Hacker News Reader

Comment by junon | Hacker News Reader

This doesn't track, governments could do whatever they wanted. There's no magical ruleset for governments. They could tax just you if they wanted, or they could set up a set of reasonable and airtight laws taxing the churches fairly.

I don't really see your point.

View on HN

In the US, I believe (and hope) that differentially taxing all religions except one would be found to violate the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion.

Right but these are rules set up and regulated by the US government. They didn't need to structure them that way in the beginning. Many countries don't.

Many countries go so far the other way that the government taxes the people and gives the money to the church.

Very true. The Netherlands never spent a single cent on the state religion so it completely collapsed when tithing dried up.

Meanwhile in Belgium the government gives money to the Catholic church so it is able to survive.

Heh makes it sound like the Catholics are entirely funded by Belgium ;)

It's honestly understandable in some of these countries, especially when you consider the deep interconnection many countries have with the church (take Rome as the quintessential example; how many of the tourist hotspots are just churches).

This doesnt track. The US government cant write whatever laws they want. They are actually constrained by the powers granted by the states via the constitution and protected by the judiciary. A new law taxing churches they dont like would not survive.

> Churches (cults, religion) all over the world are tax-exempted

Whilst true, that doesn't negate my point.

This doesn't track. What's considered "constitutional" in the US varies as the wind blows. Such a law would not survive today, but in 50 years' time, who can say?

It does not.

Interpretation can vary but thats not the same thing.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards...

> For many Constitutional law scholars, last years' Dobbs decision on abortion rights at the Supreme Court came as a dismaying shock, because it showed conclusively that conlaw wasn't a realm of ideologically consistent intellectual foment, but rather, a matter of politics.

> Writing for Credit Slips, the finance law scholar Adam Levitin admits to feeling a bit of schadenfreude in that moment. The "blue collar" law scholars in "grubby" banking and money fields have always treated the conlaw set as "slightly clueless toffs"

'can be considered "constitutional"' is a function of the persons interpretation. Is it not the case that whether a law passes is affected by the interpretations of 'can be considered "constitutional"' by the powers that can influence the outcome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com