which >would be taxed). I wouldn't worry much about whether B is a valid religion or not. Certainly you haven't given enough information to decide. What does ordination for a fee really buy those who are paying for it? There is nothing wrong with saying that being clergy is more than just buying a paper that says you are. Isn't that true with any profession? There is no special standard for the Church here. Your contention for church C can be proved to the same extent that it is for businesses. Again, no special standard here and the ruling has little to do with whether the church itself represents a religion. Churches themselves have an interest in standards of honesty, which they share with the State. That is a different question than the standard of what is a religion. I think that most clergy are under paid and over worked, and they are honest. Should they suffer for the dishonest ones? Do we take away the freedom of speech (or tax it) because we feel that some abuse it? >Now, I may be weird, but it looks like Church A, and similar religions, >are favored by the government over Churches like B and C. ... if tax exemption is indeed a favor that the government has a right to bestow as it see fit. It isn't. Again, Church and State have to recognize their own bounds. The State has no right to indiscriminately tax the Church. Neither does the Church have an absolute right to withhold what rightly belongs to the State. This tension has to be maintained to prevent either institution from gaining inordinate power over the other. If maintaining that tension means that some ambiguities exist, so be it. The alternative (i.e. totalitarianism, whether under the Church or State) is too high a price to pay. Democracy is a raucous process, but it has done well to preserve the freedoms we have come to take for granted. It has worked well because it ensures that countervailing forces (Church and State in this instance) each have a fair part to play, an that no one single institution gets control over the others. The "pure neutrality" you refer to above is a fiction. Something close to neutrality (call it "balance") exists only when an active tension exists between Church and State. Taxing the Church does not make Church/State relations neutral. It subordinates the Church to the State. >First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the fight > of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the > government for a redress of grievances. The *free* exercise of religion precludes the power of the State to tax the Church. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (10/04/85)
> Tom, thanks for a thoughtful message on an emotional topic. > > I disagree with you very strongly that making churches tax-exempt is respect > for the principle of separation of church and state. It puts the government > in the position of deciding what is or is not a religion, and is therefore > the very opposite of separation of church and state. Did you see the > message by Bob Brown telling of a UPI story on 9/27 that said the Senate had > agreed to deny tax-exempt status to Wiccans? Is that separation of church > and state, or is it the exercise of a discriminatory power? If the police mistreat a suspect, should they then mistreat all suspects in order to be consistent? You seem to be saying a similar thing with respect to religions: if the government mistreats (taxes) one religion, it should mistreat (tax) all religions in order to be consistent. In both cases, the 'easiest' way to ensure consistency leads to a result that is precisely the opposite of the main goal of which consistency is but one criterion. > I feel that all non-profit organizations and corporations should be > tax-exempt, and churches which do not make a profit, but re-invest into > charitable and missionary pursuits, should be considered non-profit > corporations. To give the government the right to declare a religion "a > non-religion" is a frightening, Orwellian power. I don't think that simply declaring that churches are subject to the same rules as anyone else is the right answer. For instance: suppose Congress decided to start taxing non-profit organizations for who knows what purpose. Overnight, the government would acquire the power to destroy *all* religions. A slightly different formulation that seems more acceptable would be to declare that non-profit activities of churches are Constitutionally tax- exempt, and that for-profit activities do not have Constitutional protection. In order to check whether or not such a declaration would be Constitutional, it would probably be necessary to review various historical information such as: profit/non-profit status of churches in the 1700's, the letters written by the people who influenced/wrote the Constitution & Bill of Rights, etc. The crucial difference here is that if Congress decided to tax non-profit organizations in general, it still would not be able to tax the non-profit activities of religions because of the Constitutional protection. Of course, this gets us back to the problem of having the government decide what is a religion and what is not . . . in theory if not in practice. -- Thomas Newton
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/05/85)
In article <569@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Look, the issue here is very simple. >Does it cost the government money to fight fires, maintain the streets, >patrol neighborhoods to discourage blatant criminality, and pick up the >garbage? Obviously it does. >Do churches benefit from these services to the same extent secular >organizations do? Obviously they do. >Do churches pay for them? Obviously they don't. >Do secular organizations pay for them? Obviously they do. >Are churches being supported by the taxes paid by secular organizations? >Obviously they are. This is an argument for taxing ALL organizations, non-profit or otherwise. There are certainly lots of non-profit organizations which can burn down too, after all. What's magic about churches? Charley Wingate
kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery) (10/05/85)
[] >I seem to remember that there was some very early court case involving some >state vs. the Federal Government, where the state wanted to tax federal land. >The judge said something to the effect that "the power to tax is the power to >destroy", and ruled that the Federal Government was immune from the tax since >it should not be subject to interference from the state. > >It seems to me that the people on this net who are attacking tax exemptions >for churches are the people who invoke "separation of church and state" most >often. This seems inconsistent: if giving government the "power to tax" is >giving government the "power to destroy", then making churches anything other >than tax-exempt gives the government the "power to destroy" churches, which >most definitely goes against the idea of separation of church and state. >[Thomas Newton] If the "power to tax is the power to destroy", why should the government have the power to destroy its citizens? After all, if the government taxes all of its citizens to death, there won't be anyone to go to church on Sunday morning (or whenever). :-) -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU [Internet, if the nameservers are up]
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (10/05/85)
> > How long am I going to have to go on repeating myself? Taxing the Church > subordinates it to the State. What right does the State have to do this? > Church and State do not *grant* each other anything! The State does > not *favor* religion by offering tax exemption. It has no right to tax > in the first place! Suppose I send off $25 and have myself declared a priest; should this automatically exclude me from being taxable (I'm assuming here that you mean the state has no right to tax the church)? Padraig Houlahan.
arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (10/06/85)
>> = Me > = Paul Dubuc >>(not too much re-inclusion, I promise) > >I think you should have included more *response* to the points of my >article that you left out. I decided on a general statement which I think covered the more important points raised in your letter, rather than a point-by-point rebuttal. In this letter, I am bypassing most of what you said to get to the meat of the matter, which is the legal judging of religous validity. Since this is the central point of my objection to the current tax exemption system, tihs eems reasonable to me. If I am not selective this way, the size of articles will grow steadily and without bound. I have no objections to you focusing on the more important parts of my articles in your responses, either. Now that that's clear ... >>Well, let's see. There have been several cases of churches which >>inducted people via mail having their tax-exempt status revoked. > >The government *has* to make those judgements. Religion is recognized >by our Constitution. The Supreme Court has to make rulings on what >constitutes good separation of Church and State. Both Church and State >have to recognize what is not in their realm of control. ... and by choosing what to recognize as religion an what not, and then giving what is judged religious benefits denied to what is judged non-religious, the gov't is favoring religons which pass its tests over religions which don't. This is not non-interference. It, in fact -- by making some religions offically recognized and others not -- establishes certain religions as state authorized and certified. Does this violate the first ammendment? Read it yourself and see what *you* think. If you don't think so, either (a) explain how the first ammendment allows legal favoritism for certain religions and not others, or (b) explain why granting of priviliges to certain religions and not others is not favoritism. Appeals to "their judgement is correct; those others are *not* religions" are not acceptable (see below). >How long am I going to have to go on repeating myself? Taxing the Church >subordinates it to the State. What right does the State have to do this? >Church and State do not *grant* each other anything! The State does >not *favor* religion by offering tax exemption. It has no right to tax >in the first place! Says who? I can see no *explicit* statement of this in the first ammendment. It must be a matter of interpretation. In fact, let's read the 16th ammendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Note: "from wahtever sources derived". It clearly allows the collection of taxes on any income, including a church's, a charity's, a school's, etc. The only exception I know which has been considered implied by the courts is that various govt's may not tax each other. The rest of it is all statutory, i.e., by legislative act, not by constitutional protection. It has the right to tax churches, and has chosen not to exercise that right, I believe wrongly. >>The following example, generally drawn from real life, illustrates: >> >> Church A resembles standard church worship (say they are >> mainstream protestant or some such). >> >> Church B advertises in the paper that, given a $25 fee, they >> will make you a priest >> >> Church C holds meetings on Sundays, and provides for its pastor >> a private plane, a large mansion (in which it also headquarters >> his preaching), a limousine and driver, etc. > >I wouldn't worry much about whether B is a valid religion or not. Certainly >you haven't given enough information to decide. What does ordination >for a fee really buy those who are paying for it? There is nothing >wrong with saying that being clergy is more