Jump to content

Tax Supported Entities - Who/ What are they?

Recommended Posts

Just a simple statement. But also wide ranging and very complicated.


So how do you define a "tax supported" entity?


I could easily say government or even public schools. I could say the US Armed Forces and National parks.


I could say public hiways and public beaches.


I could even say your aunt and uncle and possibly you too.


Why? Well...it all depends on YOUR version of what "tax supported" means.


I am not a state employee , nor do I work for the federal government. I install garage doors for a living. I do it for a private company. I used to install commercial /industrial garage doors, but switched over to residential garage doors about 8 years ago.


Am I "tax supported" ? You tell me.


As a commercial installer, I put doors in at several federal and state courthouses. I put some in on several military bases too. A few in highly restricted and 1 even in a classified area.


I have installed doors at the end of military runways and at ammo depots.

I have installed who knows how many at state ports.


I also put garage doors up at hiway traspotation maintanence buildings for the state. I have installed at state and federal parks ( maint bldgs).


So, due to the government( both state and federal) I was employed at my job and made wages due to state /federal money which came from taxes.


I have furnished my house, bought my transportation and had vacations due to federal and state money.


My father in law worked for the NC state Maint dept for over 40 years. My mother in law was a techer in NC.


My Father was in the USCG for 22 years 3 months (yeah, that is an odd amount of time).


So pretty much at all points of my life, I have eaten food or stayed in some sort of dwelling that was paid for in part by "tax supported" entities who supported me or my family.


Now, I go to work each day on hiways that trhe state and federal government build and maintains. You know that each of us alone can't pay for all of that. I live 100 yards from the intracoastal waterway ( created and dug by a federal govt project) and 300 yards from the Atlantic ocean - who's beachfront is supported by state and federal renourishment funds.


I have ridden on trains (federally funded money suck holes) traveled on free ferries across state waters. I use telephones and internet and tv/cable channels that are regulated and supported by federal laws and rules.


My neighborhood is patrolled and protected by local police and county sheriffs who are tax funded.


And the freedom of my country is in fact all due to tax supported/funded men and women of the Armed forces.



So, who among us is not supported, assisted, or helped out is some way by taxes?


Who can say that they live a life here in the good ole US without any tax funding or assistance in any shape, way or form.


Now another question is this: Where does that tax come from? What kind of people? What do they do, what do they think, and what are their beliefs? What race, what religion ( or non religion), and what ethnicity?


On that last point: All people pay those taxes, so therefore, the Government HAS AN OBLIGATION TO EQUALLY SUPPORT ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THOSE BELIEFS, RELIGIONS ( and non), AND ETHNICITIES!


Otherwidse,it would be taxation without representation!


And before you spew off about seperation of church and state, that only say the government will not establish a religion or respect only 1 of the many. The state cannot favor, nor disfavor religions , just as it cannot favor or disfavor non religions.


The job of the government is to support ALL who pay taxes.


Yeah...that's MY view on it!


What's yours?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, Scoutfish is simply pointing out the obvious again. Taxes, in some manner, are an integral part of life in this country, and most countries. We all pay them in some way, even those who try not to pay some. So, technically, he is pointing out; no one should be able to use any of the publicly supported facilities, nor should they be paid from public funds, if they have a belief in God.


Now, of course this is over-projection of the intent by the anti-God, anti-religion groups; but it has some credence at its basic level. "WHERE DO! YOU DRAW THE LINE?" Should Scoutfish's in-laws, who worked for the government, not be paid if they believe in God? After all, the money comes from taxes that Merlyn paid, or someone similar to him.


That, I think, is what Scoutfish is asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still a little lost!

I work for the State. In the Department of Corrections.

It costs about $67.00 a day to keep these bad guys in a correctional facility.

There is no discrimination about the people who get locked up. Sure we have male and female facilities, but we lock up people of different ages, colors and creeds.

We do have paid Chaplin's.

