Beto O'Rourke's Threat Re: "Oppos{ing} Same Sex Marriage"

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If you don't want to consider any other perspectives, why did you ask for our thoughts?

I am open to "other perspectives," but Mr. O'Rourke is threatening the tax exemptions of religious groups because of their beliefs.  That is viewpoint discrimination.  That is unconstitutional.

I often say that "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things."  But not all things.  As Prof. Volokh put it (and as noted in the OP), this is an "open and shut" issue:

Quote

Volokh pointed to the 1958 Supreme Court case Speiser v. Randall over California's decision to require applicants for certain tax exemptions to sign a loyalty oath to the US and the State of California. The Court ruled that California could not impose the oath and in the opinion, progressive Justice William Brennan wrote that "a discriminatory denial of a tax exemption for engaging in speech is a limitation on free speech."

"The court made clear that if you deny a tax exemption it's the same as a fine," Volokh said. "So, one question you might ask is, would it be permissible to say we're going to impose a fine on any group or any religious group that takes a particular view about same-sex marriage? The answer is of course not. Clearly it would be a First Amendment violation."

Courts have reaffirmed this time and again. More recently, in a 2015 DC Circuit Court of Appeals case over the IRS denying certain tax exemptions for a pro-Israel organization, the court found that "in administering the tax code, the IRS may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint."

In 2017, Volokh notes, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government could not reject trademark applications that were seen as disparaging because it would be viewpoint discrimination.
"Even when it comes to these kinds of fairly modest government provided benefits (e.g. certain trademark protections) the government can't discriminate based on viewpoint," Volokh said.

So, back to your statement: "From one perspective, denying a tax exemption is a penalty."  I disagree.  The unconstitutional nature of Mr. O'Rourke's threat (denying/revoking a tax exemption based on viewpoint discrimination) is not a matter of perspective.

Quote

Perhaps, but I'm suggesting we look at the bigger issue of whether the exemption is Constitutional in the first place.

I'd rather not.  That's too far beyond the scope of this thread.

Quote

If you'd like to give him the benefit of clarifying what his actual position is, he subsequently said:

“The way that you practice your religion or your faith within that mosque or that temple or synagogue or church, that is your business, and not the government's business,” he said. “But when you are providing services in the public sphere, say, higher education, or health care, or adoption services, and you discriminate or deny equal treatment under the law based on someone's skin color or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation, then we have a problem.”

That doesn't seem to be "viewpoint discrimination."

Yes, that is what he said after the fact (I quoted his campaign's subsequent clarification, much like the one above, in the OP).  

The problem is that I don't believe him.  Nor, it seems, did CNN (!):

Quote

Lemon's question, however, was whether O'Rourke would be in favor of denying tax-exempt status if a religious organization "opposed same sex marriage," not if they took broader discriminatory action. This left many wondering if such a move would violate the constitution.

Given Mr. O'Rourke's infamous and recent declaration of his intention to violate the Second Amendment ("Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47..."), I think it's reasonable to be concerned about him being similarly indifferent (or even hostile) to the First Amendment.

After-the-fact "What Mr. O'Rourke meant to say is..."-type equivocations don't really work.  

Quote

Rather, it is saying that if you want to provide services in the public square and want to discriminate you are totally free to do so--just don't expect the government to subsidize you doing it.

I reject the subsidization argument.  You and I went the rounds on this in May 2018 (see, e.g., here) (regarding calls for the Church to be "transparent" with its financials) :

Quote

Do you take advantage of any "tax breaks?"  Anything in the tax code that allows you to pay fewer taxes than you otherwise would?  Pretty much very individual and organization does, which means that pretty much every individual and organization is - by your reckoning - being "subsidized."

So do you publicly fault every individual and organization who are so "subsidized?"  Or is it just the LDS Church that is to be faulted in this way?

And here:

Quote

I think there is a flaw in equating utilization of the tax code with "subsidization," particularly since everyone does this.  

