I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

[Tribesman]

Where?

All over the States churches are eligible for exactly the same building grants as are available in other countries . Though you do have certain church and non-church groups uniting in protest against those grants which they see as a violation of the constitution.
Would you like some links or are you able to do a simple search on building grants for churches in the US

[ICantSpellDawg]

All over the States churches are eligible for exactly the same building grants as are available in other countries . Though you do have certain church and non-church groups uniting in protest against those grants which they see as a violation of the constitution.
Would you like some links or are you able to do a simple search on building grants for churches in the US

You are right!

This link describes some reasons for and against such practices.
http://www.nacba.net/Article/federalgrant.htm

I'm not sure how I feel about that. The Hebrew day school example was pretty good, but obviously the acceptance of government money puts a church into a bizzarre limbo which it shouldn't be in for its own sake. This is a subsidy outright, though most churches don't take the government up on the offer. I don't support the government giving building grants in general.

[Don Corleone]

I'm 100% against it. The day you take money from the government, you are a slave to the government.

[Adrian II]

I'm 100% against it. The day you take money from the government, you are a slave to the government.

Like I said earlier, all American churches do.

The Supreme Court in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983) ruled that tax exemption and deduction are 'form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system'.

Exemption is even better than subsidy, because recipients of the first are not accountable to the government for they way they spend the money, whereas recipients of the second are.

[Don Corleone]

Exemption is even better than subsidy, because recipients of the first are not accountable to the government for they way they spend the money, whereas recipients of the second are.

You say that like I'm ceding the point that an exemption is a gift from the government. I'm not.

[Xiahou]

The Supreme Court in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983) ruled that tax exemption and deduction are 'form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system'.

I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty astonishing statement. They're saying that the government not taking your money by force is no different than the government giving you money.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty astonishing statement. They're saying that the government not taking your money by force is no different than the government giving you money.

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.

Having said that, it could be argued that goverments allow citizens to puruse activities profitable to the indivudual and society through the regulation of that society. Without such regulation, most citizens would not be able to function, much less make a living.

Thus, in a sense, all monies earned under the protection of a government are "given" - or more accurately, allowed to be kept by the earners. Government takes a greater or lesser share to implement the regulations necessary for such society to work.

If you think government takes your money by force, you ought to try anarchist warlords.

[Geoffrey S]

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.

Aenlic. There's a guy I miss.

[Kralizec]

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.

Having said that, it could be argued that goverments allow citizens to puruse activities profitable to the indivudual and society through the regulation of that society. Without such regulation, most citizens would not be able to function, much less make a living.

Thus, in a sense, all monies earned under the protection of a government are "given" - or more accurately, allowed to be kept by the earners. Government takes a greater or lesser share to implement the regulations necessary for such society to work.

If you think government takes your money by force, you ought to try anarchist warlords.

A sensible point. Montesquieu already argued that freedom is something to be conquered from nature, that it exists only within a body of laws. So-called negative freedoms (from interference; usually from the government) only have meaning and value when the conditions have been created to take advantage of them (wich is usually understood as "positive freedom", that wich is realised by government help or meddling). In this case, having the "property" of something depends on a government making and enforcing property laws.
I wouldn't say that raising taxes amounts to stealing, but I'd still say that just because the existence of governance is a prerequisite for any economic activity doesn't mean that any wealth thus created belongs in the first place to the government.

I'm more inclined to view government-citizen relations in the line of Locke than of Rousseau (unlike Adrian and presumably Ronin). Even when a government is doing a relatively good job, it's still a seperate organisation with its own internal parts wich have their own interests.
Taxes can't be justified by the simple statement that all wealth is theirs to begin with, nor by the simple statement that the government equals the people.

I agree though that tax exemptions are for all intents and purposes equal to subsidies.

[Adrian II]

Xiahou and Don, the tax-exempt churches take a free ride on society like I demonstrated in earlier posts: they benefit from public services without paying for them like everyone else, which means that everyone else pays their share for them. That's state subsidy of religion, no matter how you twist it.

And before anyone goes 'nya nya' about my own country again (as if I own The Neds and make all the laws here), let me tell you I hate state subsidizing of religion in my own country just as well, with all the nasty side-effects, the infighting over money, the waste of public funds and the corruption of religion.

That's why I wrote earlier that I could feel that other pax-taxpayer's pain.