John Dehlin Receiving Public Funds

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Ensign Peak Advisors receives billions of dollars in government handouts through its tax-exempt status.

So the Church not giving money to the State is, by you reasoning, equivalent to the Church receiving money from the State.  I don't think that is correct.

What we have here, I think, is a category error, in which you are conflating tax exemption with government subsidy. These are two distinct concepts. 

By way of analogy, imagine that my neighbor kids set up a lemonade stand but don’t have to pay a fee to set up a table in their yard. By your reasoning, the city is "subsidizing" the lemonade stand, the same as if the city were to give them free money to sell cookies).  I don't think this is an accurate characterization.

All 501(c)(3) organizations (nonprofits, charities, colleges/universities, etc.) receive tax-exempt status under U.S. law, not just churches.  By your reckoning, every such university, hospital, charity, etc. that is tax-exempt is also "subsidized," which is inaccurate and misleading.  

Not paying a tax to the State is not the same as receiving a subsidy from the State.

Also, the First Amendment prohibits excessive government entanglement with religion. If the government could tax churches, it would have regulatory control over them, and this in turn could violate religious freedom principles.  This is the crux of the tax exemption for churches.

Respectfully, a tax exemption is not a government subsidy. The State is not giving EPA any money, and is instead choosing not to tax religious and nonprofit entities, just like it does for universities, hospitals, and charities. This principle has long-standing legal precedent and is protected under the First Amendment to prevent excessive government control over religion. If your argument were correct, then every tax-exempt university and charity would also be considered 'subsidized'—which is misleading.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Despite functioning like a hedge fund,

EPA is fundamentally different from a hedge fund in both structure and purpose.

A hedge fund is a private, for-profit investment entity that pools capital from wealthy investors or institutions to maximize short-term returns, often through aggressive and high-risk trading strategies.

In contrast, EPA is a legally recognized integrated auxiliary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, meaning it exists solely to support the Church’s religious, humanitarian, and operational needs.

Unlike hedge funds, EPA does not seek profit for individual investors or external shareholders. It operates under a long-term, conservative investment approach to preserve and grow resources for the Church’s charitable, religious, and educational initiatives.

Also unlike hedge funds, which distribute profits to private investors, EPA's funds are reinvested entirely into the Church’s operations.

If your argument is that investing money makes something a hedge fund, then every university endowment (such as Harvard’s $50 billion endowment) and every nonprofit with an investment arm would also qualify as a hedge fund, which is clearly not the case.

The law recognizes the distinction between for-profit investment firms (hedge funds) and nonprofit investment management entities like EPA. The latter exists to further a religious mission, not to generate returns for private investors.  Ipso facto, EPA is not "functioning like a hedge fund."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Regardless of legality,

Aye, there's the rub.  EPA is entirely legal, so you are left with a "Well, it shouldn't be"-style argument, which you can only bolster by mischaracterizing EPA as "functioning like a hedge fund," when it reality it is doing no such thing.  

Meanwhile, you don't seem to present corollary denunciations of other nonprofit entities which make use of "legality."  Interesting, that.

Arguing against the entirely lawful status of EPA by presenting mischaracterizations of EPA is not a strong position to take.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

tax exemptions exist to support organizations that provide a tangible benefit to society. EPA does not.

I respectfully disagree.  EPA is an integrated auxiliary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which provides substantial and tangible benefits to society.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 5, 2025 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So not giving $ to the State = receiving $ from the state.  I don't think that is correct.

What we have here, I think, is a category error, in which you are conflating tax exemption with government subsidy. These are two distinct concepts. 

By way of analogy, imagine that my neighbor kids set up a lemonade stand but don’t have to pay a fee to set up a table in their yard. By your reasoning, the city is "subsidizing" the lemonade stand, the same as if the city were to give them free money to sell cookies).  I don't think this is an accurate characterization....

Your lemonade stand analogy misses the mark. A better one: Imagine a neighborhood where kids run lemonade stands, but there’s a bully who harasses them all. To stay in business, they chip in to hire security—except for your next-door neighbor’s daughter. The group decides she shouldn’t have to pay because her dad claims their family’s lemonade stand inspires the neighborhood. She still gets full protection, her stand thrives, and she keeps all her earnings—while everyone else has to pay extra to cover her share.

That’s how tax exemptions work. They don’t just mean someone doesn’t pay—they shift the burden onto everyone else. Ensign Peak Advisors (EPA) benefits from public infrastructure, financial systems, and legal protections, yet it gets to opt out of funding them. That’s not just a neutral tax policy—it’s a massive financial advantage. And that, by any reasonable definition, is a government handout.

This is not a "category error." The government writing EPA a $2 billion check is financially identical to EPA getting a $2 billion tax break. Either way, EPA ends up $2 billion richer, and everyone else has to pay more to make up the difference.

One can argue that the Constitution guarantees religions the right to be subsidized this way. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this is a handout to the Church. The financial benefits John Dehlin claimed from the government are presumably legal, too.

[smac97]

On 3/5/2025 at 3:10 PM, Analytics said:

Your lemonade stand analogy misses the mark.

He asserted, without reasoning or explanation.

On 3/5/2025 at 3:10 PM, Analytics said:

A better one: Imagine a neighborhood where kids run lemonade stands, but there’s a bully who harasses them all.  To stay in business, they chip in to hire security—except for your next-door neighbor’s daughter. The group decides she shouldn’t have to pay because her dad claims their family’s lemonade stand inspires the neighborhood. She still gets full protection, her stand thrives, and she keeps all her earnings—while everyone else has to pay extra to cover her share.

Neighborhood and "the group" = Society?

Kids = ?

Bully = ?

Next-door neighbor's daughter = The Church?

I see a number of flaws in your analogy:

First, the "next-door neighbor's daughter" does not correlate with the Church, but rather with a religious community, the constituent members of which do "chip in" and pay taxes, etc.

