<DIV>Ken,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Other than to ramble about common sense things we already know in painful detail, what's your point? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think it was clear that you would like to tax (in per usage fees) churches for public services that are already paid for through taxes on the church goers homes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You are suggesting that we tax churches, changing the method we collect the money, doesn't change the fact that you are still collecting money from a church for city services. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am not opposed to user fees, but I am against imposing them on those that are the victims of laws being violated, we should fine those for breaking the law, not calling the police on them. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Requiring someone to pay a "service fee" for calling the police to enforce local, state, and federal law, is a less than well thought out suggestion, if
not totally idiotic. And again, any common sense person that didn't want to pay a $1000 "Service fee" or couldn't afford it, would simple do it themselves, or try and create a bigger mess. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Members of the congregation pay taxes for the police to enforce the law everywhere within the jurisdiction already. Another tax for the same service would be a double tax. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR><B><I>Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1@verizon.net></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On Saturday 19 January 2008 14:26, Donovan Arnold wrote:<BR>> Ken,<BR>> <BR>> I think enforcing the law and maintaining social order on the basis of <BR>what they paid in taxes would be a detriment to society, and would most <BR>likely promote and create a vigilante sort of justice to save on
government <BR>fees and taxes. It would also create huge injustices in law enforcement.<BR><BR>Oh, my goodness, Donovan. I thought I was finished with the Sunday silliness <BR>when I laid down the newspaper comics. Thanks for extending my enjoyment.<BR><BR>To some considerable extent the system now in action consists of "enforcing <BR>the law and maintaining social order on the basis of what they paid in <BR>taxes", as you just wrote. Quite often geographical areas where more tax <BR>resources are devoted to law enforcement activities, less crime occurs. <BR>These areas often have more highly-valued properties, and the result of the <BR>greater resource allocation to those areas is lower crime rates there. On <BR>the other hand, some areas with lower taxes have higher crime rates, in <BR>part because less law enforcement is active, and in part because the <BR>properties there are lower-valued, and are thus more affordable to those <BR>with less personal resources, and,
unfortunately, often a higher propensity <BR>to commit crimes requiring law enforcement attention. So, unsurprising it <BR>is that more law enforcement activity may be needed in areas that pay less <BR>taxes, the converse situation of what you just suggested.<BR><BR>Any connection between vigilantism and the situation just described is not <BR>obvious. Vigilantes are often self-appointed dispensers of their view of <BR>justice apart from legitimately established law enforcement and court <BR>systems. Vigilantes, as usually thought of, at least, use their own <BR>resources to enforce their view of justice, rather than taking from those <BR>upon whom they inflict their judgments to recompense themselves for <BR>their activities. So, even with vigilantes, neither is the alleged offender <BR>paying more for the privilege of being the object of law enforcement, nor <BR>is there financial inequity on the part of the alleged offender.<BR><BR>(Injustice to the alleged offender as
a result of vigilante activities is <BR>quite another matter. For some excellent insight about vigilante justice, <BR>read _The Oxbow Incident_, a 1940 western novel by Walter Van Tilburg <BR>Clark. It has nothing to do with user fees for churches; it's just a good <BR>read from several other points of view.)<BR><BR>> If you want to debate if churches should get a tax break or not that <BR>would be an interesting debate.<BR><BR>The first thing to note is that churches are not paying any taxes from which <BR>to get a break. I'll agree with you that it might be interesting to debate <BR>whether churches should be taxed, but there are other issues quite short of <BR>taxation that should be discussed first.<BR><BR>Sending a bill, or collecting charges, for specific public services rendered <BR>to particular individuals is not the same thing as taxation, but rather may <BR>be considered user fees for services received, as development plans review, <BR>for example, or for
recreational opportunities enjoyed via campground fees.<BR><BR>Taxation, on the other hand, involves collecting money from many taxpayers, <BR>putting it into public accounts, and then expending it for various <BR>legislatively-approved purposes. There is no necessary direct connection <BR>between who paid the taxes and who received direct benefits from the tax <BR>expenditures, as is the case with public service user fees. Charging <BR>churches user fees for various services specifically received is quite <BR>different from requiring churches to contribute to the public accounts from <BR>which public expenditures are made. <BR><BR>> My personal objection with taxes being levied against churches is that <BR>when a government can tax a church, it is also being given the power to <BR>shut it down at the same time , which is a violation of the First Amendment <BR>rights.<BR><BR>Donovan, it appears that you're using church taxation as a conversation <BR>trampoline, jumping
to conclusions in various directions. That it is fun <BR>and exhilarating I don't doubt, but most of the movement appears up and <BR>down rather than progress toward another, and better, place.<BR><BR>Any connection between taxation and shutting down churches is just in your <BR>imagination. I am not suggesting shutting down any churches, however good <BR>an idea that may appear to be given millennia of church-connected warfare. <BR>Public user fees for services received by churches no more violates <BR>anyone's freedom to worship, or not, as she or he sees fit than do fees for <BR>public water service into a home or building, or waste-water service bills <BR>for treatment of water coming from structures, or garbage collection fees <BR>for regular pickup services.<BR><BR>> IMHO, the government gets enough money as it is. It would be nice <BR>to have one place inside our borders where its greedy fingers don't get <BR>into your wallet.<BR><BR>Many churchmen have thought
similarly over the years, with the result that <BR>impressive collections of church assets, whether precious metals, artworks, <BR>or real estate, have been agglomerated away from the auditing eyes of <BR>public agents and cooperative sharing of the burdens of the common weal. <BR>Occasionally these assets find uses beyond delighting robed Scrooges in <BR>their counting houses, as when they must be converted into cash to pay for <BR>the collective hubris of decades, if not centuries, of perverted padres' <BR>pederastic predations. <BR><BR>> The church goers pay taxes through the nose already. Adding another tax <BR>for them to support where the state is not suppose to be involved is not <BR>called for in my opinion. <BR><BR>Secret ceremonies of ancient religions should be no match for the sunshine <BR>of contemporary concern to solve the problems of growing populations.<BR><BR><BR>Ken<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Looking for last minute shopping deals? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping">
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.</a>