<DIV>Ken,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The more you try to explain the more I realize you really didn't think through what you are saying. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First, police do not service a church, they service the people. The people pay taxes, for the enforcement of the law, regardless of where they may or not be inside the jurisdiction; a private business, a private yard, or a public park or a public building, it is still the law, and the people they are servicing are still paying taxes. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second, law of supply and demand does not stop applying when you want it to, you start charging private non-profit non-taxpaying organizations for calling the police, then people will stop calling the police. And people not calling the police when they need to can only lead to worse and more costly problems for all taxpayers later on. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Third, if it follows using your
premise that paying a tax entitles you to a government service, and not paying that tax requires you to pay a user fee for that same government service, than it also follows that we ought to be given refunds for NOT using a service and being taxed for it, at least all given a choice between user fees or taxes. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Finally, charging churches money for government services will come from the services provided as charity, such as food and clothing banks, soup kitchens, meeting halls, and homeless shelters. For every dollar you take from a non-profit private charity organization you are going to have to collect $2 or $3 to give those same people the same services of food, clothing, shelter and other assistance through the government which private organizations no longer can afford to do. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </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 Sunday 20 January 2008 21:54, Donovan Arnold wrote:<BR>> Ken,<BR>> <BR>> Other than to ramble about common sense things we already know in <BR>painful detail, what's your point?<BR><BR>The point is that a more equitable distribution of cost recovery for basic <BR>service delivery can be obtained if all organizations and persons who <BR>receive the services help to pay for them.<BR><BR>> I think it was clear that you would like to tax (in per usage fees) <BR>churches for public services that are already paid for through taxes on the <BR>church goers homes.<BR><BR>As I explained, user fees are not taxes, but rather are payments for <BR>specific services received. Church organizations are constitutionally and <BR>statutorily
exempt from general taxation. The taxes paid by individual <BR>members are not taxes directly for a church's benefit, though it may <BR>benefit indirectly, as from better roads to and from a sanctuary.<BR><BR>> You are suggesting that we tax churches, changing the method we collect <BR>the money, doesn't change the fact that you are still collecting money from <BR>a church for city services.<BR><BR>See above.<BR><BR>> I am not opposed to user fees, but I am against imposing them on those <BR>that are the victims of laws being violated, we should fine those for <BR>breaking the law, not calling the police on them.<BR><BR>It is not clear, with respect to the pastor versus parishioner news item <BR>that started this conversation, to which of the participants you are <BR>referring. Nor is it clear whether there were any laws broken by either <BR>party in the matter. Yet local officers expended service resources.<BR><BR>> Requiring someone to pay a "service fee" for
calling the police to <BR>enforce local, state, and federal law, is a less than well thought out <BR>suggestion, if not totally idiotic. And again, any common sense person that <BR>didn't want to pay a $1000 "Service fee" or couldn't afford it, would <BR>simple do it themselves, or try and create a bigger mess.<BR><BR>As I just mentioned, it is unclear in the above situation whether any laws <BR>were broken. It is clear that if the lady parishioner had been visiting in <BR>the pastor's individual home, rather than a church, and if he asked her to <BR>leave, and she refused, then police assistance is something to which his <BR>property tax payments entitle him. If the pastor, in his capacity as an <BR>official of a church, asked her to leave a sanctuary, and she refused, then <BR>his response to ask officers for assistance is a reasonable one. That does <BR>not mean, however, that the church organization has paid for that officer <BR>assistance.<BR><BR>> Members of the
congregation pay taxes for the police to enforce the law <BR>everywhere within the jurisdiction already. Another tax for the same <BR>service would be a double tax.<BR><BR>A service fee for officer assistance to a church is not taxation in the <BR>first place, and it is certainly not double taxation of any kind. A church <BR>is a separate entity, as a corporation is a separate entity, and the costs <BR>of services provided to a church are distinguished from those provided to <BR>individuals just as corporate costs are distinguished from individual ones.<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>