Second, despite the fact that the members of the Church all pay taxes individually, you want them to pay taxes again by way of their religious association with each other.  That seems pretty punitive.  

Third, your analogy involves "kids run{ning} lemonade stands," but does not differentiate between A) some lemonade stands which are "for profit" enterprises and B) other lemonade stands where the kids are not generating profits for themselves, but are instead going to donate the proceeds to be used for charitable (not personal) purposes.

Fourth, there is a strong, though latent, streak of "special pleading" in your analogy.  There are lots of "next-door neighbor's daughters" (other nonprofit groups, such as hospitals, schools, charities, etc.) who, under your analogy, also don't "chip in," to hire security, yet you apparently have no problem with that.  Or do you?

Fifth, in your analogy you are finding fault with the "next-door neighbor's daughter" (the Church), even though the neighborhood is the "group {that} made the decision" to exempt her from chipping in.

 Sixth, your analogy is still unworkable because it assumes that tax exemption is equivalent to receiving government services for free while others foot the bill.  This is not how tax-exempt status works.  Notwithstanding your snide aside ("her dad claims their family’s lemonade stand inspires the neighborhood"), religious organizations do contribute to society. They aren’t just 'keeping extra profits'—they reinvest in community services, disaster relief, and social programs.  Churches and nonprofits, then, are not "free riders." They do not use taxpayer-funded services more than anyone else—and in many cases, they help reduce the burden on public resources by providing charitable services.  And even if there are arguable situations where the Church uses "taxpayer-funded services," its constituent members have always "paid their fair share" toward those services anyway.

Seventh, let's refine your analogy a bit more:

1. Imagine a neighborhood where kids run lemonade stands, and most of them are for-profit businesses, trying to maximize sales and income.
2. One of the lemonade stands, however, is different.  It is a charity lemonade stand, run by volunteers, where all proceeds go toward helping the community (fixing the park, feeding the homeless, etc.).
3. The city recognizes the difference between these two types of stands. It decides that while for-profit businesses pay business taxes, the charity lemonade stand shouldn’t be taxed because it isn’t pocketing profits—it’s using its funds to provide community benefits.
4. Now, is this "Charity Lemonade Stand" getting a "subsidy" from the city?  nope.  The city simply chooses not to take money from it because it’s fundamentally different from the for-profit businesses.

This is how religious and nonprofit tax exemption works. EPA does not keep its earnings like a private business (hence the inaptness of your "hedge fund" comparison), it instead manages funds solely for the mission of the Church, which includes humanitarian work, maintaining places of worship, and educational programs. The Church provides tremendous social and charitable benefits, which is why it qualifies for tax-exempt status—just like universities, hospitals, and secular charities.

On 3/5/2025 at 3:10 PM, Analytics said:

That’s how tax exemptions work. They don’t just mean someone doesn’t pay—they shift the burden onto everyone else.

Well, not really.  The Church's individual members share "the burden" of governmental services along with everyone else.  You would just prefer to see the Latter-day Saints pay taxes both individually and then again as a religious group.

On 3/5/2025 at 3:10 PM, Analytics said:

Ensign Peak Advisors (EPA) benefits from public infrastructure, financial systems, and legal protections, yet it gets to opt out of funding them.

So do all nonprofits.  So why is EPA the only one that antagonizes you so?

On 3/5/2025 at 3:10 PM, Analytics said:

That’s not just a neutral tax policy—it’s a massive financial advantage.

In what sense?  Advantage over whom?  Advantage in doing what?

On 3/5/2025 at 3:10 PM, Analytics said:

And that, by any reasonable definition, is a government handout.

Again, nonpayment to the State is not reasonably described as being synonymous with payments from the State.

On 3/5/2025 at 3:10 PM, Analytics said:

This is not a "category error."

Yes, it really is.  A "category error" is "a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category"

You are claiming that EPA, which the IRS and most everyone but you acknowledges is an "integrated auxiliary" of a religious group holding tax-exempt status (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is "functionally" (your word) a "hedge fund."  

• Hedge funds are for-profit entities that raise capital from high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors with the goal of maximizing returns.  In contrast, EPA is not "for-profit," nor does it "raise capital from high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors with the goal of maximizing returns."
• Investors in hedge funds expect high-risk, high-reward strategies and can withdraw their money for personal use.  In contrast, EPA has no "investors," and instead only receives money from the entity of which it (EPA) is an integrated auxiliary, that is, the Church.  Also, the Church does not expect EPA to use "high-risk, high-reward strategies."  Also, while the Church can withdraw money from EPA, it only does so to fund the religious, humanitarian and philanthropic missions of the Church, not "for personal use."
• Hedge funds have external investors, is created for private profit-sharing, and is incentivized to maximize short-term gains.  In contrast, EPA has no "external investors," nor are its investments "created for private profit-sharing," nor is it "incentivized to maximize short-term gains."  EPA is a tax-exempt integrated auxiliary of the Church, meaning it exists only to manage resources for the Church's religious and charitable missions.  Unlike a hedge fund, EPA has no independent profit motive. Its financial activities are aligned with the Church’s long-term mission, not individual wealth accumulation.
• Hedge funds often use leverage, short-selling, and derivatives to seek outsized returns.  They are known for speculative and opportunistic trading, including betting against markets, etc.  In contrast, EPA follows a conservative, long-term investment strategy, similar to large university endowments, aimed at stability rather than speculation.

If investing money automatically means EPA is "functionally a hedge fund," then the same must be said of, for example,  Harvard’s $50 billion endowment, the Catholic Church’s financial reserves, or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s investment funds.  Yet you don't say that.  Nor does the IRS.  And this is because, in the end, we all know that the "hedge fund" stuff is just pejorative rhetoric, and not a reasoned or accurate assessment.

