To tax, or not to tax?

St Reagan wouldn't be allowed into today's Republican party if he were to come back to life.

 

if you think vegas pays their share, you haven't seen how they skim the pre tax take.

 

They may not pay their FAIR share (what corporation does?), but at least they don't claim that they should be exempt for promoting belief in Lady Luck (who is, in the end, just one more god that some people believe in and others, such as myself, don't.) Churches sell dreams, just as Vegas does. Churches take your money on the unsubstantiated promise of eternal life, just as Vegas takes your money on the unsubstantiated promise of riches. There's really no difference. Both make money off of the inability of people to think rationally. And both should be required to pay taxes.

 

Depends what the main thrust of the organization is. Should a Yoplait be tax deductible because they give a penny from each yogurt sold to Breast Cancer research?

 

^ Excellent point! How much of a church's exorbitant wealth goes to charity? And how much of its charitable work is connected with converting people?

During the potato famine, protestants brought oatmeal to Ireland and gave it to people who would convert. As a result, the previously all-Catholic country was divided into warring religious factions shedding each other's blood ever since. While most missionaries today are far less overt in their linking of charity with proselytizing, they still often use charity as a means of converting people, with the result that families and towns and nations become divided by walls of religious intolerance.

We should be vigilant not to grant tax-exempt status to evangelism in the guise of charity.