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 l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!well!ptsfa!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches.
Message-ID: <205@l5.uucp>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 17:58:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: l5.205
Posted: Mon Oct 21 17:58:59 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 08:16:38 EDT
References: <176@l5.uucp> <595@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 24
Xref: linus net.politics:10963 net.religion:7638

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