Calling EPA a "hedge fund" is a category error because it falsely attributes the characteristics of a private, profit-driven financial firm to a nonprofit religious investment management entity. Hedge funds are for-profit, speculative investment firms that distribute profits to wealthy investors. In contrast, EPA is an integrated auxiliary of the Church and exists solely to manage resources for religious and charitable purposes, with no profit-sharing or private investors. If managing investments automatically made something a hedge fund, then Harvard’s endowment and major nonprofit foundations would also be hedge funds—which they are not. EPA is, therefore, properly categorized as a nonprofit financial management entity, not a hedge fund.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One of the lemonade stands, however, is different.  It is a charity lemonade stand, run by volunteers, where all proceeds go toward helping the community (fixing the park, feeding the homeless, etc.).

Isn’t the point that to date, epa funds have never been expended to help the church, or society?? 

[bluebell]

I don't think any of these analogies are working.  

Can't we just use the basic understanding of an exemption and subsidy to settle the issue?  

Quote

"A subsidy involves the direct transfer of public monies to the subsidized enterprise and uses resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. An exemption, on the other hand, involves no such transfer."

And 

Quote

 

"A tax exemption simply does not function as a subsidy does. The U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of church property tax exemptions, has recognized this difference:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. . . . The government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries or hospitals into arms of ~he state or employees “on the public payroll” [Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 644, 1970].

 

If we don't head this off now we are soon going to be 23 pages in, still knee deep in an argument about who the lemonade stand and neighbors represent.

Edited March 5, 2025 by bluebell

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He asserted, without reasoning or explanation.

Neighborhood and "the group" = Society?

Kids = ?

Bully = ?

Next-door neighbor's daughter = The Church?

I see a number of flaws in your analogy:

First, the "next-door neighbor's daughter" does not correlate with the Church, but rather with a religious community, the constituent members of which do "chip in" and pay taxes, etc.

Second, despite the fact that the members of the Church all pay taxes individually, you want them to pay taxes again by way of their religious association with each other.  That seems pretty punitive.  

Third, your analogy involves "kids run{ning} lemonade stands," but does not differentiate between A) some lemonade stands which are "for profit" enterprises and B) other lemonade stands where the kids are not generating profits for themselves, but are instead going to donate the proceeds to be used for charitable (not personal) purposes.

Fourth, there is a strong, though latent, streak of "special pleading" in your analogy.  There are lots of "next-door neighbor's daughters" (other nonprofit groups, such as hospitals, schools, charities, etc.) who, under your analogy, also don't "chip in," to hire security, yet you apparently have no problem with that.  Or do you?

Fifth, in your analogy you are finding fault with the "next-door neighbor's daughter" (the Church), even though the neighborhood is the "group {that} made the decision" to exempt her from chipping in.

 Sixth, your analogy is still unworkable because it assumes that tax exemption is equivalent to receiving government services for free while others foot the bill.  This is not how tax-exempt status works.  Notwithstanding your snide aside ("her dad claims their family’s lemonade stand inspires the neighborhood"), religious organizations do contribute to society. They aren’t just 'keeping extra profits'—they reinvest in community services, disaster relief, and social programs.  Churches and nonprofits, then, are not "free riders." They do not use taxpayer-funded services more than anyone else—and in many cases, they help reduce the burden on public resources by providing charitable services.  And even if there are arguable situations where the Church uses "taxpayer-funded services," its constituent members have always "paid their fair share" toward those services anyway.

Seventh, let's refine your analogy a bit more:

1. Imagine a neighborhood where kids run lemonade stands, and most of them are for-profit businesses, trying to maximize sales and income.
2. One of the lemonade stands, however, is different.  It is a charity lemonade stand, run by volunteers, where all proceeds go toward helping the community (fixing the park, feeding the homeless, etc.).
3. The city recognizes the difference between these two types of stands. It decides that while for-profit businesses pay business taxes, the charity lemonade stand shouldn’t be taxed because it isn’t pocketing profits—it’s using its funds to provide community benefits.
4. Now, is this "Charity Lemonade Stand" getting a "subsidy" from the city?  nope.  The city simply chooses not to take money from it because it’s fundamentally different from the for-profit businesses.

This is how religious and nonprofit tax exemption works. EPA does not keep its earnings like a private business (hence the inaptness of your "hedge fund" comparison), it instead manages funds solely for the mission of the Church, which includes humanitarian work, maintaining places of worship, and educational programs. The Church provides tremendous social and charitable benefits, which is why it qualifies for tax-exempt status—just like universities, hospitals, and secular charities.

Well, not really.  The Church's individual members share "the burden" of governmental services along with everyone else.  You would just prefer to see the Latter-day Saints pay taxes both individually and then again as a religious group.

So do all nonprofits.  So why is EPA the only one that antagonizes you so?

In what sense?  Advantage over whom?  Advantage in doing what?

Again, nonpayment to the State is not reasonably described as being synonymous with payments from the State.

Yes, it really is.  A "category error" is "a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category"

You are claiming that EPA, which the IRS and most everyone buy you acknowledges is an "integrated auxiliary" of a religious group holding tax-exempt status (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is "functionally" (your word) a "hedge fund."  

• Hedge funds are for-profit entities that raise capital from high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors with the goal of maximizing returns.  In contrast, EPA is not "for-profit," nor does it "raise capital from high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors with the goal of maximizing returns."
• Investors in hedge funds expect high-risk, high-reward strategies and can withdraw their money for personal use.  In contrast, EPA has no "investors," and instead only receives money from the entity of which it (EPA) is an integrated auxiliary, that is, the Church.  Also, the Church does not expect EPA to use "high-risk, high-reward strategies."  Also, while the Church can withdraw money from EPA, it only does so to fund the religious, humanitarian and philanthropic missions of the Church, not "for personal use."
• Hedge funds have external investors, is created for private profit-sharing, and is incentivized to maximize short-term gains.  In contrast, EPA has no "external investors," nor are its investments "created for private profit-sharing," nor is it "incentivized to maximize short-term gains."  EPA is a tax-exempt integrated auxiliary of the Church, meaning it exists only to manage resources for the Church's religious and charitable missions.  Unlike a hedge fund, EPA has no independent profit motive. Its financial activities are aligned with the Church’s long-term mission, not individual wealth accumulation.
• Hedge funds often use leverage, short-selling, and derivatives to seek outsized returns.  They are known for speculative and opportunistic trading, including betting against markets, etc.  In contrast, EPA follows a conservative, long-term investment strategy, similar to large university endowments, aimed at stability rather than speculation.

