SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (39533)6/7/1999 2:40:00 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I don't know about the Red Cross. My preferred organization is the Salvation Army, which is VERY efficient its use of money.

I differentiate between subsidizing organizations and tax deductibility of contributions. Do you consider the mortgage deduction to be subsidizing home purchases? Do you consider the deductibility of my business expenses to be subsidizing my law practice? The tax code is used to support (but not subsidize) many activities.

When you argue that churches don't pay for fire and police, keep in mind that their patrons and members do pay for those services as individuals. (And by the same token, the Federal Courthouse doesn't pay for fire and police, either. Why not??)

Basically, trying to make consistent philosophical sense out of the ta code is somewhat less productive than trying to empty the Pacific Ocean into Lake Washington with a teaspoon. Not gonna happen.

If you prefer, just think of the exemption to churches as one of the reasons there is not a greater revolt against the tax code than there is. If congress ever tried to take that exemption away, anybody who voted for it would lose their job at the next election, and they know it. So perhaps the only defense for it is that it is a result of the democratic process, and if you want to live in a country where churches are taxed, this ain't the place for you!