By your reasoning, every tax deduction is "a subsidy."  Every tax-advantaged transaction is a "subsidy."  Every tax credit is a "subsidy."  But the only time I hear about this sort of thing is when the LDS Church is in the crosshairs.

This characterization of yours sure does come across as a criticism.  As rhetoric designed to stoke resentments against the LDS Church because everyone else is involuntarily "subsidizing" it.
...
{Y}our reasoning is reductionist.  Virtually every tax-paying individual and organization uses the tax code to reduce their tax obligations.  That's pretty much every taxpayer in the country.  To characterize each and every such tax-saving or tax-reducing decision a "subsidy" seems a bit absurd.

And here:

Quote

Quote

My views on what tax subsidizations are and why tax exempt organizations and churches ought to be transparent are mainstream positions and really aren't controversial (at least among people who aren't apologists for prosperity preachers).

You really don't need to die on this hill.

Nor do you.  Out of all the ways to find fault with the Church, you are going with this?

You are presenting your claims about "subsidies" in order to bolster your criticisms of the LDS Church about "transparency," and yet you refuse to explain why your reasoning doesn't apply to you.  Or me.  Or anyone except the LDS Church.

"Transparency for thee, but not for me," I suppose.  

Prof. Volokh was right: "Everything old is new again."

Quote

The issue isn't whether or not "pretty much everyone" can receive the incentives and subsidizations that the tax code offers. The issue is whether those incentives should be offered in the first place.

Actually no, that's not the issue.  Not for this thread.

Quote

And more fundamentally, just because the group of religions that the government subsidizes with tax exemptions is extremely broad doesn't mean that subsidizing them is Constitutional. 

Again, beyond the scope.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 16, 2019 by smac97

[Jake Starkey]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

1. Yes.

2. True.

3. No, the freedom of religion amendment is designed to protect churches from the government and to prevent government sponsorship of a denomination. The idea that churches should stay out of politics is a recent trend. Do you think Martin Luther King should have been shut up? They tried to use tax law against him.

With all do respect, Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you in principle.

They failed to muzzle King, and the religionists failed to muzzle Jefferson.

Since this issue will be determined by legislation rather than the courts, it will continue.

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

A religion preaching what it claims is true vs a religion inserting itself into politics in hopes to sway political ends are two different things.  

Not really.  And you speak as though you don't know what a religion is because religions don't do anything all by themselves.  Religions are perspectives on how to live and on what to believe, with people choosing for themselves which religion or way of life they want to live.

So to phrase the issue correctly we're talking about a religion people who preach what it they claim is true vs a religion people inserting itself themselves into politics in hopes to sway political ends.

We preach, and vote, based on what we believe, and that is what you don't want us to do, it seems.  Or maybe you don't mind us preaching as long as we don't vote according to what we believe.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Ahab

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How could anyone not see that the “Christian Faith” is under fire and under siege? 

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am open to "other perspectives," but Mr. O'Rourke is threatening the tax exemptions of religious groups because of their beliefs.  That is viewpoint discrimination.  That is unconstitutional.

(bold added)

Your statement is factually incorrect. You could argue that he did argue that and has since changed his position, or you could take him at his word and say that his intent was really about discriminating while offering services in the public square. But either way, he is not arguing for viewpoint discrimination and I am not defending it. My thoughts are a slightly broader look at the issues you raised, and you shouldn't comingle my thoughts with what you imagine to be Mr. O'Rourke's position. 

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I often say that "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things."  But not all things.  As Prof. Volokh put it (and as noted in the OP), this is an "open and shut" issue:

Mr. O'Rourke isn't advocating for viewpoint discrimination, and neither am I. I'm glad the courts agree with us on that, at least.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So, back to your statement: "From one perspective, denying a tax exemption is a penalty."  I disagree.  The unconstitutional nature of Mr. O'Rourke's threat (denying/revoking a tax exemption based on viewpoint discrimination) is not a matter of perspective.