If investing money automatically means EPA is "functionally a hedge fund," then the same must be said of, for example,  Harvard’s $50 billion endowment, the Catholic Church’s financial reserves, or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s investment funds.  Yet you don't say that.  Nor does the IRS.  And this is because, in the end, we all know that the "hedge fund" stuff is just pejorative rhetoric, and not a reasoned or accurate assessment.

Calling EPA a "hedge fund" is a category error because it falsely attributes the characteristics of a private, profit-driven financial firm to a nonprofit religious investment management entity. Hedge funds are for-profit, speculative investment firms that distribute profits to wealthy investors. In contrast, EPA is an integrated auxiliary of the Church and exists solely to manage resources for religious and charitable purposes, with no profit-sharing or private investors. If managing investments automatically made something a hedge fund, then Harvard’s endowment and major nonprofit foundations would also be hedge funds—which they are not. EPA is, therefore, properly categorized as a nonprofit financial management entity, not a hedge fund.

Thanks,

-Smac

You ask whether I take issue with universities, hospitals, and charities receiving tax exemptions. But whether I personally object to any given organization getting a subsidy doesn’t change the fact that it is a subsidy. And a subsidy is a handout. This isn’t a complicated or controversial idea—it’s basic economics.

A tax exemption has the same financial effect as a direct government payment. Let me ask you a serious question: would you agree that the government cutting John Dehlin a check for $20,833 is financially equivalent to lowering his tax bill by $20,833? Either way, he ends up $20,833 richer, and the government ends up with $20,833 less. This is not some radical theory—it’s an obvious financial reality.

That’s true whether the recipient is a university, a hospital, a church, or a podcaster. The difference is that universities educate students, hospitals treat the sick, and charities provide direct aid—they actively spend their resources on services that provide a measurable public benefit. Their tax-exempt status exists because they reduce burdens the government would otherwise have to bear.

Now compare that to churches and their investment funds, which amass enormous wealth while paying nothing in taxes. Unlike charities and nonprofits that use their tax-exempt status to provide direct public benefits, churches are under no obligation to spend their money on anything but themselves. They don’t have to disclose their finances, and they can hoard billions with no oversight.

And that’s the deeper issue: it should be unconstitutional for the government to hand out money to churches at all. The first amendment’s establishment clause prohibits the government from favoring religion over non-religion. But that’s exactly what tax exemptions for churches do. By excusing churches from taxes while requiring everyone else to pay, the government is actively subsidizing religion—forcing taxpayers to shoulder the financial burden of institutions they may not support.

So no, I don’t object to all tax exemptions. But let’s be clear: they are handouts. This is not some fringe argument, and it’s not up for debate—it’s just how tax subsidies work. This is basic economics.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

One of the lemonade stands, however, is different.  It is a charity lemonade stand, run by volunteers, where all proceeds go toward helping the community (fixing the park, feeding the homeless, etc.).

Isn’t the point that to date, epa funds have never been expended to help the church, or society?? 

Who made that point?  And what evidence do we have in support of it?

Also, what do you mean by "EPA funds"?  I assume you mean the Church's funds?  EPA is, after all, an "integrated auxiliary" of the Church.

thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 3/5/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

 

You ask whether I take issue with universities, hospitals, and charities receiving tax exemptions.

Yes, as that is a relevant inquiry as to whether or not you are indulging in special pleading.

And your failure/refusal to answer that inquiry is illuminating in and of itself.  Why the coyness?  Why not just answer?

On 3/5/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

But whether I personally object to any given organization getting a subsidy doesn’t change the fact that it is a subsidy.

This is not a "fact."  It is, instead, an unadorned, because-I-say-so assertion by an overtly hostile critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And it is an assertion steeped in special pleading.  You are applying it against the Church, but not to other similarly-situated entities ("universities, hospitals, and charities").  It's almost as if you are only making this argument not because it is legitimate, and not because you apply it consistently across all American entities, but rather simply because you dislike the Church, so your assertions about subsidies and hedge funds are not really presented in good faith('cuz if they were, you would also apply them to universities, hospitals, and charities, and would not refuse to discuss that uneven application of your argument).

On 3/5/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

And that’s the deeper issue: it should be unconstitutional for the government to hand out money to churches at all.

Respectfully, I reject the premise.  The State not taxing a church is not equivalent to the State "hand{ing} out money to churches."

As for "it should be unconstitutional" bit, I'll leave you to such unsubstantiated and conclusory stuff.  From a legal standpoint, what you are saying here has no basis in law.

On 3/5/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

The first amendment’s establishment clause prohibits the government from favoring religion over non-religion. But that’s exactly what tax exemptions for churches do. By excusing churches from taxes while requiring everyone else to pay, the government is actively subsidizing religion—forcing taxpayers to shoulder the financial burden of institutions they may not support.

This is rote ideological blather, utterly detached from American constitutional jurisprudence.

On 3/5/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

So no, I don’t object to all tax exemptions.

Ah.  So "special pleading" it is, then?

On 3/5/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

But let’s be clear: they are handouts.

Let's be clear: it is nonsensical to assert that the State not taxing a nonprofit is synonymous with the State giving that nonprofit a "handout."

You can anonymously spout off about this stuff on a message board, but not in the real world, under your real name, in a venue where actual principles of law, and not ideological animus, carry the day. 

On 3/5/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

This is not some fringe argument,

It sure seems to be.

On 3/5/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

and it’s not up for debate—it’s just how tax subsidies work. This is basic economics.

