John Dehlin Receiving Public Funds

[Calm]

This does not seem to be a fringe site and as far as I can tell (which is not very far) appears to have points of agreement with both of you.  According to them, it is not the either/or situation both of you are using (just from the opposite positions

https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/tax-exemption-not-subsidy-except-when-it/2021/09/17/7830q#sec-2-2

Edited March 6 by Calm

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

This does not seem to be a fringe site and as far as I can tell (which is not very far) appears to have points of agreement with both of you.  According to them, it is not the either/or situation both of you are using (just from the opposite positions

https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/tax-exemption-not-subsidy-except-when-it/2021/09/17/7830q#sec-2-2

It's an interesting article that parses out "particular circumstances in which {tax} exemption does function as a subsidy and others in which it does not."

In other words, there is a general rule (tax exemptions are not a "subsidy"), with some few exceptions.  This happens all the time.  We have "Free Speech" under the First Amendment, and yet there are some few exceptions.  The few exceptions do not swallow the rule, though.

Notably, the article specifically states: "Any glib assertion that a tax exemption constitutes a subsidy misunderstands and mischaracterizes the tax-exempt sector."  I have a hard time formulating an "assertion" more "glib," and more representative of "misunderstand{ing} and mischaracteriz{ing} the tax-exempt sector," than what Roger is saying: "This is not up for debate—tax exemptions are subsidies."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6 by smac97

[Analytics]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Let’s be clear: we’re talking about basic economics.

The Taxes and Business Strategy textbook lays it out plainly: tax credits, exemptions, and direct payments are all ways the government subsidizes economic activity, and they are financially interchangeable. That’s not my opinion—that’s the foundation of tax policy.

A tax exemption has the same financial effect as a direct government payment. If the government cuts an organization a $10 million check, that’s obviously a handout. If the government instead lets that organization keep $10 million it would otherwise owe, the result is exactly the same: the organization is $10 million richer, and the government is $10 million poorer.

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 so, then you already understand why tax breaks function as handouts.

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  You are conflating economic theory with legal and practical reality...

No, I’m explaining how tax policy actually works.

The Supreme Court in Walz v. Tax Commission didn’t say tax exemptions aren’t financial benefits—it said they were a lesser form of government support than direct subsidies. That’s a legal distinction, not an economic one. The Court literally acknowledged that tax exemptions provide an "indirect economic benefit."

And that’s the entire point: economically, exemptions function as subsidies. The government deliberately forgoes revenue, granting a financial benefit that others don’t receive. That’s why tax policy experts classify tax exemptions as tax expenditures—they are a form of subsidy delivered through the tax code instead of direct payments.

You can argue that this subsidy is justified, but you can’t argue it isn’t a subsidy.

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By your reasoning, every tax-exempt university, hospital, and nonprofit is also "subsidized." 

Yes. That’s exactly the point. When any entity is relieved of a tax burden that others must pay, that’s a government handout.

The difference is that hospitals provide healthcare, universities educate students, and charities offer direct aid—they actively spend their tax-exempt resources on services that provide a measurable public benefit. Meanwhile, Ensign Peak Advisors hoards billions with no such obligation.

We can have a rational discussion about whether this or that institution deserves a subsidy. But we can not argue about whether tax exemptions are subsidies. They are. 

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Tell that to the IRS, Congress, and tax policy experts, who all classify tax exemptions as tax expenditures—a technical term for government spending through the tax code.

This isn’t some ideological assertion—it’s how tax policy is actually structured. You can insist that exemptions aren’t subsidies all you want, but the people who design tax law and analyze government budgets disagree with you.

 

[Analytics]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

You keep pretending that a legal distinction changes economic reality. It doesn’t.

The Walz decision was about whether tax exemptions violate the First Amendment, not about whether tax exemptions function economically as subsidies. The Court ruled that tax exemptions do not create excessive government entanglement with religion, which is a constitutional question, not an economic one.

But even in Walz, the Court explicitly acknowledged that tax exemptions provide "an indirect economic benefit." That’s the entire point. Economically, tax exemptions function as subsidies.

