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!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches. Message-ID: <5958@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 11:02:20 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5958 Posted: Mon Sep 23 11:02:20 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 06:51:57 EDT References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <1673@dciem.UUCP> <5945@cbscc.UUCP> <10447@ucbvax.ARPA> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 64 Xref: linus net.politics:10477 net.religion:7349 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 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com