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: The Philosopher who wrote (39513)	6/7/1999 1:03:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christopher, I suppose I really need to be asking these questions on a public policy basis rather than a legal basis. So let me put it this way: taxes are often used as a tool to promote a public good. However, granting tax deductions for those who voluntarily support those goods imposes a cost on those who do not see those donations as goods. I see no reason why indirect tax money ought to go to support tax-deductible organizations such as the NRA or various churches. My argument is simple. If these organizations are important enough to the general welfare of the country, and if the projects or purposes of the organization are too expensive to be funded through private initiatives, then they ought to be funded directly by the government. For example, organizations like the CDC or NIH should be supported by the government. But why should organizations offering no compelling public good -- organizations like the NRA -- be subsidized by indirect tax dollars? do you REALLY want government bureaucrats in charge of the boy scouts, the United Way, the Seattle Art Museum, Bush School, etc.? No, I do not want the government in charge of those organizations. But there is no reason why donations to them must have a tax deductible status, and there is no reason why government should be precluded from providing them with grant money. The theoretical advantage to the latter approach is that there would be greater public scrutiny. The one major portion of tax reform under Reagan that I did like was a large increase in the standard deduction. This had the practical effect of limiting charitable and religious deductions. To Blue -- this position is consistent with my liberal philosophy. I see nothing wrong with public spending to right wrongs or to further the public welfare. Money for schools, housing for the poor, health care, pollution abatement -- these are all examples of government initiatives that I wholeheartedly favor. TTFN, CTC

To: The Philosopher who wrote (39513)	6/7/1999 5:22:00 PM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Respond to of 108807

I would point out as well that the tax-free status of churches puts them on a two-way street of sorts. I seem to remember the government threatening some particularly invasive and divisive religious group fairly recently that if they basically didn't sit down and shut up they would lose their claim to be a church and would thus lose their tax-free status. This is a useful thing. Of course, I can also see how this sort of "threat" is kind of like telling a 9 year old that if they don't behave you're going to take away their chauffeur-driven limo, but... Ultimately I do think that it's important that the gov't have no financial control (nor any other kind) over the expression of religion. Of course if there were a way to accurately differentiate between Christianity and ChristCo&#153 Inc. that would be a different thing. It must be admitted that there is a powerful and politically active pseudo-corporate form of religion that interferes in the actions of the gov't, and it would be perfectly fair for the gov't to interfere in their actions. But I think that granting the gov't any form of power is just inviting abuse, and that on balance it's more acceptable for the bad to enjoy the freedoms of the good than for the good to suffer the penalties of the bad. And right off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that has benefited from governmental interference, so I tend to agree that we should keep the notion of non-profit, tax-free organizations. At least in moderation. :&#172) -BLT