If you think this is a fringe or absurd position, take it up with:

• The U.S. Government Accountability Office, which defines tax exemptions as tax expenditures—government resources spent through the tax code instead of direct payments. (GAO: Tax Expenditures)
• The Congressional Budget Office, which regularly calculates tax exemptions as lost government revenue, equivalent to direct spending.
• The textbook Taxes and Business Strategy by Nobel laureate Myron Scholes, which explicitly states that tax exemptions, tax credits, and direct payments are financially interchangeable.

If you still deny this, answer a simple 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?

If you can’t refute that, then you’ve already conceded that tax breaks function as government handouts.

So no, this isn’t "sovereign citizen nonsense." It’s how tax policy works. If you want to argue that church tax exemptions are justified, that’s a separate debate. But denying that they function as subsidies? That’s just economically illiterate.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You keep pretending that a legal distinction changes economic reality. It doesn’t.

I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree.

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Walz decision was about whether tax exemptions violate the First Amendment, not about whether tax exemptions function economically as subsidies.

I'm content to let the reader decide which of us has a better grasp of the law.

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Court ruled that tax exemptions do not create excessive government entanglement with religion, which is a constitutional question, not an economic one.

But even in Walz, the Court explicitly acknowledged that tax exemptions provide "an indirect economic benefit." That’s the entire point. Economically, tax exemptions function as subsidies.

From Calm's article: "Any glib assertion that a tax exemption constitutes a subsidy misunderstands and mischaracterizes the tax-exempt sector."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree would make sense if this were a matter of opinion. It isn’t.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm content to let the reader decide which of us has a better grasp of the law.

Fine. But how about we also let them decide which of us has a better grasp of economics?

The Walz decision wasn’t an economic analysis—it was a ruling on constitutional law and the Establishment Clause. That’s why even in Walz, the Court acknowledged that tax exemptions provide "an indirect economic benefit." That’s the whole point: economically, exemptions function as subsidies.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From Calm's article: "Any glib assertion that a tax exemption constitutes a subsidy misunderstands and mischaracterizes the tax-exempt sector."

Thanks,

-Smac

The article Calm cited is an interesting perspective, but let’s look at credentials.

The author, Ellen Aprill, is a law professor specializing in nonprofit tax law. She’s certainly knowledgeable in her field, but her expertise is in legal frameworks, not economic analysis.

Now compare that to Myron Scholes. He is a Nobel laureate in economics, co-creator of the Black-Scholes model, a professor emeritus at Stanford University, and one of the most influential financial economists of the modern era. His work has shaped how businesses, governments, and financial institutions understand risk, valuation, and economic decision-making. He is also the co-author of Taxes and Business Strategy: A Planning Approach, a widely used graduate-level textbook that explicitly states that tax credits, exemptions, and direct payments are all ways the government subsidizes economic activity and are financially interchangeable.

So readers can decide: when discussing whether tax exemptions function economically as subsidies, whose expertise carries more weight—a law professor or a Nobel Prize-winning economist who revolutionized financial economics?

And I notice you still haven’t answered a simple 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?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

gain, 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.

“While accumulating this wealth, Ensign has not directly funded any religious, educational or charitable activities in 22 years, the complaint said. No documents are provided to support this claim, which is attributed to information David Nielsen gleaned from working at the company.”
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
 

Based on the very detailed and accurate and now verified aspects of David’s leaked information I believe him. It’s fine that you don’t. He was there and had access. That said, if the church came out and said that they used some portion of the wealth generated at ensign peak on “xyz” purpose I would believe them. 

 

[Dario_M]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not totally related, but 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.

I'm so happy to read that. At least your brother will have a fresh start for the future. 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree.

Nope.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

 

You started this thread with a jab at John Dehlin (deserved in my opinion) for taking money from the government. Where does that lie on this spectrum in your opinion? And for those of us that believe in the moral principle of informed consent, the problem with the church isn’t that they didn’t comply with SEC regulations. It’s that they don’t follow the moral principle of informed consent. 

