Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (39491)	6/6/1999 11:25:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>>>>>You're the lawyer -- how is it that government support does not violate the non-establishment clause?<<<<< LOL so hard my stomach hurts. Chuzz, I thought you were a liberal? The federal government can do whatever it wants because it's got nuclear weapons.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (39491)	6/7/1999 11:22:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

You're the lawyer -- how is it that government support does not violate the non-establishment clause? Legally, the courts have long held that tax deductibility of contributions does not violate the establishment clause. Government is not directly supporting religion. Indirect support is impossible to avoid -- after all, churches are allowed to run their busses on government-owned and built streets. Indeed, the argument is often made that the establishment clause PREVENTS government from taxing churches, on the theory that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and that government is inevitably going to try to use its taxing authority to destroy certain churches (an argument that gains some strength from the Scientology cases). And for that matter, why should there be any charitable deductions? It seems to me that if there is a compelling public reason to support these organizations they should be supported directly by government grants rather than indirectly by way of tax subsidies. Politics and efficency. Politics: the tax code is, of course, a political document. Those in power want charitable deductions to support theaters, museums, colleges, etc. for their own benefit and to give to the poor as efficiently as possible. Government finds it more efficient to have some of what would otherwise become its responsibility paid for by charitable donations. Add the Red Cross, United Way, etc. assistance to disaster victims and all other "good works" charities do into the federal budget, and taxes would be even higher than they are. And there would be much less diversity and more political infighting (how would the government twenty years ago have shared the tax weath between the NRA and the Sierra Club?) And consider, do you REALLY want government bureaucrats in charge of the boy scouts, the United Way, the Seattle Art Museum, Bush School, etc.??? If you do, we have a wide divergence of opinions about the efficency of government!