Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ucbvax!arnold From: arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches. Message-ID: <10505@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 23:26:26 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10505 Posted: Mon Sep 30 23:26:26 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 06:33:12 EDT References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> Reply-To: arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 90 Xref: watmath net.politics:11269 net.religion:7835 > = 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. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com