[california boy]

Whether the government gave me a $20,000 stimulus check or a $20,000 tax write off makes no difference to me.  Either way, they are giving me $20,000.  I would willingly take either one and wouldn't really care what form the increased $20,000 in my pocket it came from.

I can't really see anyone telling the government that they only accept direct deposits for any subsidies offered to help their business.  if anything, having the government offer a tax subsidy is far better than a single check because generally tax subsidies go on for decades to the point where those receiving the tax subsidy starts to believe it is their constitutional right to receive the tax right off.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You started this thread with a jab at John Dehlin (deserved in my opinion) for taking money from the government.

And it looks like some pro-Latter-day Saint outfits have likewise taken federal $ as well.

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Where does that lie on this spectrum in your opinion?

I'm not sure it does.  What he did was legal.  Philosophically, I don't think the federal government should be giving much, if any, money to NGOs that are not related to core philanthropic/humanitarian efforts (food, clothing, shelter, substance abuse treatment, etc.).  I don't think State should be funding John Dehlin, or Sunstone, or any pro-Latter-day Saint outfits as regarding theological/religious disputes. 

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And for those of us that believe in the moral principle of informed consent, the problem with the church isn’t that they didn’t comply with SEC regulations. It’s that they don’t follow the moral principle of informed consent. 

I think it did.  Quite a lot, actually.  But reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Whether the government gave me a $20,000 stimulus check or a $20,000 tax write off makes no difference to me.  Either way, they are giving me $20,000.  I would willingly take either one and wouldn't really care what form the increased $20,000 in my pocket it came from.

I would prefer to keep governmental expenditures to an absolute minimum, and let private parties make their own way in life.  

The Church has a history of warning against "the dole."  See, e.g., this 1982 General Conference address:

Quote

Work is an essential element in the Lord’s welfare plan; but it is a special kind of work. Work of the members, sanctified by love, produces the commodities which solve the temporal needs of our worthy poor. The laborer is blessed and sanctified in his unselfish service. The needy member accepts assistance in the spirit of love and gratitude. He knows it was provided by the toil and sacrifice of the Church members. To the extent of his ability, the needy member works for what he receives, as assigned by the bishop, thereby preserving his dignity.

The individual is all-important in the Lord’s plan. Any system which does not require initiative, self-reliance, and the necessity of work for what we receive, if able, will not preserve its integrity. The design of the welfare plan of the Church is to abolish the dole. The dole is a blight in any welfare system and should be feared as cancer in the human body.

Brigham Young declared, “It is never any benefit to give out … to man or woman, money, food, clothing, or anything else, if they are able-bodied, and can work and earn what they need.

“To give to the idler is as wicked as anything else. Never give anything to the idler.

“Set the poor to work.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954, pp. 274–75.)

President Clark added, “Brethren, … do your best to see that those … who consume, shall be among those who produce. It is a principle … that destroys character [and] initiative, to get into the frame of mind where our sustenance comes as a gift.” (Transcript of talk given in welfare meeting, Apr. 1960, p. 3.)

In the broader sense, work is the means to achieve happiness, prosperity, and salvation. When work and duty and joy are comingled, then man is at his best. Tagore wrote,

I slept and dreamt
That life was joy
I woke and saw
That life was duty
I acted, And behold!
Duty was joy!

(Quoted by Earl Nightingale, “Our Changing World,” #5193.)

Work was instituted from the beginning as the means by which the children of God were to fulfill their earthly stewardship. Work is our divine heritage. Elder Stephen L Richards taught: “Work with faith is a cardinal point of our theological doctrine and our future state—our heaven, is envisioned in terms of eternal progression through constant labor.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1939, pp. 65, 68.)

The voice of the Lord to this generation is:

“Behold, I say unto you that it is my will that you should go forth and not tarry, neither be idle but labor with your might. …

“And thus, if ye are faithful ye shall be laden with many sheaves, and crowned with honor, and glory, and immortality, and eternal life.” (D&C 75:3, 5.)