You seem to be completely missing my point. Whether "viewpoint discrimination" is Constitutional or not (and I agree that it is not) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether tax benefits can and should be thought of as subsidies.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject the subsidization argument.  You and I went the rounds on this in May 2018 (see, e.g., here) (regarding calls for the Church to be "transparent" with its financials) :

And here:

And here:

Yep. Everybody wants lower taxes and a simpler tax codes, but don't touch their favorite tax subsidies!

[Ahab]

It is incorrect to refer to tax breaks based on tax exempt status as tax "subsidies".  A subsidy is a sum of money given by the government or a public body  A tax break is money that does not need to be given to the government.

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It is incorrect to refer to tax breaks based on tax exempt status as tax "subsidies".  A subsidy is a sum of money given by the government or a public body  A tax break is money that does not need to be given to the government.

In every financially meaningful way, the government giving you a check for $1,500 because you are a good tithe-paying Mormon with a $100,000 income is exactly equal to the church reducing your tax bill by $1,500 because you are a good tithe-paying Mormon with a $100,000 income. The net cash flows are the same. The cost to the government is the same. The financial benefit to you is the same, and the rational economic incentive to change your behavior is exactly the same. That is why tax breaks are rightly considered subsidies. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Analytics

[Jake Starkey]

Current tax law subsidizes LDS tithing.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your statement is factually incorrect. You could argue that he did argue that and has since changed his position, or you could take him at his word and say that his intent was really about discriminating while offering services in the public square. But either way, he is not arguing for viewpoint discrimination and I am not defending it.

Yes, he is arguing for viewpoint discrimination.  He is threatening nothing but viewpoint discrimination.

Quote

My thoughts are a slightly broader look at the issues you raised, and you shouldn't comingle my thoughts with what you imagine to be Mr. O'Rourke's position. 

Your comments are a lot broader than the scope of this thread.

And I'm not "imagining" Mr. O'Rourke's position.  I am listening to what he said.

Quote

Mr. O'Rourke isn't advocating for viewpoint discrimination, and neither am I.

Yes, he is.

And this is you not defending him?

Quote

You seem to be completely missing my point. Whether "viewpoint discrimination" is Constitutional or not (and I agree that it is not) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether tax benefits can and should be thought of as subsidies.

Meh.  You are trying to inject a much broader topic into this thread.  Tax exemptions are allowed under the laws of the land.  Mr. O'Rourke has publicly threatened to revoke/deny tax exemptions based on the religious viewpoints of some religious groups.

If you want to discuss broader, abstract notions about whether tax exemptions are constitutional or should be removed entirely for everyone, please start another thread.

Quote

Yep. Everybody wants lower taxes and a simpler tax codes, but don't touch their favorite tax subsidies!

Actually, I would prefer substantially smaller government.

And again, I reject the subsidization argument, particularly your selective application of it to religious (presumably Christian) groups.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 16, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

Just now, Jake Starkey said:

Current tax law subsidizes LDS tithing.

Off topic.  Please take it elsewhere.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In every financially meaningful way, the government giving you a check for $1,500 because you are a good tithe-paying Mormon with a $100,000 income is exactly equal to the church reducing your tax bill by $1,500 because you are a good tithe-paying Mormon with a $100,000 income. The net cash flows are the same. The cost to the government is the same. The financial benefit to you is the same, and the rational economic incentive to change your behavior is exactly the same. That is why tax breaks are rightly considered subsidies. 

Receiving $1,500 as a subsidy (gift) in addition to $100,000 in income works out to be $101,500, while tax exempt status would mean someone with $100,000 in income got to keep the whole $100,000.  Otherwise with a tax of $1,500 he would have only $98,500.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Current tax law subsidizes LDS tithing.

As well as donations to the Catholic Church, the Audubon Society, the United Way, the Libertarian Party, the Kidney Foundation, etc, etc, etc.

So?