He says, while hiding behind a pseudonym and posting this stuff on an obscure message board, knowing his assertions will never be actually tested in a legislative or legal setting.

If you ever actually get around to posting this stuff under your real name, with the intention of having its merits debated in the marketplace of ideas and/or by legislatures and/or courts, I'll take it a bit more seriously.  Until then, however, it's not worth much. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 30, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who made that point?  And what evidence do we have in support of it?

Just the whistle blower reporting done by the Washington Post which as far as I’m aware has been corrected by no one. If you are aware of expenditures from the funds managed by EPA, I’m all ears. Especially along the lines of “but are instead going to donate the proceeds to be used for charitable (not personal) purposes.” The only purpose for the EPA fund as far as I’m aware is to grow the EPA fund. 

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, what do you mean by "EPA funds"? 
 

The ones managed by the legal entity Ensign Peak Advisors? 

 

[Tacenda]

Not totally related, but I want to mention the church helping my brother who is about to be released from jail. He's been going to church he says, very often and they're offering him a bus pass, certificate to go to the Deseret Industries and then to the bishop's storehouse for food when he gets out very soon.

He's not been active for years, and not sure he even believes in God, but he said they've helped a lot, those that serve at the jails on Sundays. My friend did this with her husband for a few years. It gave him hope because the system isn't always helpful and keeps some people down with all the fees that are demanded to get on their feet again. So quite a respite from feeling down and out. So hey, finally not being critical of the church's spending, shock!

Edited March 6, 2025 by Tacenda

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just the whistle blower reporting done by the Washington Post which as far as I’m aware has been corrected by no one.

Said "reporting" is based entirely on the say-so of one person.

And since we know that the Church generally doesn't publicize its finances, it does not really follow that the Church's non-response to this specific issue is a tacit admission that the whistleblower report is accurate.  This is particularly so given that what the Church did say in 2019 was that the then-circulating "claims" about its finances were "based on a narrow perspective and limited information."

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you are aware of expenditures from the funds managed by EPA, I’m all ears.

So am I.  But that's the point: We don't have much information as regarding "expenditures from the funds managed by EPA."

Again, you stated: "epa funds have never been expended to help the church, or society"

Again, who made that point?  Anyone other than David Nielsen?

Again, what evidence do we have in support of it?  Anything other than the say-so of David Nielsen (which say-so was, per the Church, "based on a narrow perspective and limited information")? 

And Mr. Nielsen's say-so is, at this point, compelling . . . why?  Did it elicit any inquiry by the IRS or any law enforcement agency?  Nope.  Any past or ongoing investigation?  Nope.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Especially along the lines of “but are instead going to donate the proceeds to be used for charitable (not personal) purposes.” The only purpose for the EPA fund as far as I’m aware is to grow the EPA fund. 

"{A}s far as I'm aware" being the operative phrase.  We just don't know much about what expenditures EPA has made, or not made.  

We know that EPA bailed out Beneficial Financial Group in 2009.  From the above D-News article:

Quote

The Nielsens claimed that Ensign Peak made two payments from the fund that violate federal tax rules.

They claimed that in 2009 Ensign Peak bailed out Beneficial Financial Group, a life insurance company owned by the church’s for-profit arm, Deseret Management Corp., which also owns the Deseret News. They alleged that Ensign Peak delivered $600 million to Beneficial in 2009.

Beneficial made full disclosure to the Utah Department of Insurance that Deseret Management Corp., its owner, provided $594 million to Beneficial during the 2008 financial crisis to strengthen its balance sheet. Those public filings are on file with the Utah Department of Insurance and the payment was reported in two articles published by the Deseret News at the time.

Since 2009, Beneficial has paid dividends of almost a half billion dollars back to Deseret Management Corp., according to public filings at the Utah Department of Insurance.

As for the second alleged expenditure:

Quote

The second payment challenged by the Nielsens was made as part of the church’s City Creek development in Utah’s capital city. The Nielsens alleged that Ensign Peak Advisors improperly sent $1.4 billion from 2010 to 2014 to the church entity funding City Creek, Property Reserve Inc. The church did invest in the housing and parking elements of City Creek. Taubman Centers, Inc., a nationally recognized shopping center developer, owns and operates the shopping center.

Do we know that this part of Nielsen's accusations is accurate?  Candidly, I'm not sure that we do.

We also have no particular evidence proving Nielsen's claim that EPA has never made any other expenditures.  To paragraph a guy: If you are aware of {evidence demonstrating that there were no other} expenditures from the funds managed by EPA, I’m all ears. 

It's your assertion ("epa funds have never been expended to help the church, or society"), so the burden of proof is on you.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Also, what do you mean by "EPA funds"? 

The ones managed by the legal entity Ensign Peak Advisors? 

Right.  But are you differentiating "EPA funds" from the Church's funds?  If so, on what basis are you doing this?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To paragraph a guy: If you are aware of {evidence demonstrating that there were no other} expenditures from the funds managed by EPA, I’m all ears. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/mormon-church-has-misled-members-on-100-billion-tax-exempt-investment-fund-whistleblower-alleges/2019/12/16/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html
 

This reporting has been in large part corroborated. We know the church was hiding its funds with a series of shell companies. We know that Nelson’s estimates of stock holding match very well with now released sec filings. You may not be convinced by it and that’s fine. I myself am open to correction. Until such correction is issued, I’m convinced. 

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  But are you differentiating "EPA funds" from the Church's funds?  If so, on what basis are you doing this?

The same basis the church uses. 

Edited March 6, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Did it elicit any inquiry by the IRS or any law enforcement agency?  Nope. 

As an aside since it doesn’t relate to any point I previously made, I find it hilarious that you use legality as a stand in for morality. That what can I legally get away with is a horrible metric. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

To paragraph a guy: If you are aware of {evidence demonstrating that there were no other} expenditures from the funds managed by EPA, I’m all ears. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/mormon-church-has-misled-members-on-100-billion-tax-exempt-investment-fund-whistleblower-alleges/2019/12/16/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

This reporting has been in large part corroborated.

