"'ll go further than Hinkle does and ask why charities and "non-profit" organizations -- including churches, mosques, and synagogues -- aren't paying taxes on the money they take in? Do you think they should be?"

No, I don't think they should be. This is one area where the law is applied perfectly evenly. Any group that doesn't exist for it's own enrichment can apply for tax exempt status. If atheists want to, they can and many have. But until 90% of the hospitals and shelters and soup kitchens are government run with your tax dollars and run well, taking tax money from the groups that DO run 90% of our nonprofit hospitals etc is absurd.

"there is no reason that a family who chooses to have 8 kids should expect their neighbor with 2 kids to help pay the bills for their 8. There is no reason that the guy who buys a McMansion should look over the fence at the family living in an apartment and expect them to help pay the mortgage."

I'll agree in principle. Which makes me wonder why you think more money should be given to the government that does this. Seems like we should be taking away from government, not giving them yet another sweet group to plunder. What are we, England during Henry the 8th's rein?

Cain is for the fair tax.

Wolf Trap's fine but why does it get gov't support when some place where rock bands, rappers, or country music groups perform (for money) don't? Does DC (of all places!) really need a state-funded performance venue?

Churches pay taxes? Not only yes, but HELL YES! I owe those pious, sanctimonious bastards some payback, on behalf of me and the rellies.

A bit of explanation: Our family has had "side businesses" of various sorts for many years. Among other things, my mom ran a nice nursery school out of the basement of our house for thirteen years. We've also had things like rental real estate.

In a lot of these things, we not only had to put up with church-based competition, but government inspectors (fire marshals and the like) were a lot harder on us than they were on the church-based businesses we had to compete with.

Of course, my mom wasn't one to take this lying down. She got so she knew the fire code backwards, forwards and sideways, and, in her own words "ate fire marshals for breakfast." The last year we had the nursery school, a marshal came around to inspect when Dad and I were at home but Mom wasn't. Dad pointed him in the right direction, and down the stairs he went. He came up with this laundry-list of things he said we needed to do, which we knew we didn't (we'd been over all of this stuff many times, and won every time.) The church-based nursery schools never had to worry about any of this, even though they had the same stuff.

Dad said we wouldn't do it. The guy got all huffy and puffy, flown with his little, brief authority, and said that he'd report us to the County (read: District) Attorney.

Dad just gave him an evil grin and said "You just did. I am the County Attorney." Which he was. Exit one fire marshal, considerably deflated.

Oh, was Mom disappointed and envious of me when she got home and I told her the whole story! She never quite forgave me my good luck. *grin*

Any group that doesn't exist for it's own enrichment can apply for tax exempt status.

There are some tricky problems there momof4. A lot of social justice non-profits have redefined their role somewhat - rather than directly assisting people, they use their money to lobby the government for higher minimum wages, increased welfare, run ad campaigns to change public opinion, whatever. Their rationale is they can help more people that way and it's not to their own benefit (except in feelgood points). Should they really be tax-exempt for this? Nothing wrong with them saying it, but it's a major redefinition of the concept of a charity. The Red Cross amongst others have copped a lot of criticism for redirecting donations raised for specific disasters (2004 Asian tsunami springs to mind) to their general revenue. People quite rightly complained that they thought their money was going to help specific people and a fair bit ended up elsewhere.

Subsidising theatre (or culture in general) is even more problematic. Lots of middle class welfare there. A little is nice to have - but $3.5mil over 5 years is, well, a lot.

Direct payments to non-profit groups to deliver targeted assistance (as Bush championed) is a completely different issue. Provided it's done to a strict set of performance criteria it's not much more than an outsourcing contract. In that case, provided they take all comers, I don't care whether it's a church or atheist organisation.

It is hard to distill my thoughts on this down to simple, pithy statements. But why is the state government doing this in direct violation of its own constitution?

And when a government involves itself with any thing that should be an effort of private enterprise (such as the arts) you have a 1000 lb gorilla in that room. For example the amount of money spent on the arts distorts the market.

We have local opera houses that are being restored, maintained, and run by local volunteers and groups. About the only government involvement is the village/towns generally give them a property tax abatement.

But would that be fair if their were two other theaters and a multiplex in town?