than just buying a paper that >says you are. Isn't that true with any profession? There is no special >standard for the Church here. > >Your contention for church C can be proved to the same extent that it >is for businesses. Again, no special standard here and the ruling >has little to do with whether the church itself represents a religion. I consider my point proven by the statement "I wouldn't worry much about whether B is a valid religion." The whole problem is that some people have religious views which others would not recognize as valid. It is not the place of the gov't to decide between them. The rest of this article is just explication. Assumptions in above: (a) Preaching is a profession Says who? Should it be? Church B may have a valid (to them) argument. What business does the IRS have to say the preachers must be professionals? Besides, I can't remember that Jesus had any professional training, nor did either Peter or Paul. Nor did Joseph Smith. (b) Standards that apply to business are correctly applied to religions. The standards that apply to spending by business can not be applied to religion. A religion is not a business. If it was, its purpose would be to make money, not to serve religious belief. >>First Amendment: >> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of >> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the fight >> of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the >> government for a redress of grievances. > >The *free* exercise of religion precludes the power of the State >to tax the Church. Right. Which means, if one accepts your conclusion, that nobody who claims to have a religion can be excluded from tax exemption without abridging their right of free exercise of religion. Your *honest* religious views may be at odds with their *honest* religious beliefs, but they are still exercising religion, and therefore, to tax them would interfere with their free exercise of religion. See example above, in which Churches B and C are not allowed tax exemption, and are therefore taxed, and therefore are *not* allowed free exercise of religion. How much clearer can the contradiction be? This will be the last posting by me on this subject, since from this point on I can only repeat myself, possibly in new and different ways. Unless somebody propose a new argument, or I think of one, ta-ta. Ken Arnold
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (10/06/85)
> Churches receive the benefits of many government services. Among > these are (1) fire fighting, (2) maintenance of the public roads, (3) > garbage collection (except, of course, where it's a billed utility), and (4) > police discouragement of criminality... > > Since they receive government services without paying for them, unlike > secular organizations, then they are being supported by taxes. All quite true. But the state receives benefits of many church services. ;-) Christian (and many other) churches tend to teach things like deference to authority and consideration for others that reduce both the need and the cost for some of the very services you mention above. There would thus seem to be some justification for the state to return the favor. The problem is that the laws that restrict the taxation of churches were drawn up in an era when taxes were not as high as they are today, and when few churches (here in the US anyway) could be described as wealthy, and that with the increase in effective tax rates, it has become progressively more attractive to establish a church for purely material reasons (need I name names?). This brings about the present sad state of affairs where the state decides that it has to determine which churches are *real*, and biases have a chance to be expressed. The fairest practical solution is probably to tax all churches by the same rules as for other non-profit organizations. Baba
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/06/85)
> from Tim Maroney: >Churches receive the benefits of many government services. Among >these are (1) fire fighting, (2) maintenance of the public roads, (3) >garbage collection (except, of course, where it's a billed utility), and (4) >police discouragement of criminality. There are plenty of others, but I >think these will do for a start, particularly since you have not responded >to any of them yet. > >Since they receive government services without paying for them, unlike >secular organizations, then they are being supported by taxes. I think you are aiming at the wrong problem. ``Churches'' as such can not recieve benefits. It is only the individuals who are members of those organisations who can recieve benefits. Does it make sense to tax any sort or arganisation for these benefits? Most of the churches are supported by taxpayers. They have already paid for these services *once* with their income tax -- should they have to pay for them *again* because of their other beliefs? Note that implicit in this argument is the idea that taxes are in some way a ``fair price'' for these services. If you want to shift me from this position to ``taxation is theft'' all you have to do is blow. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/07/85)
In article <584@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: ... >I feel that all non-profit organizations and corporations should be >tax-exempt, and churches which do not make a profit, but re-invest into >charitable and missionary pursuits, should be considered non-profit >corporations. To give the government the right to declare a religion "a >non-religion" is a frightening, Orwellian power. And the power to tax religion isn't? What kind of government representation are religious groups going to get for their tax money? Why is church income that is not "re-invested" in charitable and missionary persuits considered profit? Who defines what aspects of the church ministry constitute an non-profit venture? Whose definition of "charitable" do we use? Since Tim's criterion for tax exemption can be defined much more narrowly that "religion" and such a definition would be more the perogative of the State than anyone else, it seems to me that it places much more Orwellian power in the hands of the State than the existing situation. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (10/07/85)