We allow inmates to practice the religion of their choice. This at times costs the tax payers of PA money, be it for the time spent ensuring that religious volunteers who come into the facility are searched or for the overtime that is needed to ensure that Muslin inmates are fed during the feast of Ramadan. Or the meals for Jewish inmates.

The bottom line is that we just don't discriminate. Sure the guy who asked for a big hammer and a large knife because he belonged to some religion that had Thor in it didn't get his request granted. He is now suing the State!


The local R/C Priest is of course free to walk down the public highway saying his rosary. He isn't free to use public funds to build a statue of the Virgin Mary on public lands.

In another thread someone described Health Care as a product. From my point of view many of the products we use in our daily lives have in some way been "Interfered with" by the government. Most in a good way! I like the idea of knowing that the food I eat is safe, the drugs I take have been tested, the police are doing their job and people like me are keeping people safe by locking up the bad guys.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that a tax supported entity is any agency of the federal government or any entity that contracts to receive a federal grant or subsidy. By contracting I mean receiving the funds to further the mission of the grantee, not contracting in the sense of providing garage doors to the federal government.


At the state and local level I would give the same definition; however, different localities may have differences of how they define and enforce perceived discrimination in the use of their funds.


If Scoutfish is asking should folks who believe in God be denied services because these services may be funded by the taxes of non-theists I would say the answer is no. Scoutfish himself says The job of the government is to support ALL who pay taxes and I think that is correct. Obviously the problem arises when those who work directly for the government (federal, state, local) or those entities that receive government subsidies attempt to impose specific views or behaviors on those who may not share them and, failing that, deny those folks access to services funded by the governmental subsidies.






Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but thats you and I subsidizing them with our post-tax dollars, not the government. I wouldnt consider them as tax supported or subsidized in the sense Scoutfish is talking about. The definition of support is to sustain financially. If no one attended the Houses of Worship and made donations, whether in cash or services, they would fold.


I suppose you could say that Houses of Worship receive certain tax supported benefits, such as police and fire services, but could it also be said that there is a communal (selfish) benefit to that? A fire in a Houses of Worship could spread to a tax payer of another beliefs home or business. A criminal who breaks into a Place of Worship could break into a tax payer of another beliefs home or business next.


A cash subsidy or grant, whether federal state or local, generally comes with strings attached (non discrimination, equal opportunity, drug free workplace). You can reject those terms and not take the money or you can sign on and be contractually obligated to abide by those requirements.





Link to post
Share on other sites



Well, no! Just the oposite.


I think anybopdy who pays taxes has equal rights to public facilities. PERIOD! Religion, race, sexual nature, ethnicity . etc.. are just unrelated details to using a public facility. Public is pretty much recognized ( very loosly, okay) as citizens who pay the taxes. Anything after that shouldn't matter: race, religion, favorite color or sport,income, job title, age, etc,, shouldn't be considered or even thought about.


I do not have any thing remotely as being exact numbers, but I am GUESSING that *AT LEAST* half ( could be way way more) of the tax paying citizens of America believe in God or some sort of god or higher diety.


Now,, if *AT LEAST* half of all taxpayers believe in some sort of god or higher power, and since the government( voted on by a nation half made of religious tax paying folks) has never specifically said we should follow any one particular kind or form of religion.. then why should government funded entities - such as schools - not be allowed to charter a BSA pack/troop?


And more specificaly, and as an example, the pack that I am an ADL to, is CO'd by a Methodist church. So far, in the two years I have been a part of this pack, we have not had any Methodist achievements nights or had any meeting of a Methodist persuasion.


To be quite honest, The most prominat association I can see with the CO is that we get to use their building and we hold Scout Sunday once a year. That's it. No other influence than that!


All kinds of groups and clubs of like minded people use publicly funded and built buildings all the time. So what? I may not follow their beliefs or even like them. But as long as those people pay taxes that maintain those buildings, and nobody is harmed, killed or held against their will...then have at it!


Likewise, since scouting is a group of folks - who joined of their own free will - to be with other like minded folks of their own free will.....and nobody was brainwashed or forced to join...then why all the fuss?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, right there with yeh Scoutfish.