And this 1975 address:

Quote

When the Church welfare program was first announced in 1936, the First Presidency made this statement:

Our primary purpose was to set up, insofar as possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of the dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift, and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help people to help themselves. Work is to be reenthroned as a ruling principle in the lives of our Church membership. [Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3; emphasis added]

President Romney has emphasized, “to care for people on any other basis is to do them more harm than good. The purpose of Church welfare is not to relieve a Church member from taking care of himself” (Welfare Services Meeting, 5 October 1974).

I accept the principles of the welfare program. I endorse them. In too many places, in too many ways, we’re getting away from them. The principle of self-reliance is fundamental to a happy life.

And this 2018 Liahona article:

Quote

The Book of Mormon lightened my life, and I was able to take decisions that led me to complete my technical high school (even late), find a job, get married, and later pursue my education—which I am still continuing to do.

Here are some principles I learned through these experiences:

1. Study the scriptures, read the words of the living prophets, and pray with a real intent will invite God’s power into your activities. Nephi and his people are a great and inspiring example to anyone who seeks a balanced life regarding spiritual and temporal well-being (see1 Nephi 17:7–8). Seek the Lord’s guidance in all that you do. Elder L. Tom Perry (1922–2015) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught, “The Lord does help when we go to Him in times of need, especially when we are committed to His work and respond to His will.”
2. Have faith to follow and act diligently. Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught, “Please notice the requirement to ask in faith, which I understand to mean the necessity to not only express but to do, the dual obligation to both plead and to perform, the requirement to communicate and to act.” Faith is a principle of action. If we have faith, we become agents to act and not to be acted upon. Brigham Young instructed the Saints, saying, “Instead of searching after what the Lord is going to do for us, let us inquire what we can do for ourselves.” As our faith leads us to obey His commandments and turn to Him, He will be ready to assist where we are unable to progress (see 2 Nephi 5:10–11).
3. Set a plan of what you want to achieve. If we do not know what we can do—and if we cannot make a plan—we will never get out of the bondage of poverty and debt. It will be impossible to achieve self-reliance. A plan on what to do to get what we want in this life is the first step to becoming responsible for our own lives. Elder Robert D. Hales (1932–2017) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said, “The welfare plan is an integral part of the plan of salvation; the scriptures provide the spiritual framework for the welfare plan.”
4. Take responsibility for your own situation and decide to work hard. President Marion G. Romney (1897–1988) taught, “The principle is the same in all the countries; we should strive to become self-reliant and not depend on others for our existence.”

Joseph Smith’s family is a wonderful example of taking responsibility to work. He says, “As my father’s worldly circumstances were very limited, we were under the necessity of laboring with our hands, hiring out by day’s work and otherwise, as we could get opportunity. Sometimes we were at home, and sometimes abroad, and by continuous labor were enabled to get a comfortable maintenance” (Joseph Smith—History 1:55).

In the Book of Mormon, we read about the Jaredites who “were exceedingly industrious, …

“And they did work in all manner of ore, … and all manner of metals; …

“… And they did work all manner of cloth, …

“And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth. …

“And never could be a people more blessed than were they, and more prospered by the hand of the Lord” (Ether 10:22–25, 28).

In Handbook 2 we read:

“[During the worldwide Great Depression], the First Presidency outlined a welfare plan for the Church. … ‘[To abolish] the evils of a dole. … [And to ask that] ‘work … be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.’”

"The dole" is often referenced in relation to the Church's welfare efforts, but I think it has other applications as well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The dole" is often referenced in relation to the Church's welfare efforts, but I think it has other applications as well.  

 

In one area we might promote a dole mentality as in needing to ask for a handout.  We tell members to pay tithing first and then if necessary the Church will step in to help as needed if that tithing took money needed for necessities.  

[california boy]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would prefer to keep governmental expenditures to an absolute minimum, and let private parties make their own way in life.  

The Church has a history of warning against "the dole."  See, e.g., this 1982 General Conference address:

And this 1975 address:

And this 2018 Liahona article:

"The dole" is often referenced in relation to the Church's welfare efforts, but I think it has other applications as well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am so confused by your response.  Are you now saying the Church is against the tax subsidies it receives?  Do you consider stimulus checks welfare?  or the dole as you seem to be putting?  