> I feel that all non-profit organizations and corporations should be > tax-exempt, and churches which do not make a profit, but re-invest into > charitable and missionary pursuits, should be considered non-profit > corporations. To give the government the right to declare a religion "a > non-religion" is a frightening, Orwellian power. Would you prefer that only churches that can afford to pay taxes be allowed to exist? ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ? | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
bill@persci.UUCP (10/07/85)
In article <780@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> >Does it cost the government money to fight fires, maintain the streets, >> >patrol neighborhoods to discourage blatant criminality, and pick up the >> >garbage? Obviously it does. >> >Do churches benefit from these services to the same extent secular >> >organizations do? Obviously they do. >> >Do churches pay for them? Obviously they don't. OK, Mike, here's a simple little example. I used to be a member of a church in a little rural town called Ben Lomond in California. This church helped support the local volunteer fire department. This church paid for its own garbage pick-up (I don't know how you do it back there on the other coast, but here each facility pays directly). This church pays its own gas, electric, and water bills. This church *never* committed a crime, blatant or otherwise. I would rather suspect that it doesn't provide a very big burden on the community (I won't go into any details on the groups, like AA, that use the facilities, the only such facilities in town! for next to nothing). This church recently had to expand their facilities, due to a growing congregation. This meant a *LOT* of money in taxes ("fees", etc) to get the plans "approved" and the building "inspected". Now.. Back in the winter of 1981-82 Ben Lomond and surrounding communities received some heavy rains (some areas reported 160 inches from Nov to Mar). The first day of the flood I watched the local river rise from a little stream you could wade through, up to 40 feet deep (with 10 more till our neighbors flooded, and another 5 till ours went!). The river stopped there, we were lucky. Other people weren't. A day or two later there was a massive landslide just north of town. A number of people died (including the daughter of a friend). Many were left homeless. The slides kept happening. More people were left homeless. Roads were being closed right and left by slides (one community I had lived in nearby had to ferry across a reservoir to get in and out). The church puts out a call for help! Within an hour, the hall was converted into a disaster relief center manned by volunteer church members. Those of us more fortunate donated clothes, blankets, food, shelter, etc etc. Soon the whole community was involved, digging people out. The next day money started to arrive from nearby churches, and by the end of the week it poured in from all over the country, to be distributed to help people get back on their feet to keep going. Some churches across the country sent volunteers to help dig out houses (the Mennonites apparently have teams that do nothing else but.. this is their witness.) Eventually, the Guard arrives, to pass out water (the water system finally failed), and to do a little more digging. FEMA finally arrives on the scene, with grand promises about how this great government of ours would save everybody and rebuild the valley. People stood in line for hours to face a bureaucrat, to fill out their forms. Then the wait for the money while the forms were "processed"... and the wait.. and more waiting.. Now it is Summer 1982. Very few people have received any money from FEMA. Many had their entire claims "disallowed". The church has helped many people to get going again. Some members are out (unpaid volunteer effort) helping people to rebuild damaged homes. The relief center is being dismantled, with non-perishable and useful supplies going into storage (supported by the church). Plans are laid for future such emergencies. Summer 1983: I move away from the valley. The church is prepared for more emergencies (and in fact, some lesser ones happened the preceding winter, and the church was in action). Few people have yet received any assistance from FEMA, who, of course is long gone. There is a lot of bitterness about the government's lack of aid. Now I ask you: who provided the real service to whom? -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) (10/08/85)
> [A story about how a church did a real community service > in the absense of help from state/federal authorities...] > > Now I ask you: who provided the real service to whom? > > -- > William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill Now I ask you: So what? Once after a rather severe blizzard here in New Jersey, I spent a Saturday helping elderly people shovel their cars out of the snow. Part of the problem was that local authorities did a subpar job of clearing the snow DURING the storm. Are you saying *I* don't have to pay taxes, then? "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!" Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/09/85)
Since a quote of mine seems to have sparked quite a debate about the
propriety or taxing churches, perhaps I can have another word.
