Tax exempt organizations are all subsidized by the amount of tax they would pay if they were not so classified. Certain of these organizations qualify for their contributors to deduct their contribution from their taxable income. The laws that created this situation are all "bills of attainder" which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. These laws have been legal and most unchallenged since Chief Justice John Marshall's Supreme Court deemed Congress could do most anything its wants that is not specifically prohibited or if the end justifies the means.
I believe ANYONE could contribute to these organizations, and therefore is eligible for deducting their contribution from their income. They choose not to, one of the consequences of liberty.
How would you structure income tax law to avoid your bill of attainder charge?
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I do believe you are wrong about the commerce clause. I'm pretty sure the supreme court has upheld the commerce clause as allowing subsidies.
Frankly, the rest of your post (the part about the hotel owner and prositute, etc.) seems a little off topic.
Prove that please.
Well, looks like I'm kinda wrong. But like I said, I'm not a constitutional scholar. It's not the commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) but the taxing and spending clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1) that creates the ability of Congress to create subsidies.
I think it was upheld in South Dakota v Dole (again, I'm no constitutional scholar). The decision created a five-point rule for considering the constitutionality of spending. But relevant points is that to be constitutional spending must promote "the general welfare."
Wind is not ready for prime time and won't be until battery technology improves. The majority of its production tends to be in the evening hours, when the grid demand is low, and typically met by nuke plants. It's to much of a help on peak demand times. Right now, wind/solar is less than 1% of power production on the ISO-NE grid. Even if it scales up, I just don't see it ever becoming more than a nuisance.
Just not true. Wind power accounted for about 12 percent of power in Texas and 10 percent in Europe. Europe is investing heavily. So is China. It will be one option among many power sources for forward-thinking governments. The future is green.
Mel: If you would have read my book, which you criticize but have not read, you would learn that the economic system I propose provides consumable currency to every man woman and child up front, denominated in kcal that is used to buy the time of those whose skills or efforts are required to provide them with food, clothing and shelter. Any tax that would be levied on the basis of extra income in excess of the initial distribution. In other words monopoly practice. The amount of kcal to be distributed would be the fuel value of all of the food produced by the population. The only excess needed to be produced would be for replanting to insure the next year's crop is at least equal to that produced in the current year. Production in excess of that will only deplete the soil more rapidly which is what we are doing now but supplementing it with fertilizer which will ultimately be exhausted.
China is the largest generator of wind power because it is economically viable. It is economically viable because China, though rich in coal has no oil or gas. It should not however stop burning coal because all living plants, including those used to feed humans and most animals require carbon dioxide. It makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere and fortunately is the heavier of the other gases that make up the atmosphere (78% Nitrogen and 21% oxygen) and therefore closest to the earth, despite the mixing caused by the earths rotation. If that carbon dioxide were not replenished by nature, through forest fires that we foolishly try to prevent, its exhaustion would result in the death of trees and the plants we and most other animals require for food.
The United States has vast amounts of unburned coal, oil, gas and even wood, which is reproducible. We don't fully tap these sources because we can purchase it more cheaply from countries who have surpluses and whose cost to produce it for use is less than ours. This will not always be the case as their surpluses are depleted and the cost to produce naturally increases. We have already seen that the artificially high price caused by the monopolistic practices of OPEC have made it economical to tap the huge gas reserves we have. Unfortunately some of OPECs members, particularly Venezuela, are seeing their cost of production rise to near equivalency with the price they can get for their oil. They and several others at or near the same situation are pressuring OPEC to squeeze the tap and allow the price to rise but that in turn will cause more countries like the United States to become exporters and not consumers.
Claudius: The commerce clause in the U. S. Constitution allows the federal government to regulate trade between the States and foreign countries. It does not allow the government to interfere or regulate any company or industry per se but to insure fair and equal treatment as regards exchanges.
The terminology in Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution is the type of regulation envisioned in the Commerce Clause. It prohibits the States from levying duties (tariffs) on imports or exports. This provision was the result of actions of the various States to levy such duties when those of England were no longer applicable. The Declaration of Independence put an end to revenue used by the British to pay for their protection and governance of the colonies and the States just stepped in and continued the practice because they had no other source to fund the services the British government provided.
We do NOT agree, Claudius. Quoting from small data samples is not proper science when you then make statements about the larger data set. Apples & Oranges.
Every time we challenge, we get deflection. Suddenly, it's about the speed of change. Not mentioned until now.
Climate has changed rapidly before. Entire cultures have collapsed due to changes in climate. It's been much hotter and much colder than it is now. Evasively quoting only data that agrees with theory is not good science.
Evasively quoting only data that agrees with theory is not good science
It's not even science.
It's a religion.
Climate is influenced by thousands of variables and the fastest computers are unable to keep up with all of them and to take measurements to determine the equations and the actual influence of each variable on the whole would take an infinite amount of sensors and years of data. To substitute for this requirement, scientists have reduced the equations to models that can be used to approximate what the climate will be like tomorrow, next week and in the case of the Farmer's Almanac next year. Even then they still can't get it right.
The latter was evidenced by a study done by MIT students when I was teaching there. The conclusion, from data and projections published by the Boston newspaper, was that if the weather forecasters had predicted tomorrows weather would be the same as today's, they would have been right more often.
Progressives and those who try and counter them tend to choose the variables that fit their argument or neglect those that contribute but for which data cannot be collected. They still cannot disprove or modify the basic laws no matter how they try. On is that two bodies, the earth and the surrounding atmosphere will ultimately reach a temperature in which they will be equal. It will take time and the rate of change is actually slowing because the insulation (the earth's crust) is increasing, thereby slowing the transfer of heat.
No mention of tidal power? Or why not turbines placed in between bridge spans, like China does? Hydro power, clean and predictable.
How is Tesla doing these days, I read the stock tanked
At the end of the day, it'll probably be an amalgam of different renewables, tidal included.
Tesla took a hit but is still up like 64% ttm. The hit was because of manufacturing issues on the cars. Again, the market cap is high enough that it's presuming it completely takes over the battery/energy industry.