Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: "Tax Supported" Churches.
Message-ID: <5945@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 13:40:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5945
Posted: Fri Sep 20 13:40:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 04:45:41 EDT
References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <1673@dciem.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.politics:11099 net.religion:7716

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


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com