There might (fat chance) be no debate, if property taxes were abolished
and only income were taxed (which I think is the only fair kind of tax
anyway, but that's another story). Most of the anger at untaxed churches
is directed not at the traditional ones that rely on offerings on the
plate and such-like, and that do many good works in the communities.
The anger is aimed more at the TV "churches" that haul in millions, and
build glass cathedrals, and so on and so forth. If their *income* were
taxed, like that of any other advertizing corporation, there would be
little problem. The orthodox churches would probably pay little or no
tax, because there would probably be an exemption for low-income businesses,
as there is for individuals, and for the same reason (it takes a bit of
money just to stay alive and reasonably well).
The property of many churches is quite valuable, and would potentially
be taxed highly if chuches were regarded as advertizing agencies, even
when those churches have hardly enough income to repair their buldings.
Under a pure income tax, their net income might be near zero, and when
their community works are included, they might well qualify as non-profit
organizations. Not so the TV churches and the ones set up just to get
around the odd law or tax.
Under that scheme, there would be no question of the State determining
what is a valid religion, since religion would not enter into the question
of whether the organization was set up to make money, or did in fact
make money.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmtmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/09/85)
>I think you are aiming at the wrong problem. ``Churches'' as such can not >recieve benefits. It is only the individuals who are members of those >organisations who can recieve benefits. Does it make sense to tax any >sort or arganisation for these benefits? Most of the churches are supported >by taxpayers. They have already paid for these services *once* with >their income tax -- should they have to pay for them *again* because of >their other beliefs? >Laura Creighton (note new address!) Substitute "business" for "church" in the above, and it makes the same kind of sense. Whether it is good sense or bad depends on your viewpoint, but it is hardly an argument for differentiating between churches and other businesses. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (10/09/85)
> In article <584@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > ... > >I feel that all non-profit organizations and corporations should be > >tax-exempt, and churches which do not make a profit, but re-invest into > >charitable and missionary pursuits, should be considered non-profit > >corporations. To give the government the right to declare a religion "a > >non-religion" is a frightening, Orwellian power. > > And the power to tax religion isn't? What kind of government representation > are religious groups going to get for their tax money? Churches benefit from services provided through taxation. No one is represented by taxation. If you want representation, go out and vote. Padraig Houlahan.