[Jake Starkey]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

As well as donations to the Catholic Church, the Audubon Society, the United Way, the Libertarian Party, the Kidney Foundation, etc, etc, etc.

So?

Thank you.  That is my point, that the law permits these tax advantages, thus the law can take them away from whom it will.  The attack on PP by the GOP in Congress is absolutely 'viewpoint discrimination' yet absolutely legal.  Therefore, tax exempt status for religious entities can be legally removed.  "Viewpoint discrimination" is a throwaway term.  We all have viewpoints.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Viewpoint discrimination" is a throwaway term.  We all have viewpoints.

We all have free agency, too.  We can do whatever we can do.  Legal or not.  What is your point?  That people in government positions can vote to remove all tax breaks from all individuals and organizations if they want to do that?  Yeah, okay, sure, they could vote to do that, if they could get it on a ballot for them to vote on. But if you imagine that everybody is going to vote to do that, or that those who do vote to do that will be in the majority and win on that movement, you have what I would say is a fairly active imagination.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Ahab

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Thank you.  That is my point, that the law permits these tax advantages, thus the law can take them away from whom it will.  The attack on PP by the GOP in Congress is absolutely 'viewpoint discrimination' yet absolutely legal.  Therefore, tax exempt status for religious entities can be legally removed.  "Viewpoint discrimination" is a throwaway term.  We all have viewpoints.

Absolutely it can be taken away if the law is changed.  It can't be taken away in a way that discriminates based on the organizations viewpoints.

Hopefully we'll never get to a point when the government is taking the donations I give the the United Way or The Church or whomever. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by ksfisher

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They don’t. There is a separate organization called the Planned Parent Action Fund that is a 501c4 unlike the more commonly known organization which is a 501c3. 501c4s do not pay taxes but their donations are not tax exempt. They can engage in politics directly related to what they do but money collected for that purpose is taxable and usually donations are disclosed. Both work with the parent organization, the IPPF, which is the global equivalent of Planned Parenthood which has about 200 associated organizations, most individual to specific regions or nations. Having two separate organizations is common. The ACLU is set up the same way. So is Focus on the Family.

The Sierra club is entirely a 501c4 organization.

I understand that. Donations to those organizations are not tax-deductible for the donors. However, those organizations are tax-exempt and are allowed to engage in direct political activity up to 50% of their expenditures. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Thank you.  That is my point, that the law permits these tax advantages, thus the law can take them away from whom it will. 

No, it can't.  The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and the First Amendment, prohibit the government from arbitrarily taking away "tax advantages ... from whom it will."

12 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

The attack on PP by the GOP in Congress is absolutely 'viewpoint discrimination' yet absolutely legal.

Not sure what you are referencing here.  And it sounds like it's outside the scope of this thread.

12 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Therefore, tax exempt status for religious entities can be legally removed. 

Not if the removal is based on viewpoint discrimination.

12 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

"Viewpoint discrimination" is a throwaway term.  We all have viewpoints.

I encourage you to give this matter a bit more study.  "Viewpoint discrimination" is a legal term of art.  It has real meaning and significance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

Just now, smac97 said:

No, it can't.  The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and the First Amendment, prohibit the government from arbitrarily taking away "tax advantages ... from whom it will."

Whew!  Good to hear that we already cleared that hurdle.  So what are we worried about now?  Wouldn't we just be able to storm into President O'Rourke's oval office and tell him that No he cannot do that?

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Wow.  You really don’t see a difference???. Maybe it is fine if you too believe in the stance your religion is taking. But what if you don’t?  

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

What if you believe in the civil rights of a gay couple to marry.  What if you believe that families are the building blocks of a community, of a nation, and marriage is an institution that helps build stronger families no matter who you are?  What if you believe that having a companion to share life with is at the core of everyone’s earth experience even if they are not straight

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

or what if your church believes in supporting gay marriage and you don’t  

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

What if you are a Democrat and believe in social programs but belong to a religion that supports a party that wants to do away with social programs.  What if you are a Republican and you think welfare is detrimental to individuals?  But your faith campaigns and supports the opposing point of view?

