There's the issue of where the money came from in the first place
Given that NASA is funded by the US government, the money must come from two sources:
Taxes
Quantitative easing
Sure, that's where the money comes from, but the argument is that the money doesn't just dissapear.
It gets paid to engineers, scientists, and manufacturers, who then buy houses, cars, food, and in general "have a career" thanks to that money.
We could debate the pros/cons of government employees, but the commenter's reasoning is sound.
Look at the support economy in places like Huntsville AL. NASA doesn't pay chic fil a, but I'm sure they're doing well thanks to all the NASA employees that want lunch
Not sure why I was downvoted
I wasn't arguing for or against NASA
I was simply pointing out (rather obvious if you think about it) where the money comes from
Removing "the church" from tax exempt status would not gain the US Treasury as much as you might think it would. (Would you remove all non-profits' tax exempt status, or just the churches?)
Not all non-profits have tax exempt status. The ones that do are "Corporations, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports, or prevention of cruelty for children or animals."
According to the American Bar Association, non-profits, including 501(c)(3) organizations, are allowed to lobby congress as well as other legislative bodies. (Google it.)
So... back to my original question: would you remove all tax exempt statuses of all non-profits that currently qualify?
So rare I find anyone interested in this stuff! Googled it:
"In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status."
URLs are now banned in comments (thanks, spam bots!) but this came from the IRS.
Ok, so we were both partly right, partly not: Non-profits may engage in "some lobbying" but not "too much."
I keep going back to my original question: are you in favor of removing ALL non-profits' tax-exempt status that currently qualify for it?
Just for the record, I am completely in favor of enforcing IRS regulations concerning excessive lobbying and any other politcal activities that non-profits are supposed to stay away from.
Not sure who your question is directed to. But it's worth noting that the most recent tax law change raised the standard deduction, while limiting the deduction for state and local taxes, with the result that for many taxpayers, it's no longer favorable to itemize deductions. This means that for them, this tax advantage is effectively gone.
Oh... well, in the context of the post we're commenting on, 1. Curiosity Rover didn't cost anywhere near 100 billion, 2. I really don't know how much the tax deduction for charitable contributions is costing the govt, either for churches alone or for all 501c3s, 3. the cost of Curiosity, and probably the cost of this tax break, is nothing compared to the cost of effective assistance for poor people, 4. my opinion, including churches in that list is weird (though of course politically mandatory), as evidenced by the contortions the govt then has to go through to define what is a church. Also, we wouldn't have to hear all the whining about "the mean government has a law against churches being politically active" which is a lie, the truth being that lobbying or advocating for or against candidates would lose them a tax break. But of course this is all hypothetical, this won't happen.
Yeah, what some people don't understand is that most churches don't have much of what could be considered "profit," if you subtract expenses from income. While there are a few, like Joel O'Steen's crew, that seem to do rather well, most only have a little but left over at the end of the year.
Given that NASA is funded by the US government, the money must come from two sources:
Taxes
Quantitative easing
It gets paid to engineers, scientists, and manufacturers, who then buy houses, cars, food, and in general "have a career" thanks to that money.
We could debate the pros/cons of government employees, but the commenter's reasoning is sound.
Look at the support economy in places like Huntsville AL. NASA doesn't pay chic fil a, but I'm sure they're doing well thanks to all the NASA employees that want lunch
I wasn't arguing for or against NASA
I was simply pointing out (rather obvious if you think about it) where the money comes from
So... back to my original question: would you remove all tax exempt statuses of all non-profits that currently qualify?
"In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status."
URLs are now banned in comments (thanks, spam bots!) but this came from the IRS.
I keep going back to my original question: are you in favor of removing ALL non-profits' tax-exempt status that currently qualify for it?