3 ms·
In my view I think you would say this also about Bill gates... who are you to define what is a reasonable amount? I think a tax policy based on “reasonable” co
by mattrp 7y ago
In my view I think you would say this also about Bill gates... who are you to define what is a reasonable amount?
I think a tax policy based on “reasonable” confiscation is not very sound or sustainable and probably worse policy than allowing churches to collect money tax free.
At the same time there are laws in the US at least about how charities must use their cash and if they’ve broken these laws it would be a very serious case for them.
Generally a “reasonable” discussion on HN would involve details of the case and further our understanding of the issue. But that really wasn’t on your mind was it... “My throwaway”?
- mythrwy 7y agoLet's leave off the hostilities and spurious accusations please. Your confiscation point is valid. I don't know that is an equitable solution because private people did pay into the program at one point. I suppose what I'd like to see is religions limited to some multiple of working annual budget in assets. This avoids an entire set of perverse negative incentives. Grandfather it in and prevent further investment or collections until the assets come back to the level specified.
- mattrp 7y agoFair enough I enjoy my relative anonymity here too. The whistleblowers do allege that the profits from investing have not been charitably distributed. But the issue in my meager understanding is not the amounts, it’s whether lds is acting charitably in its totality and I believe that’s fairly undeniable even considering the other controversies mentioned above. But let’s see...