It is pretty clear that you are against government subsidies unless it is one that is going towards an organization that you support.  Not really applying the law or reeason equally are you.

 

 

Quote

Whether the government gave me a $20,000 stimulus check or a $20,000 tax write off makes no difference to me.  Either way, they are giving me $20,000.  I would willingly take either one and wouldn't really care what form the increased $20,000 in my pocket it came from.

I can't really see anyone telling the government that they only accept direct deposits for any subsidies offered to help their business.  if anything, having the government offer a tax subsidy is far better than a single check because generally tax subsidies go on for decades to the point where those receiving the tax subsidy starts to believe it is their constitutional right to receive the tax right off.

 

Read the part in bold.  Then answer the question, would you rather have a one time government subsidy or a government subsidy in the form of a tax write  off that occurs over and over again each year without even the need to apply. for the subsidy ?

Edited March 7 by california boy

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am so confused by your response.  Are you now saying the Church is against the tax subsidies it receives?  

No.  I am saying that tax exemptions are not "subsidies."

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you consider stimulus checks welfare?  

Unearned money sent from the government (which was borrowed, put us as a nation further in debt)?  Yes.

Ongoing?  No.

Welfare?  Not quite.

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

or the dole as you seem to be putting?  

When the government gives, on an ongoing basis, unearned money to people, who are not working for it, that is generally a bad thing. 

It disincentivizes work, discouraging self-reliance and economic mobility. 

It creates a permanent underclass, trapping people in a cycle of poverty and dependency.

Funding it requires either higher taxes (on people who are working) or borrowing (increasing the national debt, which we then pass on to our children) or both.

It reduces economic output.  If a significant portion of the population isn't working, the economy produces less overall wealth.

It erodes family structure.  Welfare programs, especially those providing aid to single parents, can discourage marriage and undermine traditional family units.

It increases intergenerational dependence and poverty.  Families who rely on welfare for generations may pass down a culture of dependency, rather than one of hard work and personal responsibility.

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is pretty clear that you are against government subsidies

Subsidies of what?  To whom?  For what purpose?

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

unless it is one that is going towards an organization that you support.  

Respectfully, tax exemptions are not subsidies.

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

Read the part in bold.  Then answer the question, would you rather have a one time government subsidy or a government subsidy in the form of a tax write  off that occurs over and over again each year without even the need to apply for the subsidy ?

I would rather the government be as lean as possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

I am surprised that no one has brought up Regan vs Taxation with Representation. Here is what Rehnquist wrote:

Quote

Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. Deductible contributions are similar to cash grants of the amount of a portion of the individual's contributions. [Footnote 5] The system Congress has enacted provides this kind of subsidy to nonprofit civic welfare organizations generally, and an additional subsidy to those charitable organizations that do not engage in substantial lobbying. In short, Congress chose not to subsidize lobbying as extensively as it chose to subsidize other activities that nonprofit organizations undertake to promote the public welfare.

[Tacenda]

Speaking of tax exemptions, I'm glad the leaders of the church don't do these things. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am surprised that no one has brought up Regan vs Taxation with Representation. Here is what Rehnquist wrote:

You did not quote Footnote 5:

Quote

Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. Deductible contributions are similar to cash grants of the amount of a portion of the individual's contributions. [Footnote 5]
...
[Footnote 5]

In stating that exemptions and deductions, on the one hand, are like cash subsidies, on the other, we of course do not mean to assert that they are in all respects identical. See, e.g., Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U. S. 664, 397 U. S. 674-676 (1970); id. at 397 U. S. 690-691 (BRENNAN, J., concurring); id. at 397 U. S. 699 (opinion of Harlan, J.).

Walz treats tax exemptions as a neutral policy that does not equate to a government subsidy. 

Regan suggests that tax exemptions function as an indirect government subsidy, justifying the government’s ability to place conditions on them.