It's an American thing, eh? Da rest of the free world has no trouble giving tax dollars to any entity that serves a public purpose. They fund religious run schools because those schools serve a segment of the taxpaying population (and competition for kids is a good thing that helps improve schools). They happily fund scouts directly, and any other youth program that serves kids well.


It's only in da U.S. of A. where if you work or volunteer for or school your child in a religious organization you are not worthy of gettin' any of your tax dollars back, and might have the doors to the buildings you pay for shut in your face.




Link to post
Share on other sites

scoutfish writes:

Now,, if *AT LEAST* half of all taxpayers believe in some sort of god or higher power, and since the government( voted on by a nation half made of religious tax paying folks) has never specifically said we should follow any one particular kind or form of religion.. then why should government funded entities - such as schools - not be allowed to charter a BSA pack/troop?


Now,, if *AT LEAST* half of all taxpayers are white, and since the government( voted on by a nation half made of white folks) has never specifically said we should be any particular race.. then why should government funded entities - such as schools - not be allowed to charter a whites-only private club?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, Merlyn, I think there are all kinds of good reasons why public bodies might offer services targeted to one population or another, eh?


Young urban males tend to be at particular risk of dropping out of school and gettin' into other trouble. Seems like schools or programs which specifically target the needs of young urban males would be an effective use of my tax dollars... even if they excluded young urban females or white suburban males.


We target services to subpopulations all the time, eh? We spend research dollars on prostate cancer, which affects only men, on breast cancer which affects only women, on sickle-cell, which affects only blacks, on melanoma, which tends to affect mostly whites.


Plenty of public universities offer student programs targeting particular groups, eh? Scholarships. Black student unions. LGBT programming. Stuff that practically or literally excludes some groups so as to offer needed services to other groups.


Why should religious belief be treated any differently?




Link to post
Share on other sites


My line of thinking is this:


Anybody who pays taxes to the government deserves government representation.

If you are straight, gay, athiest, diest, complete radical nut, or just crazy!


I'd draw the line to groups that promote and actively participate in harming or detaining others against their free will.


I take my son to see the local Christmas parade. He is just looking at all the cool floats. He doesn't seem to follow a Christian connection to Christmas/Jesus / Christmas parades. He just like the floats... mostly the military and fire depts.


So a parade interuppted a publicly taxed, created and maintained roadway. Tax funded police officers had to block roads and direct traffic for a religious ( well used to be) event.


So what?


Don't those same tax dolars on public roads also allow gay pride parades?

Don't they also allow the Rose Bowl ( sports) and any and all those ethnic parades Chinese parades, Mexican, Polish, Itailian, St Paddy's day ( Oh Lord help me: Drinking and Catholic Sts! )


I have religious beliefes, but not sure I can personally claim any organized religion ( that I am aware of) as being my own. Man kind has scrrewed with too many things in the name of powwer for me to follow trhose.


But I do not care if those groups use schools, parks, our nation's hiways or what not. They paid taxes too. Therefore the government cannot deny their use.


Merlyn, you pay taxes too, I assume. So I have no issue with you using any of tose same buildings, hiways, parks, etc.


Now, I don't want to sound stupid, ( but I don't care if I do!) But I have to assume that you are either gay, athiest, or both. That's cool with me.

Since you pay taxes, I have no qualms about the government funding, allowing use of their buildings or whatever to gay or athiest groups. I am not gay. I am not athiest, I don't necessarily share your beliefs ( although I do not personally think being gay is a choice) but I completely defend your rigfht to your beliefs and your rights as a taxpayer to be able to hold meetings, and clubs/ groups activities at govt funded places.


No matter what your beliefs are, they won't affect my beliefs. Mine should affect yours.


So what's the big deal? If the parents of scouters pay taxes, then there is no reason why schools shouldn't be able to charter BSA.


If there was such a thing as athiest ( or Diest) scouts... I'd have no issue with them being CO'd by a school.


Doesn't matter to me if the Purple Juice drinking NIKE wearing fanatics want to have meetings at the school as long as they pay taxes.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...