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

What if you believe a woman has the right to choose and your church believes that is murder?  Or what if you don’t believe in abortion, but your church supports Planned Parenthood?

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

What if you think a particular candidate is immoral, dishonest and a danger to this country, but your church does all they can legally do to get that candidate elected to public office?

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

If the political views of your religion align with yours, then you see no problem, in fact you are blind to the issue.   But if your political views do not align with your faith, then what?  

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Could you keep supporting the beliefs of that religio, or would you just walk away.  The fastest growing religion is no religion.  Surveys show that younger people are far less conservative than a lot of faiths.  They are also the biggest group leaving religion.

You reference this fact a lot. I don't believe that it requires the narrative you seem to believe it does.  It seems you think that religion should be so determined to keep members that they keep quiet about issues in the world. 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

if you want a voice in politics, join a political party and do all you can to get your political beliefs passed.  If you want to worship Christ and have a relationship with him, join a religion.  Find  a community that will support your personal beliefs   If you cannot find a faith that supports your personal beliefs, then what/. Do you just walk away from organized religion?  

That would be a logical choice to me. 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

The fact that you and so many others don’t see a problem in what organized religion is doing to itself is appalling  to me.  If you support the direction religion is headed, then you are right, political activism based on religion is no different than any other political activism. 

But all religion is not heading in the same direction.  And I respect the value in those religious communities working to engage in the public square.  Again, how is that different from GLAAD or HRC or PFLAG organizing to address issues relevant to their mission?

[Jake Starkey]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it can't.  The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and the First Amendment, prohibit the government from arbitrarily taking away "tax advantages ... from whom it will."

Not sure what you are referencing here.  And it sounds like it's outside the scope of this thread.

Not if the removal is based on viewpoint discrimination.

I encourage you to give this matter a bit more study.  "Viewpoint discrimination" is a legal term of art.  It has real meaning and significance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you.  As you know, if those objections are met, yes, those tax exempt statuses can be revoked.  I suggest you consider 'viewpoint discrimination' in light of the entire discussion above.  https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1028/viewpoint-discrimination

Edited October 16, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

If you want a voice in politics, join a political party and do all you can to get your political beliefs passed.  ''

Or we could just vote on whatever comes up for us to vote on.  And we might even do something to get something on the ballot for us to vote on, if we want to be that politically active.  None of that requires abandoning or ignoring our religious beliefs.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

If you want to worship Christ and have a relationship with him, join a religion. 

A religion is a perspective on how to live life, and the best way to find a religion is to get to know Jesus Christ and learn from him about how he wants us to live our life.  None of that requires abandoning politics or not voting when something comes up to vote on.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

The fact that you and so many others don’t see a problem in what organized religion is doing to itself is appalling to me.

Religion is a perspective.  I think you're talking about people with a particular perspective or religion.  So what is it that you find so appalling about what some people are doing to themselves?  Is it that you don't like how some people are living their lives?

5 hours ago, california boy said:

If you support the direction religion is headed, then you are right, political activism based on religion is no different than any other political activism. 

There are all kinds of religions... all kinds of perspectives on how to live life... so when you talk about where religion is headed I wonder what you are talking about???  Which religions do you have a problem with?  And how do you see politics affected by religion?

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Thank you.  As you know, if those objections are met, yes, those tax exempt statuses can be revoked. 

What "objections?"

36 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

I suggest you consider 'viewpoint discrimination' in light of the entire discussion above.  https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1028/viewpoint-discrimination

From that link (emphasis added):

Quote

Viewpoint discrimination is a form of content discrimination particularly disfavored by the courts. When the government engages in content discrimination, it is restricting speech on a given subject matter. When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.

Here, Mr. O'Rourke is "singling out a particular opinion or perspective" on a "subject matter" (religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage), and then threatening to subject those groups to "treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints."