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (10/09/85)
A belated response to Ken Arnold: >>>Well, let's see. There have been several cases of churches which >>>inducted people via mail having their tax-exempt status revoked. >> >>The government *has* to make those judgements. Religion is recognized >>by our Constitution. The Supreme Court has to make rulings on what >>constitutes good separation of Church and State. Both Church and State >>have to recognize what is not in their realm of control. > >... and by choosing what to recognize as religion an what not, >and then giving what is judged religious benefits denied to what is >judged non-religious, the gov't is favoring religons which pass its >tests over religions which don't. This is not non-interference. It, >in fact -- by making some religions offically recognized and others not >-- establishes certain religions as state authorized and certified. >Does this violate the first ammendment? Read it yourself and see what >*you* think. If you don't think so, either (a) explain how the first >ammendment allows legal favoritism for certain religions and not >others, or (b) explain why granting of priviliges to certain religions >and not others is not favoritism. Appeals to "their judgement is >correct; those others are *not* religions" are not acceptable (see >below). No, I don't think it does. The government may make a mistake with specific judgements but, so what else is new? Hopefully we can minimize that. It doesn't justify making a global mistake and taxing all religion. What do you propose that the Supreme Court do about the judgements it has made, which you say are of a type that it should not? >>How long am I going to have to go on repeating myself? Taxing the Church >>subordinates it to the State. What right does the State have to do this? >>Church and State do not *grant* each other anything! The State does >>not *favor* religion by offering tax exemption. It has no right to tax >>in the first place! > >Says who? I can see no *explicit* statement of this in the first >ammendment. It must be a matter of interpretation. The "free exercise" clause is explict enough. >In fact, let's read the 16th ammendment: > > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on > incomes, from from whatever source derived, without > apportionment among the several States, and without > regard to any census or enumeration. > >Note: "from wahtever sources derived". It clearly allows the collection >of taxes on any income, including a church's, a charity's, a school's, >etc. The only exception I know which has been considered implied >by the courts is that various govt's may not tax each other. The >rest of it is all statutory, i.e., by legislative act, not by >constitutional protection. It has the right to tax churches, and >has chosen not to exercise that right, I believe wrongly. "From whatever source derived" does not mean "from any source it wants". Where are the "explict statements" giving the State the right to tax the Church? >>>The following example, generally drawn from real life, illustrates: >>> >>> Church A resembles standard church worship (say they are >>> mainstream protestant or some such). >>> >>> Church B advertises in the paper that, given a $25 fee, they >>> will make you a priest >>> >>> Church C holds meetings on Sundays, and provides for its pastor >>> a private plane, a large mansion (in which it also headquarters >>> his preaching), a limousine and driver, etc. >> >>I wouldn't worry much about whether B is a valid religion or not. Certainly >>you haven't given enough information to decide. What does ordination >>for a fee really buy those who are paying for it? There is nothing >>wrong with saying that being clergy is more than just buying a paper that >>says you are. Isn't that true with any profession? There is no special >>standard for the Church here. >> >>Your contention for church C can be proved to the same extent that it >>is for businesses. Again, no special standard here and the ruling >>has little to do with whether the church itself represents a religion. > >I consider my point proven by the statement "I wouldn't worry much >about whether B is a valid religion." The whole problem is that some >people have religious views which others would not recognize as valid. >It is not the place of the gov't to decide between them. The rest of >this article is just explication. So, people will always have verious ideas of what is religion and what isn't. The government, which is should be representative of the people, is stuck with deciding these things. Would you answer my question about the Supreme Court? >Assumptions in above: > (a) Preaching is a profession > Says who? Should it be? Church B may have a valid (to > them) argument. What business does the IRS have to say > the preachers must be professionals? Besides, I can't > remember that Jesus had any professional training, nor > did either Peter or Paul. Nor did Joseph Smith. By the same token, who's to say whether "programmer" is a profession? BTW, preaching is an activity, clergy is the profession. They get support for people for the services they perform as such. Anyway, I'm not making this assumption at all. Clergy are paid for a service by their congregation. If those who bought their paper, can find a church to support them, fine. If they can't, there is no "church" to be tax exempt anyway. My church could ordain me as a minister if they wanted to. That wouldn't effect the tax situation where my pay from my present job is concerned. > (b) Standards that apply to business are correctly applied to > religions. > The standards that apply to spending by business can > not be applied to religion. A religion is not a > business. If it was, its purpose would be to make > money, not to serve religious belief. The analogy of what is a valid tax deductible expense does apply, I think. I'm certainly not assuming that *all* standards that apply to business also apply to churches. *You* seem to be arguing that churches and business be treated exactly the same. Why are you making a distinction here which you say that the government can't make in its reasoning? Didn't the government decide that church B above was a business and not a religion? Yes. And it probably used your reasoning to do so. >>>First Amendment: >>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of >>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the fight >>> of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the >>> government for a redress of grievances. >> >>The *free* exercise of religion precludes the power of the State >>to tax the Church. > >Right. Which means, if one accepts your conclusion, that nobody who >claims to have a religion can be excluded from tax exemption without >abridging their right of free exercise of religion. Your *honest* >religious views may be at odds with their *honest* religious beliefs, >but they are still exercising religion, and therefore, to tax them >would interfere with their free exercise of religion. See example >above, in which Churches B and C are not allowed tax exemption, and are >therefore taxed, and therefore are *not* allowed free exercise of >religion. How much clearer can the contradiction be? Church B: taxed on what? They were selling paper. I see nothing unfair about the stipulation that a religious organization is more that one that sells paper to people saying they are clergy. I suppose if those "clergy" could find congregations that honor them as such based on their only having paid out the money for paper, then they could start a religious sect. So what? Church C: I do think the analogy to a business is valid and fair. The church did not loose its tax exempt status. The minister and church collaborated to defraud the government of taxes that *he* should have payed. They were penalized for that action. It has nothing to do with the validity of their religion. In fact, this type of action is needed to be fair to the much larger percentage of religious organizations that do not abuse tax exemption and would probably be taxed out of existence without it. Your proposal is unfair in that respect.
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/14/85)
Laura,
I think that there would be an even greater problem with deficit spending
than now if we were to follow the principle of taxing individuals but not
taxing organizations. Revenues are short enough as they are.
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/14/85)
Come on, Paul. Do you really think it's "more Orwellian" for the government
to decide what is or is not a non-profit organization than it is to decide
which religions are or are not valid?
If so, then I have bad news for you: the government already makes this
distinction routinely....
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/14/85)
Pardon me, Mr. Swan, but this discussion was about church taxation and
whether churches receive the same services as tax-paying organizations.
Your entire story is irrelevant to the issue. If your church had been
singled out to not receive any aid, then the story would have had some
bearing on the issue, but it was not.
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/15/85)
In article <1707@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >There might (fat chance) be no debate, if property taxes were abolished >and only income were taxed (which I think is the only fair kind of tax >anyway, but that's another story). I see. So not only is it fair to tax a man more when he drives his taxi 60 rather than 40 hours a week, it is also the only fair way to tax. Why is it that it is moral and fair to tax production, and not fair to tax anything else (like, say, consumption). Rick.
arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (10/15/85)
... and I promised not to write anything more on this. However, from something Paul said in a response to my article, it is clear that I was unclear, so, for the benefit of all who misunderstood my inadvertently unclear statement. In article <1345@cbsck.UUCP> pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >>>How long am I going to have to go on repeating myself? Taxing the Church >>>subordinates it to the State. What right does the State have to do this? >>>Church and State do not *grant* each other anything! The State does >>>not *favor* religion by offering tax exemption. It has no right to tax >>>in the first place! >> >>Says who? I can see no *explicit* statement of this in the first >>ammendment. It must be a matter of interpretation. > >The "free exercise" clause is explict enough. Not about taxation. That is what I was refering to. The First Ammendment doesn't say the gov't cannot tax the church *in so many words*. >>In fact, let's read the 16th ammendment: >> >> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on >> incomes, from from whatever source derived, without >> apportionment among the several States, and without >> regard to any census or enumeration. >> >>Note: "from wahtever sources derived". It clearly allows the collection >>of taxes on any income, including a church's, a charity's, a school's, >>etc. The only exception I know which has been considered implied >>by the courts is that various govt's may not tax each other. The >>rest of it is all statutory, i.e., by legislative act, not by >>constitutional protection. It has the right to tax churches, and >>has chosen not to exercise that right, I believe wrongly. > >"From whatever source derived" does not mean "from any source it wants". >Where are the "explict statements" giving the State the right to >tax the Church? I did not mean that it said "from any source it wants". It means that the gov't may tax an income, no matter what source that income is derived. That would include the collection plate. Ken Arnold
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (10/15/85)
15 Oct 85 12:49:11 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus Lines: 56 Xref: clyde net.politics:11383 net.religion:7487 Another response to Ken Arnold: >>>>How long am I going to have to go on repeating myself? Taxing the Church >>>>subordinates it to the State. What right does the State have to do this? >>>>Church and State do not *grant* each other anything! The State does >>>>not *favor* religion by offering tax exemption. It has no right to tax >>>>in the first place! >>> >>>Says who? I can see no *explicit* statement of this in the first >>>ammendment. It must be a matter of interpretation. >> >>The "free exercise" clause is explict enough. > >Not about taxation. That is what I was refering to. The First >Ammendment doesn't say the gov't cannot tax the church *in >so many words*. So? The 16th doesn't say it *can* tax the Church "in so many words". Our whole long argument has been about reasons why the Church should or should not be taxed. Here you seem to be basing your argument on what the First Amendment does *not* say. >>>In fact, let's read the 16th ammendment: >>> >>> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on >>> incomes, from from whatever source derived, without >>> apportionment among the several States, and without >>> regard to any census or enumeration. >>> >>>Note: "from wahtever sources derived". It clearly allows the collection >>>of taxes on any income, including a church's, a charity's, a school's, >>>etc. The only exception I know which has been considered implied >>>by the courts is that various govt's may not tax each other. The >>>rest of it is all statutory, i.e., by legislative act, not by >>>constitutional protection. It has the right to tax churches, and >>>has chosen not to exercise that right, I believe wrongly. >> >>"From whatever source derived" does not mean "from any source it wants". >>Where are the "explict statements" giving the State the right to >>tax the Church? > >I did not mean that it said "from any source it wants". It means that >the gov't may tax an income, no matter what source that income is >derived. What's the difference between this and "from any source it wants"? >That would include the collection plate. In "so many words", no. The government already passed it's collection plate by me enought times and, unlike the church's plate, contribution is compulsory. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
bill@persci.UUCP (10/16/85)
Quite to the contrary, Mr. Maroney, it is exactly to the point. The state
has received services from this particular church far above what it would
even have taken in taxes, had they taxed everything.
I know you are an advocate of ever-increasing government spending, Mr.
Maroney, your numerous postings of the past few days make that quite clear.
Your solution to deficit spending is to look for even more things to tax.
This trend leads us right to that great utopian ideal "from each as he is
able, to each as he needs", with SOMEBODY deciding what the abilities and
needs are (I'll bet YOU'd like that job, wouldn't you, Mr. Maroney!).
Remember, too, that in this case the government, which should have had all
sorts of money (and they *PROMISED* it!!) to help these people, reneged. The
only people who really benefited from FEMA were the bureacrats who drew
overtime shuffling paper, deciding who had needs and who didn't.
--
William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!billlaura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/22/85)
In article <595@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Laura, > >I think that there would be an even greater problem with deficit spending >than now if we were to follow the principle of taxing individuals but not >taxing organizations. Revenues are short enough as they are. What we have to do is to either get rid of the deficit or default on it. It may be that the only moral thing to do is to raise the money to pay it off even if that means taxing organisations. However, if this is the justification for taxing organisations, it should be clearly stated. Something like ``we have had 60 years of gross fiscal mismanagement in this country, and now this generation is paying for it, not because it is fair or just but because it has to be this way -- we firmly resolve not to stick it to future generations because we have the wisdom to avoid this'' is a lot better than ``we have always taxed organisations because we have the power to do so, so we are going to keep doing this''. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa