John Dehlin Receiving Public Funds

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apples are like oranges - they are both oranges.

Doesn't really work, does it?

Apples are fruit. Oranges are fruit.

Direct cash subsidies are subsidies. Tax subsidies are subsidies. 

Logically, what I said was exactly correct.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Yes, there is a real difference.

1. There is a key distinction between keeping money and receiving it...4. By your reasoning

Out of curiosity, do you think I’m misrepresenting what the textbook Taxes and Business Strategy by Nobel laureate Myron Scholes says about this issue, or do you disagree with it?

I realize you haven’t read the book, but that’s my point. I’m just curious what your basis is for dismissing it out of hand.

In case your curious, this text book is required reading in courses entitled "Taxes and Business Strategy" at MBA courses in schools like Stanford, University of Chicago, and MIT. It’s in its sixth edition and sells for $236.11.

[Teancum]

On 3/4/2025 at 1:38 PM, smac97 said:

Interesting:

Followups:

I wonder if any "pro-Mormon" outfits have sought/received government handouts.  I hope not.

Thanks,

-Smac

What is a pro Mormon outfit?  PPP loans were a pretty good deal for those businesses that needed them but there was a lot of abuse. I would not want to be a business that received one that did it under nefarious pretense. The penalties can be harsh.  

[Teancum]

On 3/4/2025 at 3:35 PM, Stargazer said:

And... I'm not so worried about PPP loans. 

"The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a $953-billion business loan program established by the United States federal government during the Trump administration in 2020 through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to help certain businesses, self-employed workers, sole proprietors, certain nonprofit organizations, and tribal businesses continue paying their workers."

It seemed rather like rain. It poured on good and bad alike. I am not entirely in agreement with this program, in principle, and I'm sure there were plenty of people taking advantage of it unjustly. But... it may have served a just purpose, all in all.

Although I have to shudder at the nearly 1 Trillion dollar price tag. Talk about inflation...

Given what we faced with shutdowns and extreme uncertainty I think over all they were as good thing. I have a lot of clients receive one and I would say it in most cases I am aware of the $$ went to good use and helped keep the lights on and to pay people. 

[Teancum]

On 3/4/2025 at 4:30 PM, ttribe said:

My response as a forensic accountant and as an exmo - If he did something illegal, then he should face the appropriate punishment.

I doubt he did anything illegal.  The rules for qualifying were pretty straight forward and not hard to meet. Plus the bank that made the loan had a responsibility in determining whether the loan should be forgiven.

[smac97]

On 3/7/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

Apples are fruit. Oranges are fruit.

Direct cash subsidies are subsidies. Tax subsidies are subsidies. 

The wordplay only works when you call tax exemptions "tax subsidies."

On 3/7/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

Logically, what I said was exactly correct.

Well, no.  Apples are not oranges, and oranges are not apples.

Meanwhile, you did not address the rest of my post, including how tax exemptions differ from subsidies in terms of A) the source of the money, B) the legal distinction (boy, you really don't want to address Walz and Regan), C) the behavior of the State, and D) the Oprahification of the concept of "subsidy."

 

On 3/7/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

Out of curiosity, do you think I’m misrepresenting what the textbook Taxes and Business Strategy by Nobel laureate Myron Scholes says about this issue, or do you disagree with it?

I think you're a bit too mired in credentialism.

Meanwhile, tax exemptions differ from subsidies because the source of the money is different.

Tax exemptions also differ from subsidies because the State, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, says they are different.

Tax exemptions also differ from subsidies because the State is behaving differently (not acting in one instance, acting in another).  Tax exemptions allow people to keep their own money, whereas subsidies involve redistributing taxpayer money—a fundamental difference.

Tax exemptions also differ from subsidies because conflating them falls apart pretty much immediately.  If tax exemptions = subsidies, then the government subsidizes nearly everyone who files taxes. That clearly isn't how subsidies work.

On 3/7/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

I realize you haven’t read the book, but that’s my point.

And you apparently have not read Walz and Regan.  That is one of my points.

On 3/7/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

I’m just curious what your basis is for dismissing it out of hand.

To dismiss something "out of hand" means "to reject or disregard it immediately and without careful consideration or thought."  I have not done that.  I have, instead, examined the law (Walz and Regan, which you have not addressed), and also provided fairly extensive explanation and reasoning for why I am rejecting your notion that "tax exemptions are subsidies," and that this claim "is not up for debate."

 Apples have some similarities with oranges, but those similarities do not mean that apples are oranges.

On 3/7/2025 at 5:18 PM, Analytics said:

In case your curious, this text book is required reading in courses entitled "Taxes and Business Strategy" at MBA courses in schools like Stanford, University of Chicago, and MIT. It’s in its sixth edition and sells for $236.11.

In case you're curious, Walz was decided by SCOTUS in 1970, and Regan in 1983, also by SCOTUS.

By your reasoning, a Nobel laureate is saying that an apple and an orange are both fruit, therefore an apple is an orange, and an orange is an apple.

Meanwhile, the reasoning I am using comes principally from the U.S. Supreme Court (though I think the other arguments I have made, and which you have ignored, are also pretty solid).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 30, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What is a pro Mormon outfit? 

FAIR.  BookofMormonCentral.  More Good Foundation.  Private entities which speak and act in support of the Church, though not being affiliated with it.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

PPP loans were a pretty good deal for those businesses that needed them but there was a lot of abuse.

Yeah.  But even outside the abuse, I have philosophical qualms with the State giving money to Dehlin (and to "pro-Mormon" outfits also).  We are more than $35 trillion in debt.  We have done our children, and our children's children, great harm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I doubt he did anything illegal.  The rules for qualifying were pretty straight forward and not hard to meet. Plus the bank that made the loan had a responsibility in determining whether the loan should be forgiven.

The only thing I see him doing wrong possibly is the misrepresentation of himself/his business as “mental health practitioners”, but even that depends on how the state defines such.  Maybe unlicensed life coaches fall under that category.

The Church encourages us to appeal to the government for welfare help if needed.  While it doesn’t accept grants from the Feds directly— likely not because money is not needed given they accept plenty of other donations beyond tithing and fast offerings—but rather because they don’t want to also accept the strings attached to it.  At the very least, the Church through BYU accepts grants students receive.  My guess is not all students actually need those grants, just the majority.  I know I could have managed without mine and if my husband hadn’t gotten as many hours that year, my parents would have stepped in to help (even if embarrassing to ask for it).  I don’t remember anyone at church saying when I applied for scholarships and grants, including from BYU, that it wasn’t moral since my parents had decent income and I could work for a year or two instead.

I see it as likely if the government was offering free training and help for businesses to improve their practices, the Church would be supportive of people taking that assistance whether they could afford to pay for it or not.  I don’t see much difference with this case.

We accepted the money sent to us by the government even though we didn’t need it.

Edited March 8, 2025 by Calm

[Analytics]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The wordplay only works when you call tax exemptions "tax subsidies."

The reason is that they are called “tax subsidies” is because from an economic perspective, Dehlin getting a tax reduction worth $23,000 is equivalent to Dehlin getting a check for $23,000. 

This isn’t a word play. It is the underlying value of money.

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, you did not address the rest of my post, including how tax exemptions differ from subsidies in terms of A) the source of the money, B) the legal distinction (boy, you really don't want to address Walz and Regan), C) the behavior of the State, and D) the Oprahification of the concept of "subsidy."

Subsidies being widespread doesn’t mean they aren’t subsidies. Different forms of subsidies having different legal treatments doesn’t mean they aren’t subsidies. Your mental accounting about “the source of the money” is a cognitive bias and is irrelevant.

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you're a bit too mired in credentialism.

The reason I’m emphasizing these points is because earlier in the discussion and without any self awareness, you compared me to a sovereign citizen.

 

[MiserereNobis]

On 3/6/2025 at 9:34 AM, smac97 said:

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.)

This isn't smac, it's a general conference talk he quoted.

Man oh man! 

I mean...

Work is my divine heritage? Heaven is constant labor?

No, thank you.

I'm more inclined to this guy:

Quote

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Do you think American Puritanism might have overly influenced your church's views here? The idea that work is divine and we will all work forever definitely has roots there.

Work was Adam's punishment, not his reward. It is a necessary in a fallen world. In Heaven, through Christ, we will live in perfect peace and rest.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The reason I’m emphasizing these points is because earlier in the discussion and without any self awareness, you compared me to a sovereign citizen.

I retract the comparison, and apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The idea that work is divine and we will all work forever definitely has roots there.

Except when God says what his work and glory is—which is what our work will be—it doesn’t sound so bad imo.  Plus it may be more like parenting.  One never stops acting as a parent, yet at times you do other things that do not directly involve your children…though the ‘machine’ of their care is always in motion (your protection isn’t gone just because they aren’t needing your protection in that moment).

And when one’s work is one’s passion it might feel more like play than “labour”.

 

Quote

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?lang=eng&id=p39#p39

Other relevant scriptures:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2015/09/line-upon-line-moses-1-39?lang=eng

Edited March 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This isn't smac, it's a general conference talk he quoted.

Man oh man! 

I mean...

Work is my divine heritage? Heaven is constant labor?

No, thank you.

I'm more inclined to this guy:

Do you think American Puritanism might have overly influenced your church's views here? The idea that work is divine and we will all work forever definitely has roots there.

Work was Adam's punishment, not his reward. It is a necessary in a fallen world. In Heaven, through Christ, we will live in perfect peace and rest.

I do believe we have a lot of Puritanism in our culture.  We started in the northeastern states, after all.

I think we can be at peace and rest even while working when work is renewing rather than burdensome.

Sometimes it is process of cleaning that gives me joy and I am happier than when the work is complete and I see a clean and beautiful home.

Truly creative work is uplifting, renewing, releasing in my experience.  It seems to me God’s work is likely creative.

Edited March 8, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The only thing I see him doing wrong possibly is the misrepresentation of himself/his business as “mental health practitioners”, but even that depends on how the state defines such.  Maybe unlicensed life coaches fall under that category.

It’s the wrong category, but as a small business owner it is tough to find the right category. It’s a big list. I’m not sure NAICS code has anything to do with PPP loans. I doubt his PPP loan would be “found” to be illegal, but definitely would consider podcasting to be an area unaffected by pandemic and I would question the ethics of applying for and getting it. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s the wrong category, but as a small business owner it is tough to find the right category. It’s a big list. I’m not sure NAICS code has anything to do with PPP loans. I doubt his PPP loan would be “found” to be illegal, but definitely would consider podcasting to be an area unaffected by pandemic and I would question the ethics of applying for and getting it. 

I think that would depend on how big a part of a business podcasting is.  If it is the primary income producer, I can see that as problematic.  If there are quite a few other projects going on that are delayed or harder to do or costs went up, I can see applying as reasonable.  I have no clue what Dehlin's income sources are and what he employs people for these days besides podcasting, so for once I am not outright critical of him, lol.

I don’t like the purpose of his business, but there are other businesses I dislike as well that have a right to exist (fast fashion and interior design, Barbie dolls, WWF and professional boxing, Facebook, probably quite a long list once I get going, so I will stop).

Edited March 8, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Except that they don't. Why? Because, as I noted, you are trying to get Rehnquist to say something that he didn't say. He clearly writes: "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy". A footnote doesn't change this Spencer. It doesn't reverse it. If Rehnquist had meant that exemptions are not a form of subsidy, this is what he would have written (and then perhaps footnoted the other). But he didn't do this. The purpose of the footnote is merely to suggest that there are ways to understand Waltz that agrees with his written opinion.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

That isn't a mistake. That is the intention of footnotes. You have a really messed up idea about how to read here. You shouldn't be surprised that there are a lot of disagreements with you on this topic.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

Dehlin getting a tax reduction worth $23,000 is equivalent to Dehlin getting a check for $23,000. 

I'm neither an accountant nor an attorney, so I guess I am entirely stupid when it comes to recognizing this statement as completely bogus. 

The mob's protection enforcer and his deputy comes to the small Mom & Pop grocery store.

Enforcer: Come on, it's time to pay up. $100. [holds hand out]
Mom: Well, I'm sorry, we just got robbed. He went out the door five minutes ago with all the cash in the register. We don't have it.
Enforcer: What do you mean, you just got robbed? You're under our protection! You better not be crappin' me!
Dad: Come look at the register! The drawer's still open! And what's this about "protection"? The creep just waltzed in here, showed a pistol and didn't seem to care about your "protection"! [Enforcer comes behind counter to look at the empty register drawer]
Enforcer: Well, you still have to pay up!
Mom: With what? 
Dad: And if that's what your "protection" looks like, I don't think we got our money's worth!
Enforcer: [Puzzled expression on his face]
Dad: Seems the right thing for you to do is to replace the stolen money.
Enforcer: Well, I ain't got it, either.
Dad: Then we seem to be at an impasse.
Enforcer: [After a quick look at his phone's dictionary to look up "impasse."] Okay, okay. All right. Well... I guess I can give you a reduction this week. So you won't have to pay this week. 
Dad: [rolls eyes] Oh, thank you, sir! [The enforcer and his deputy walk out]
Deputy: You just gave him $100!
Enforcer: What? Are you nuts?
Deputy: It's like Analytics says! "getting a tax reduction worth $23,000 is equivalent to Dehlin getting a check for $23,000."
Enforcer: Who's Dehlin?

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm neither an accountant nor an attorney, so I guess I am entirely stupid when it comes to recognizing this statement as completely bogus. 

The mob's protection enforcer and his deputy...

Let’s adjust the analogy a bit. Instead of a mafia demanding protection money, imagine a group of business owners on the same block coming together and saying:

"We, the people of this neighborhood, in order to form a more perfect community, establish justice, ensure tranquility, and promote the common good, agree to create a local government. To fund its services—security, roads, and public events—we all contribute $100 a week."

Now, suppose this community really values one particular business owner—maybe they run a beloved community center or sponsor local events—so they decide to pay that person $100 a week. Later, they really like someone else and decide to reduce that person’s weekly contribution by $100.

From the perspective of the individual receiving the benefit, there is no financial difference: whether they receive $100 or save $100, they are better off by the same amount. Likewise, from the perspective of the community, the financial impact is identical—either way, $100 less is going into the shared pool.

The key point? Both are subsidies. One just happens to be a direct payment, while the other is structured as a tax reduction. But economically, they are equivalent.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The key point? Both are subsidies. One just happens to be a direct payment, while the other is structured as a tax reduction. But economically, they are equivalent.

If a man comes up to me in the street and robs $100 from me, that is not the equivalent of a group of my peers deciding I have to spend $100 for the cause of their choice. Yes, it's the same amount of money, and I end up in the same economic state. But they are not equivalent. My peers say they will do something useful with the money, possibly of value, or maybe not so much. The robber spares my life. Who benefits me the most? The robber, because my life is more valuable to me than whatever my neighbors want to do with the money. 

You're welcome to think my brain is cross-wired, if you want.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're welcome to think my brain is cross-wired, if you want.

Unless you live off grid and don’t interact with your fellow humans, yes you are more than a little cross-wired to compare government and taxation as mafia and robbers. You do you of course. 

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If a man comes up to me in the street and robs $100 from me, that is not the equivalent of a group of my peers deciding I have to spend $100 for the cause of their choice. Yes, it's the same amount of money, and I end up in the same economic state. But they are not equivalent. My peers say they will do something useful with the money, possibly of value, or maybe not so much. The robber spares my life. Who benefits me the most? The robber, because my life is more valuable to me than whatever my neighbors want to do with the money. 

You're welcome to think my brain is cross-wired, if you want.

What is the nature of taxes? Is it something that we, the people, do through our representatives to help finance the formation of a more perfect union? Or is it something that a group of thugs steal from us for their own selfish purposes?

It appears I think it is the former, and you think is the latter. But in either case, the math works out the same.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 3/5/2025 at 8:32 AM, Dario_M said:

Yes for sure. 

But uh... then this whole topic is about politics then. And smac began this political subject in the first place basically. 

 

👍🏻👍🏻

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

What is the nature of taxes? Is it something that we, the people, do through our representatives to help finance the formation of a more perfect union? Or is it something that a group of thugs steal from us for their own selfish purposes?

It appears I think it is the former, and you think is the latter. But in either case, the math works out the same.

Yes, yes, I know all that. 

But sometimes things that are equivalent aren't of equal value. If that sounds like a contradiction, perhaps it is. Like the choice between hanging and electrocution. The end result's the same, it's just how you get there.

I do hope that God isn't as particular with us as we are sometimes with him.

[Calm]

Having a tax exemption is likely better in the long run because you probably have earlier control over the funds.  If the exemption amount is quite high as is likely with our Church as least given the size, seems like in the end the Church will have more money as a result of an exemption that is always present and under their control to invest, pay expenses, whatever than a subsidy that they get paid at the end of the year or anytime later than they would normally access the money if never taxed…:though if the subsidy came before taxes or whatever it is used to pay, that difference might be removed or even used to make some money possibly.

I also think there is a greater issue with the use of “subsidy” for “exemption” in the nonfinancial area. Subsidies are viewed as something the government gives to people and not necessarily what they deserve or have a right to and so it is easier I am guessing to justify taking it away if the government has more urgent things they need to fund. An exemption, especially with the idea it’s allowed because the government is supposed to be hands off, is much less likely to be even considered for canceling, imo. 

Exemptions also seem like they would be cheaper for the government in the long run as not processing money costs less than processing it, I am guessing, so there does seem to be a significant economic difference in comparing the two  (the government saves money if the choice is between exemptions vs subsidies) as well imo if dealing with large amounts.  Though many who see the exemption as a subsidy want it removed, so would not be costing the government any money to process the nonexistent subsidy.

Edited March 9, 2025 by Calm

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, yes, I know all that. 

But sometimes things that are equivalent aren't of equal value. If that sounds like a contradiction, perhaps it is. Like the choice between hanging and electrocution. The end result's the same, it's just how you get there.

I do hope that God isn't as particular with us as we are sometimes with him.

That makes total sense. There is a concept in Economics called “utility,” which means how much value does something give you. Utility isn’t necessarily measurable in dollars, and you can get vastly different levels of utility out of two things that have the same price.

[Dario_M]

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

👍🏻👍🏻

⬆️