This article does a pretty good job of explaining things:

Quote

The language of the Regan opinions reflects that stumble and the resulting confusion. In Footnote 5, Chief Justice Rehnquist, for the Court, tried to clarify that it was not disagreeing with Justice Brennan’s concurrence in Walz: “In stating that exemptions and deductions, on the one hand, are like cash subsidies, on the other, we of course do not mean to assert that they are in all respects identical.” But many, including the Solicitor General, overlook the correction. They think exemptions = subsidies = unlimited waiver of rights; not “similar to,” but equal to.

In addition, through Footnote 6 in the Court’s Regan opinion and a Justice Blackmun concurrence that has, over time, become the general rule, the Court added a new “not unduly burdensome” restriction on Congressional power to limit speech through the subsidy theory: no speech restriction could be so burdensome that the organization could not function using “private” money. In 1984, in FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, just one year after Regan, the Court said that a public radio station that received less than 1% of its funding from federal appropriations could not be barred from using private funds “to make known its views on matters of public importance.” Free speech, despite the government’s 1% “subsidy.”

Still, several seemingly-conflicting decisions came down, with some arguing that “Every tax exemption constitutes a subsidy that affects nonqualifying taxpayers, forcing them to” bear its cost, Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (1989), and others saying that, “Although tax exemptions and subsidies serve similar ends, they differ in important and relevant respects, and our cases have recognized these distinctions.” Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison (1997). Gradually, however, the Court began to pull together a clearer explanation of the limits on Congress of the “subsidy” or “benefits” approach. In 2011, in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, the Court rejected the assertion that indirect assistance through money that the government never collected should be considered equivalent to cash grants: “Respondents’ contrary position assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collector’s hands. … Private bank accounts cannot be equated with the Arizona State Treasury.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You did not quote Footnote 5:

It was there. Everyone can read it. Don't make the mistake of substituting the footnote for the text. Rehnquist believed that tax exemptions are a functional subsidy. You are trying to argue that the footnote somehow reverses everything that Rehnquist writes, and reverses it - which simply doesn't work Spencer.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

which simply doesn't work Spencer.

Smac argues like a lawyer. For a lawyer, truth isn’t the issue. Advocacy is. You pick a side, present your sides best case, pick apart your opponents argument in whatever way possible. Getting to the truth of the matter is irrelevant. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

You did not quote Footnote 5:

It was there. Everyone can read it.

Yes, but you did not quote it or address it.

Not a big deal normally, but here the omission seems to matter quite a bit.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Don't make the mistake of substituting the footnote for the text.

Don't make the mistake of reading the text in isolation from the footnote, as you seem to be doing.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Rehnquist believed that tax exemptions are a functional subsidy.

Funny, then, that Justice Rehnquist did not say that "tax exemptions are a functional subsidy," and that he instead - in Footnote 5 - expressly stated that "{i}n stating that exemptions and deductions, on the one hand, are like cash subsidies, on the other, we of course do not mean to assert that they are in all respects identical" (emphases added).

If I say "apples are like oranges," I am acknowledging their similarities (they are both fruits, both grow on trees, both are about the same size and shape, both are sweet, both have flesh that is preferable to the outer skin, etc.), but I am not saying the "are in all respects identical," that an apple is - to use your wording - "a functional" orange.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are trying to argue that the footnote somehow reverses everything that Rehnquist writes, and reverses it - which simply doesn't work Spencer.

I think your disregard of Footnote 5 materially undermines your reliance on Regan, even to the point that you are trying to argue that Justice Rehnquist said that an apple is "functionally" an orange.  Footnote 5 clarifies that he "of course" did not mean what you are imputing to him.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 7 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

which simply doesn't work Spencer.

Smac argues like a lawyer.

My practice as an attorney influences how I think, write, research, etc.  I'll own that.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For a lawyer, truth isn’t the issue.

Nope.  This is not an accurate characterization of my position.

As a lawyer, I think the pursuit of "truth" is the fundamental purpose of our legal system.

As a lawyer, I acknowledge that people can, when addressing a contested issue, have varying perspectives on what "truth" is.