From the above article:

Quote

“Having seen tens of billions in contributions and scores more in investment returns come in, and having seen nothing except two unlawful distributions to for-profit concerns go out, he was dejected beyond words, and so was I,” Lars Nielsen wrote.
 

AFAICS, only one of the above "two {} distributions" has been clearly established, and it appears to have been entirely legal (not "unlawful").  

Again, if you are aware of {evidence demonstrating that there were no other} expenditures from the funds managed by EPA, I’m all ears.  Has this been "corroborated?"  If so, when?  By whom?  Using what evidence?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We know the church was hiding its funds with a series of shell companies.

We also know that you are "hiding" your social security number.

Again, if you are aware of {evidence demonstrating that there were no other} expenditures from the funds managed by EPA, I’m all ears.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We know that Nelson’s estimates of stock holding match very well with now released sec filings.

We do?  When was this corroborated?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You may not be convinced by it and that’s fine. I myself am open to correction. Until such correction is issued, I’m convinced. 

Convinced of what?  What evidence do we have demonstrating that there were no other expenditures from the funds managed by EPA (other than the two cited by the Nielsens)?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Right.  But are you differentiating "EPA funds" from the Church's funds?  If so, on what basis are you doing this?

The same basis, the church uses. 

And what is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Did it elicit any inquiry by the IRS or any law enforcement agency?  Nope. 

As an aside since it doesn’t relate to any point I previously made, I find it hilarious that you use legality as a stand in for morality.

I don't.  I use the law as a standard for compliance with malum prohibitum laws, as I find that malum in se has virtually nothing to say about compliance with SEC regulations.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That what can I legally get away with is a horrible metric. 

I invite you to consider the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Let's be clear: it is nonsensical to assert that the State not taxing a nonprofit is synonymous with the State giving that nonprofit a "handout."

Let’s be clear: you’re arguing against basic economics.

When two organizations perform the same economic activity—say, managing massive for-profit stock portfolios—and the state decides to tax one but not the other, the financial advantage given to the tax-exempt entity is functionally identical whether the handout comes in the form of a tax exemption or a direct government payment.

This is not some fringe idea. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that tax exemptions function as government benefits (Walz v. Tax Commission, 1970), and tax policy experts routinely describe them as tax expenditures—revenue the government chooses to forgo in order to support certain entities. The textbook Taxes and Business Strategy puts it plainly: tax credits, exemptions, and direct payments are all ways the government subsidizes economic activity, and they are financially interchangeable.

EPA could not generate billions of dollars in profit every year for the sole purpose of hoarding wealth for a hypothetical rainy day if it weren’t for the society that makes this economic activity possible. And that society isn’t free—it’s funded by taxes. Yet EPA enjoys all the benefits while contributing none of the cost.

If you still claim that tax exemptions aren’t handouts, then answer this: Would you agree that the government cutting John Dehlin a check for $20,833 is financially equivalent to lowering his tax bill by $20,833? If you can’t refute that, then you already understand why tax breaks are government handouts.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You can anonymously spout off about this stuff on a message board, but not in the real world, under your real name, in a venue where actual principles of law, and not ideological animus, carry the day. 

 

Spare me the personal attacks. If you had an actual counterargument, you’d make it.

In the real world, my bookshelf is filled with books like Taxes and Business Strategy: A Planning Approach, written by Nobel laureate Myron S. Scholes, co-creator of the Black-Scholes formula. On page 3, he lays it out clearly:

“To illustrate, consider the case of low-income housing that U.S. citizens, through their elected representatives, have chosen to subsidize for many years through various tax benefits. If taxpayers were not responsive to these tax incentives (and refused to build low-income housing to garner the tax benefits), subsidizing low-income housing through tax policy would be ineffective. Instead, the government would have to enter on the expenditure side, engaging directly in the construction and management of the low-income housing itself. Both tax subsidies and direct government expenditures to increase the supply of low-income housing generate deadweight costs.”

And on page 2:

“For better or for worse, tax-favored treatment is granted to a variety of activities by taxing authorities around the world. Common examples include the favorable treatment accorded charitable organizations and educational institutions.”

This is not up for debate—tax exemptions are subsidies. The entire field of tax strategy is based on this basic economic principle: lowering an organization’s tax burden by a dollar is financially equivalent to giving them a dollar.

In any case, you asked, "I wonder if any 'pro-Mormon' outfits have sought/received government handouts," and I gave you an example: Ensign Peak Advisors. That you don’t like the answer doesn’t change the facts.

 

Edited March 6, 2025 by Analytics

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We do?  When was this corroborated?

Of the reported 100 billion under management Nelson said 35.7 percent was us equities. Compare with 2020 EPA sec filing of 37.8 billion the following year. David Nelson had access and produced detailed records previously unseen by the public. Much of which has since been corroborated.  To say you aren’t convinced is fine, but say that it is no evidence is asinine. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Of the reported 100 billion under management Nelson said 35.7 percent was us equities. Compare with 2020 EPA sec filing of 37.8 billion the following year. David Nelson had access and produced detailed records previously unseen by the public. Much of which has since been corroborated.  To say you aren’t convinced is fine, but say that it is no evidence is asinine. 

Again, what evidence do we have demonstrating that there were no other expenditures from the funds managed by EPA (other than the two cited by the Nielsens)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Again, what evidence do we have demonstrating that there were no other expenditures from the funds managed by EPA (other than the two cited by the Nielsens)?

lol other than the eye witness and the documents he produced you mean? 

[smac97]

On 3/5/2025 at 7:10 PM, Analytics said:

Let’s be clear: you’re arguing against basic economics.

Well, no.  I am rebutting your unadorned and evidence-free legal assertions.

