ACLU to BSA: Heads We Win - Tails You Lose

[Kahuna 172]

Remember that the tax exemption extends not just to churches, but to all not-for-profits, including the BSA and many of our chartered organizations. If we all had to pay tax, all those institutions would suffer. If people couldn't donate money that is tax deductible, it would decrease giving more than you think.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Kahuna,

 

You bring up a good argument for having tax-exempt entities. One can give to them and then claim a personal tax exemption for doing so. This is a strategy of giving that we all have become accustomed to over the years. It lowers our own giving to the government and disperses money to the parties of our choice.

 

If we were to renormalize the situation over a period of time, then we would no doubt see some reversals but theoretically some benefits. The majority would have a 7% reduction in total taxes, if all were taxed at the 10% proposed rate. If one were to give 10% of their total income on an annual basis to their charity then the individual would be increasing their gift by 3% only if one were to file for exemptions, which a majority of Americans don't. The majority would simply be giving up that 3% instead of the 10% they usually do by not filing the long form, which still means a 3% gift.

 

Would there be a drop in giving to charities? Since there would be a significant number added to the tax base, meaning the old non-profits which would still be targeted for tax exempt status (*for the gift givers only) because their income is derived from gifts, then most likely giving would be continued or rise. A person could still give their 10%, take the 7% reduction in taxes, take a deduction on their taxes and increase their giving if so desired and still realize an increase in their overall income.

 

Is this all smoke and mirrors? The statistical model would need to reflect the results for the average person, which it seems that nobody ever fits. The model would also show redistribution based on income which makes most people feel safer. It could also include the If, Then statements to indicate how to achieve the desired goal, that makes people feel a little better about the changes. The overall problem comes from economic sticker shock or trauma from change. It is difficult to predict how people will react when there is a significant change. People have more money, so the prediction is that they will spend it or save it or give it to a charity. Everyone needs to be informed and prepared over a period of time.

 

I can see several benefits, a larger tax base, more on the tax role, more that would pay their full amount instead of hiding it. I could go on but then I would sound like I am a proponent of it.

 

 

FB

[packsaddle 753]

Kahuna, I could make the equally valid argument that if all entities paid tax, each of us individually would have to shoulder less of the overall burden thus leaving more to give. When I donate to my church, the net effect on my bank account is still negative, even after the deduction. I would be quite happy for that church to pay tax in order for me to support it at a greater rate.

 

Not sure where the 10% figure originated but I think I remember the DeMint proposal going for 23%. Now that I think of it, the proposal was for a 23% SALES tax to replace the entire tax code. Probably doesn't apply to states though. I'm for it whatever the rate, as long as it stops this policy of intergenerational theft, robbing our children's future earnings to slake our spending lusts of today.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, I see you still can't follow a conversation, even when it's written down.

[evmori 11]

Ed,

I see you still can't follow a conversation, even when it's written down.

 

Guess you didn't like my reply. Oh well.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Your reply made no sense, as it was a hypothetical situation. Objecting to a hypothetical question on the grounds that the described situation doesn't exist completely misses the point of what HYPOTHETICAL questions are, and why they are discussed.

[CA_Scouter 11]

Hypothetically, if you object to a reply from a hypothetical question, aren't you also, by the transitive property of mathematics, ALSO objecting to a hypothical question?

 

BTW - my question above is rhetorical. And pointless. But its not the first time I've been accused of that... :-0)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

And your situation became hypothetical when you were at a loss for words? You asked the question! All I did was answer. And you kept asking! Ah yes but that was all hypothetical! I'm beginning to think you are hypothetical, Merlyn!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

And your situation became hypothetical when you were at a loss for words?

 

No Ed, the situation was hypothetical from the very start. But instead of answering, you pointed out the situation didn't actually exist - which complete misses the point.

[evmori 11]

You amaze me, Merlyn! You have no interest in anything but the destruction of the BSA! Why? Because it's popular! If you really had eliminating religion from public life you would be going after every group that has policies similar to the BSA! Are you? I doubt it! And if I recollect from my grade school history, our founding fathers left their native lands for America because of people like you! People who wanted to take away their religious freedom!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tjhammer 10]

Hmmm... Ed grade school history really doesn't get much more remedial than this, but didn't they actually flee people like you, who believed it was just fine to legislate a specific religion, the "beliefs" of a specifc sect, upon everyone else?

 

You might want to rethink that last point of yours.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[evmori 11]

Hmmm... Ed grade school history really doesn't get much more remedial than this, but didn't they actually flee people like you, who believed it was just fine to legislate a specific religion, the "beliefs" of a specifc sect, upon everyone else?

 

I don't feel it's fine to legislate a specific religion. I have never posted that. I have never inferred that. What is fine is allowing the freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tjhammer 10]

Ed, it's a rare slow day at the office, so I'll bite.

 

Do you extend the identical logic to the rest of the Bill of Rights?

 

In your interpretation would we have the right say anything we want (free speech), just so long as we're constantly talking? The right to own any gun, but we must own at least one gun? The right to assemble, but not the right to not assemble? The right to express grievances to the government, but not the right to have no grievances?

 

The language gets really confusing when you add prepositions that are not there.

 

As to my original point about whether the Founding Fathers were more likely to be "fleeing" Merlyn or you, do you see why many would believe you more closely fit the bill? Do you now recall that from grade school history?

 

You claim you've never inferred that a specific religion should be legislated... without my looking up your random thoughts, remind me again what you think about:

 

- whether public schools shoudl teach evolution is just a bunch of horse puckey?

 

- whether the government should own religious groups?

 

- whether taxpayers should fund facilities that are open to all except gay people?

 

[evmori 11]

- whether public schools shoudl teach evolution is just a bunch of horse puckey?

 

If public schools teach the theory of evolution they should be allowed to teach creationism, too. But that isn't the case because of the supposed separation of church & state.

 

- whether the government should own religious groups?

 

Trick question since chartering a BSA unit is "owning" the unit. And actually, the BSA isn't a religious group. So based on that, no the government shouldn't own religious groups.

 

- whether taxpayers should fund facilities that are open to all except gay people?

 

Another trick question. But since the BSA isn't a facility, I have to question what taxpayer funded facilities are not open to gay people?

 

It's a little slow here today, too.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Stop lying, Ed.