As a lawyer, I participate in an adversarial system in which two independent counsel present evidence, arguments and authorities to argue points of fact and of law before an impartial judge and jury.  This adversarial system is designed to suss out, as best we can, the "truth."

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Advocacy is.  You pick a side, present your sides best case, pick apart your opponents argument in whatever way possible. Getting to the truth of the matter is irrelevant. 

Meh.  This is facile nonsense.

We all come here with our own presuppositions, opinions, biases, etc.  Including you.  I am as interested in getting past these and "to the truth of the matter" as much as you are.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 7 by smac97

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Funny, then, that Justice Rehnquist did not say that "tax exemptions are a functional subsidy," and that he instead - in Footnote 5 - expressly stated that "{i}n stating that exemptions and deductions, on the one hand, are like cash subsidies, on the other, we of course do not mean to assert that they are in all respects identical" (emphases added).

If I say "apples are like oranges," I am acknowledging their similarities (they are both fruits, both grow on trees, both are about the same size and shape, both are sweet, both have flesh that is preferable to the outer skin, etc.), but I am not saying the "are in all respects identical," that an apple is - to use your wording - "a functional" orange.

Tax subsidies are like cash subsidies—they are both subsidies.

There may be legally nuanced reasons why the government treats different subsidization mechanisms differently, but those differences concern the mechanism, not the reality that they are economically equivalent.

Which is why you won’t answer my question: Is there any real difference between the government giving John Dehlin a $20,833 tax break and cutting him a $20,833 check?

Edited March 7 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Tax subsidies are like cash subsidies—they are both subsidies.

Apples are like oranges - they are both oranges.

Doesn't really work, does it?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

There may be legally nuanced reasons why the government treats different subsidization mechanisms differently, but those differences concern the mechanism, not the reality that they are economically equivalent.

There may be botanically nuanced reasons why we treat different fruits differently, but those differences do not concern the reality that apples and oranges are equivalent.

Except, well, they aren't equivalent.  They have some similarities, but also some fundamental differences.  Apples are not oranges, and oranges are not apples.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Which is why you won’t answer my question: Is there any real difference between the government giving John Dehlin a $20,833 tax break and cutting him a $20,833 check?

Yes, there is a real difference.  A few, actually.

Difference #1: The source of the money is different.  There is a key distinction between keeping your own money and receiving it from another source.

• Tax exemption = I keep my own money because the government has decided not to tax certain income or activities.
• Subsidy = the government takes money from someone else and redistributes it to me.

The source of the money is different.  Let's say State stops charging you a toll on a public road.  Is that the same as the State handing you a check for the toll amount?  In my view, the answer is "No."  One is the State not taking your money; the other is the State giving you someone else’s money.

Difference #2: The legal distinction matters.  Legally, tax exemptions are not subsidies.  Taxes and subsidies fall squarely within the ambit of the law, so your effort to circumvent Walz and Regan does not work.  In the latter, the Court held that tax exemptions can function like subsidies in some cases, but it did not overrule Walz, and it specifically disclaimed what you have been asserting (that tax exemptions are subsidies, and that this "is not up for debate").

Difference #3: There are also practical and fiscal differences in play here.  A tax exemption simply allows someone to retain what they earned, but a subsidy requires the government to collect money from other taxpayers and redistribute it.  The State is behaving differently.

Difference #4: Your reasoning falls apart pretty quick when applied in other contexts.  By your reasoning, if a tax exemption is a subsidy, the State is "subsidizing" every single person who gets a standard deduction on their taxes.  By your logic, everyone who gets any deduction or exemption is receiving government money, every person making a charitable donation receives government money, every person deducting a business expense is receiving government money.  If tax exemptions = subsidies, then the government subsidizes nearly everyone who files taxes. That clearly isn't how subsidies work.

You are equating the State's non-interference with the State's direct financial support.  Legally, practically, and fiscally, the two are not the same.  Tax exemptions allow people to keep their own money, whereas subsidies involve redistributing taxpayer money—a fundamental difference.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 8 by smac97