[Vision2020] Public Service User Fees versus Taxation (was: Banned From Church)

[Kenneth Marcy]

On Saturday 19 January 2008 14:26, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Ken,
>    
>   I think enforcing the law and maintaining social order on the basis of 
what they paid in taxes would be a detriment to society, and would most 
likely promote and create a vigilante sort of justice to save on government 
fees and taxes. It would also create huge injustices in law enforcement.

Oh, my goodness, Donovan. I thought I was finished with the Sunday silliness 
when I laid down the newspaper comics. Thanks for extending my enjoyment.

To some considerable extent the system now in action consists of "enforcing 
the law and maintaining social order on the basis of what they paid in 
taxes", as you just wrote. Quite often geographical areas where more tax 
resources are devoted to law enforcement activities, less crime occurs. 
These areas often have more highly-valued properties, and the result of the 
greater resource allocation to those areas is lower crime rates there. On 
the other hand, some areas with lower taxes have higher crime rates, in 
part because less law enforcement is active, and in part because the 
properties there are lower-valued, and are thus more affordable to those 
with less personal resources, and, unfortunately, often a higher propensity 
to commit crimes requiring law enforcement attention. So, unsurprising it 
is that more law enforcement activity may be needed in areas that pay less 
taxes, the converse situation of what you just suggested.

Any connection between vigilantism and the situation just described is not 
obvious. Vigilantes are often self-appointed dispensers of their view of 
justice apart from legitimately established law enforcement and court 
systems. Vigilantes, as usually thought of, at least, use their own 
resources to enforce their view of justice, rather than taking from those 
upon whom they inflict their judgments to recompense themselves for 
their activities. So, even with vigilantes, neither is the alleged offender 
paying more for the privilege of being the object of law enforcement, nor 
is there financial inequity on the part of the alleged offender.

(Injustice to the alleged offender as a result of vigilante activities is 
quite another matter. For some excellent insight about vigilante justice, 
read _The Oxbow Incident_, a 1940 western novel by Walter Van Tilburg 
Clark. It has nothing to do with user fees for churches; it's just a good 
read from several other points of view.)

>   If you want to debate if churches should get a tax break or not that 
would be an interesting debate.

The first thing to note is that churches are not paying any taxes from which 
to get a break. I'll agree with you that it might be interesting to debate 
whether churches should be taxed, but there are other issues quite short of 
taxation that should be discussed first.

Sending a bill, or collecting charges, for specific public services rendered 
to particular individuals is not the same thing as taxation, but rather may 
be considered user fees for services received, as development plans review, 
for example, or for recreational opportunities enjoyed via campground fees.

Taxation, on the other hand, involves collecting money from many taxpayers, 
putting it into public accounts, and then expending it for various 
legislatively-approved purposes. There is no necessary direct connection 
between who paid the taxes and who received direct benefits from the tax 
expenditures, as is the case with public service user fees. Charging 
churches user fees for various services specifically received is quite 
different from requiring churches to contribute to the public accounts from 
which public expenditures are made. 

>   My personal objection with taxes being levied against churches is that 
when a government can tax a church, it is also being given the power to 
shut it down at the same time , which is a violation of the First Amendment 
rights.

Donovan, it appears that you're using church taxation as a conversation 
trampoline, jumping to conclusions in various directions. That it is fun 
and exhilarating I don't doubt, but most of the movement appears up and 
down rather than progress toward another, and better, place.

Any connection between taxation and shutting down churches is just in your 
imagination. I am not suggesting shutting down any churches, however good 
an idea that may appear to be given millennia of church-connected warfare. 
Public user fees for services received by churches no more violates 
anyone's freedom to worship, or not, as she or he sees fit than do fees for 
public water service into a home or building, or waste-water service bills 
for treatment of water coming from structures, or garbage collection fees 
for regular pickup services.

>  IMHO, the government gets enough money as it is. It would be nice 
to have one place inside our borders where its greedy fingers don't get 
into your wallet.

Many churchmen have thought similarly over the years, with the result that 
impressive collections of church assets, whether precious metals, artworks, 
or real estate, have been agglomerated away from the auditing eyes of 
public agents and cooperative sharing of the burdens of the common weal. 
Occasionally these assets find uses beyond delighting robed Scrooges in 
their counting houses, as when they must be converted into cash to pay for 
the collective hubris of decades, if not centuries, of perverted padres' 
pederastic predations. 

>   The church goers pay taxes through the nose already. Adding another tax 
for them to support where the state is not suppose to be involved is not 
called for in my opinion. 

Secret ceremonies of ancient religions should be no match for the sunshine 
of contemporary concern to solve the problems of growing populations.


Ken