On 3/5/2025 at 7:10 PM, Analytics said:

When two organizations perform the same economic activity—say, managing massive for-profit stock portfolios—and the state decides to tax one but not the other, the financial advantage given to the tax-exempt entity is functionally identical whether the handout comes in the form of a tax exemption or a direct government payment.

When two organizations perform the same economic activity but for entirely different reasons, the calculus changes.  And you are not addressing that.

And again, the Church not paying taxes to the State is not equivalent to the State paying a "handout" to the Church.

On 3/5/2025 at 7:10 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

You can anonymously spout off about this stuff on a message board, but not in the real world, under your real name, in a venue where actual principles of law, and not ideological animus, carry the day. 

Spare me the personal attacks. If you had an actual counterargument, you’d make it.

I have.  At length.  And you aren't addressing it.

On 3/5/2025 at 7:10 PM, Analytics said:

This is not some fringe idea.

It is nothing but a fringe idea.

On 3/5/2025 at 7:10 PM, Analytics said:

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that tax exemptions function as government benefits (Walz v. Tax Commission, 1970), and tax policy experts routinely describe them as tax expenditures—revenue the government chooses to forgo in order to support certain entities. The textbook Taxes and Business Strategy puts it plainly: tax credits, exemptions, and direct payments are all ways the government subsidizes economic activity, and they are financially interchangeable.

Hoo, boy.

Roger, if you are going to cite legal cases, you should read them first.  You apparently did not do so here, 'cuz if you had, you would have seen that in Walz the Supreme Court ruled that tax exemptions for churches do not constitute a subsidy or government sponsorship. 

From the decision:

Quote

Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an indirect economic benefit, and also gives rise to some, but yet a lesser, involvement than taxing them. In analyzing either alternative, the questions are whether the involvement is excessive and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement. Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case.

Please attend to the bolded/italicized parts, as they squarely refute what you have been saying for years on this board.

Subsidies are not in play when it comes to tax exemptions.  We can believe either SCOTUS in Walz, or you.  I choose the former.  Unlike you, the Supreme Court typically does not rely on mere assertion, and actually explains its reasoning:

Quote

The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees "on the public payroll." There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion.

Yep.

Quote

As Mr. Justice Holmes commented in a related context, "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 256 U. S. 349 (1921).

Amen to that.  

Quote

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact, and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State's boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.

That bolded part above could be easily adapted to the silliness you've been posting.  

The concurring opinion by Justice Brennan is even more explicit in its rejection of your legal argument:

Quote

Although governmental purposes for granting religious exemptions may be wholly secular, exemptions can nonetheless violate the Establishment Clause if they result in extensive state involvement with religion. Accordingly, those who urge the exemptions' unconstitutionality argue that exemptions are the equivalent of governmental subsidy of churches. General subsidies of religious activities would, of course, constitute impermissible state involvement with religion.

You seem to be one of those "who urge the exemptions' unconstitutionality."  So how did Justice Brennan treat this argument?

Quote

Tax exemptions and general subsidies, however, are qualitatively different. Though both provide economic assistance, they do so in fundamentally different ways. A subsidy involves the direct transfer of public monies to the subsidized enterprise, and uses resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. An exemption, on the other hand, involves no such transfer.  It assists the exempted enterprise only passively, by relieving a privately funded venture of the burden of paying taxes. In other words, "[i]n the case of direct subsidy, the state forcibly diverts the income of both believers and nonbelievers to churches," while, "[i]n the case of an exemption, the state merely refrains from diverting to its own uses income independently generated by the churches through voluntary contributions."  Giannella, Religious Liberty, Nonestablishment, and Doctrinal Development, pt. II, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 513, 553 (1968). Thus, "the symbolism of tax exemption is significant as a manifestation that organized religion is not expected to support the state; by the same token, the state is not expected to support the church."  Freund, Public Aid to Parochial Schools, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 1680, 1687 n. 16 (1969). Tax exemptions, accordingly, constitute mere passive state involvement with religion, and not the affirmative involvement characteristic of outright governmental subsidy.

I honestly don't see how you can read the bolded/italicized stuff and then come here and, with a straight face, say the things you have said.  This leads me to believe that you didn't bother to actually read Walz before citing it.

On 3/5/2025 at 7:10 PM, Analytics said:

EPA could not generate billions of dollars in profit every year for the sole purpose of hoarding wealth for a hypothetical rainy day if it weren’t for the society that makes this economic activity possible. And that society isn’t free—it’s funded by taxes. Yet EPA enjoys all the benefits while contributing none of the cost.

Well no.  Members of the Church fund EPA, and they contribute to the costs of society.  I've noted this several times now, and you haven't addressed it.

You just want members of the Church to be taxed again, with the second time being as a religious community (including, obviously, the Church's integrated auxiliary).  You are free to want that, but that is not the state of the law.

On 3/5/2025 at 7:10 PM, Analytics said:

In the real world, my bookshelf is filled with books like Taxes and Business Strategy: A Planning Approach, written by Nobel laureate Myron S. Scholes, co-creator of the Black-Scholes formula. On page 3, he lays it out clearly:

“To illustrate, consider the case of low-income housing that U.S. citizens, through their elected representatives, have chosen to subsidize for many years through various tax benefits. If taxpayers were not responsive to these tax incentives (and refused to build low-income housing to garner the tax benefits), subsidizing low-income housing through tax policy would be ineffective. Instead, the government would have to enter on the expenditure side, engaging directly in the construction and management of the low-income housing itself. Both tax subsidies and direct government expenditures to increase the supply of low-income housing generate deadweight costs.”

And on page 2:

“For better or for worse, tax-favored treatment is granted to a variety of activities by taxing authorities around the world. Common examples include the favorable treatment accorded charitable organizations and educational institutions.”

This is not up for debate—tax exemptions are subsidies.

LOL.  Read Walz and then come back and try to say this again.

On 3/5/2025 at 7:10 PM, Analytics said:

The entire field of tax strategy is based on this basic economic principle: lowering an organization’s tax burden by a dollar is financially equivalent to giving them a dollar.