Also from that link (emphases added):

Quote

Although viewpoint discrimination often involves political speech, it can also arise when the government treats religious speakers less favorably than nonreligious speakers.

The Supreme Court made this abundantly clear in two decisions from the mid-1990s: Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993) and Rosenberger.

In Lamb’s Chapel, a public school district opened its facilities for after-hours use by community groups for a broad range of social, civic, and recreational purposes. However, it denied access to a church group that sought to show a film series addressing family values and child rearing from a “Christian perspective.”

The Court held that the school district had violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination: “t discriminates on the basis of viewpoint to permit school property to be used for the presentation of all views about family issues and child-rearing except those dealing with the subject matter from a religious standpoint.”

In Rosenberger, the Court held that a student religious journal at the University of Virginia was entitled to the same subsidy from student activity funds received by secular student journals.

The Court concluded that the university’s policy of withholding the subsidy from student religious journals was a form of viewpoint discrimination: “[T]he University does not exclude religion as a subject matter but selects for disfavored treatment those student journalistic efforts with religious editorial viewpoints. Religion may be a vast area of inquiry, but it also provides, as it did here, a specific premise, a perspective, a standpoint from which a variety of subjects may be discussed and considered. The prohibited perspective, not the subject matter, resulted in the [university’s denial of the subsidy].”

What parts of your link do you think are incompatible with my understanding of "viewpoint discrimination" and Mr. O'Rourke's threat?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Receiving $1,500 as a subsidy (gift) in addition to $100,000 in income works out to be $101,500, while tax exempt status would mean someone with $100,000 in income got to keep the whole $100,000.  Otherwise with a tax of $1,500 he would have only $98,500.

Two people earn $100,000 a year, and the tax rate is 15%.

Person A pays 10% to his church which is tax deductible:

Adjusted Gross Income = Gross Income - Tithing = $100,000 - $10,000 = $90,000.

Tax: 15% * $90,000 = $13,500

Net Income = Gross Income - Tax = $100,000 - $13,500 =  $86,500

Person B gets a $1,500 direct cash subsidy but no tax break:

Adjusted Gross Income: $100,000

Tax: 15% * $100,000 - $15,000

Net income: Gross Income + Subsidy - Tax = $100,000 + $1,500 - $15,000 = $86,500

Getting a $1,500 tax break is identical to getting a $1,500 subsidy. Both cases result in a net income of $86,500 and net tax revenue of $13,500.

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, he is arguing for viewpoint discrimination.  He is threatening nothing but viewpoint discrimination.

Earlier you said you didn't believe him when he clarified his position to something other than viewpoint discrimination. Now you are claiming he didn't even pretend to argue for anything else?

 

Quote

And I'm not "imagining" Mr. O'Rourke's position.  I am listening to what he said.

If you think that he is arguing for nothing but viewpoint discrimination, you certainly are not.

 

Quote

And again, I reject the subsidization argument, particularly your selective application of it to religious (presumably Christian) groups.

It appears you are listening to me just as well as you listen to Mr. O'Rourke. I've repeatedly claimed that all tax breaks are subsidizations, and that all but a small set of carefully chosen ones should be abolished. I've specifically mentioned the mortgage tax deduction as a case in point.

Saying you reject "the subsidization argument" is like saying you reject that argument that 1 + 1 = 2. In a sense it is an argument, but it is practically a tautology and is part of most technical definitions of the word "subsidy." For example, the textbook Principles of Microeconomics has the glossary definition of subsidy as: "a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction It is often to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public." 

Likewise, the website Investopia defines subsidy as "A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy."

I've also given the reference to subsidy in Wikipedia . This really isn't controversial stuff.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Analytics

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Earlier you said you didn't believe him when he clarified his position to something other than viewpoint discrimination.

Yes.

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Now you are claiming he didn't even pretend to argue for anything else?

I am saying I don't buy his campaign's subsequent spin. 

Thanks,

-Smac