Well, no.  You are conflating economic theory with legal and practical reality, but at the same time are trying to cram the former into the latter context.  It doesn't work, which is likely why you are reduced to only spouting off about it on an obscure message board while hiding behind a pseudonym.

You are not accounting for key distinctions that matter in tax policy, public finance, and law. 

While theoretical conversations can postulate that tax exemptions = implicit subsidies, that is not how things work out in the real world.   Legal and practical policy frameworks differentiate between subsidies (direct government payments) and tax exemptions (government choosing not to tax certain activities).  While you are free to conflate the two in your own mind, that conflation does not work in the real world.  

A tax exemption does not involve a government transfer of funds. It just means that the government does not take money from an entity in the first place.  A true subsidy involves a direct government transfer of funds, while a tax exemption is simply the government choosing not to tax certain activities, just as it does for charitable organizations, hospitals, and universities (which other instances, it seems, you do not find objectionable, hence the "special pleading" issue). The government is not giving churches money.  It is simply refraining from taking money in the first place.  

Your comment above sort of gives it away: "When two organizations perform the same economic activity..."  In the real world, the law differentiates between for-profit and non-profit organizations, whereas you are obscuring or ignoring that distinction, likely because it inconveniently undermines your efforts to pejoratively described tax exemptions as "subsidies."  When two organizations perform the same economic activity, but are doing so for vastly different reasons, the law will differentiate its treatment of the two organizations and their respective behaviors (for-profit and non-profit, for-profit and religious, etc.).

Your own example about housing undermines your position.  Low-income housing tax credits are not tax exemptions, they are tax credits, which directly offset tax liability and can sometimes be refunded even when no tax is owed.  In contrast, tax exemptions are not tax credits or refundable incentives, as they only ensure that nonprofit religious activities are not taxed.  In other words, if churches were receiving a true subsidy, the government would be sending them direct payments, which it does not.  So your claims about "subsidies" have merely performative and pejorative utility, not practical or realistic utility.

By your reasoning, every tax-exempt university, hospital, and nonprofit is also "subsidized."  And again, you seem to be on-again-off-again with your objections.  This then becomes one of those "I only object to this when the Mormons do it" sorts of things.  Special pleading.  

If Harvard, and the Red Cross, and homeless shelters are all "subsidized" simply because they are not taxed, then the definition of "subsidy" becomes meaningless.  The State is not, by any sense of the word, “paying” these organizations.  It is instead choosing not to tax them because of their public benefit mission.  The State, and I think most reasonable people, do not characterize these tax-exempt institutions as "government-funded" or "subsidized" because they aren’t subsidized. The government is simply recognizing their nonprofit status by not taxing them as businesses.  The State differentiates where you conflate ("When two organizations perform the same economic activity..."), which you persist in denying or ignoring.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

never mind

Edited March 6, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

lol other than the eye witness

Nielsen was an "eye witness" to every expenditure made by EPA?  How do you know this?

51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and the documents he produced you mean? 

Again, the Church in 2019 said that Nielsen's "claims" about its finances were "based on a narrow perspective and limited information."

Again, I'm examining your assertion ("epa funds have never been expended to help the church, or society"), so the burden of proof is on you.  Where in "the documents he {Nielsen} produced" is it established that there were no other expenditures from the funds managed by EPA (apart from the two Nielsen alleged)?  CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

On 3/5/2025 at 8:33 PM, Calm said:

Evidence?

See Walz v. Tax Commission.  It came out in 1970.

Roger: "This is not up for debate—tax exemptions are subsidies."

The United States Supreme Court: "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state."

One of these is a longstanding statement of the law by the highest court in the land, and the other is a "fringe idea" spouted anonymously on a message board, and which directly contradicts the highest court's statement of the law.

We can either listen to Roger, or to SCOTUS.  They are presenting mutually contradictory statements of the law and how it operates.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See Walz v. Tax Commission.  It came out in 1970.

Roger: "This is not up for debate—tax exemptions are subsidies."

The United States Supreme Court: "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state."

We can either listen to Roger, or to the U.S. Supreme Court.  They are presenting mutually contradictory statements of how the law operates.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks, I misremembered Analytics’ comments, thought there was more than the one example you addressed listed as evidence it wasn’t fringe.

”Fringe” seems to me to be more like “uncommon”, “unusual” as well as possibly with the connotation of poorly supported by evidence and since I have seen this criticism everywhere, while it may not be a realistic or accurate claim (or may be as I don’t have the economic expertise to judge and definitively do not want to invest the effort needed to acquire it), it doesn’t seem unusual to me these days, so labeling it nothing but a fringe idea seems inaccurate to me.

Edited March 6, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Thanks, I misremembered Analytics’ comments, thought there was more than the one example you addressed listed as evidence it wasn’t fringe.

”Fringe” seems to me to be more like “uncommon”, “unusual” as well as possibly with the connotation of poorly supported by evidence and since I have seen this criticism everywhere, while it may not be a realities or accurate claim (or may be as I don’t have the economic expertise to judge and definitively do not want to invest the effort needed to acquire it), it doesn’t seem unusual to me these days.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated the law on this issue in 1970.  It said that tax exemptions are not subsidies ("The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship...").

Today, 55 years later, Roger said - apparently with a straight face - not only that "tax exemptions are subsidies," but that this "is not up for debate."

Roger is flatly contradicting the United States Supreme Court, and in so doing is saying that the validity of his contrary say-so "is not up for debate."  This goes beyond "fringe."  It is absurd, even delusional.  I do not use these terms lightly.

Roger's position on this issue is on par with Sovereign Citizen-style nonsense that they spout when they get pulled over for speeding.  I get that they really really believe that what they are saying is how the Constitution really works, but they are incorrect.  So it is with Roger's "not up for debate" assertion that "tax exemptions are subsidies."  He really believes it, but he is really wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac