Look up the definition of "opportunity cost".
Opportunity cost or economic opportunity loss is the value of the next best alternative foregone as the result of making a decision.[1]
Opportunity cost analysis is an important part of a company's decision-making processes but is not treated as an actual cost in any financial statement.[2] The next best thing that a person can engage in is referred to as the opportunity cost of doing the best thing and ignoring the next best thing to be done.
therefore this is not a valid argument,
taxes are supposed to pay for services consumed by the tax payer, define any services that a church would use that is not already paid for individually by the members or still paid for by the church (ie churches are not exempt from municipality facility charges)
if any organization that guides people is considered a charity (big brothers, big sisters, scouts, girl guides, youth sports teams, and so on) are considered charities because they provide moral guidance and activities to better the community what basis do you claim churches don't qualify other than the fact that you don't like religion?
By exempting one group you raise the cost to other groups.
only if the exempt group consumes resources, if they don't then what you have are other groups subsidizing their services on the back of a victim.
I do not support charitable deductions for religious institutions - if they are worthwhile their adherents will fund them anyways; if not, well, why should the state subsidize it?
by that logic what reason would you give any charity tax exempt status?
But you assume a church has greater rights than any others. Anyone else unable to pay their taxes sells and moves. Why should any one business, person or organization claim a greater set of rights? If a church can't afford their buildings, well, sell it and move somewhere cheaper.
no, I assume a church that provides the same services and contributions as most other charitable organizations should be entitled to the same tax exemptions regardless of those who don't agree with their philosophy. I don't agree with the united way, but I wouldn't support removing their tax exemption status just because I disagree with who they support. That is mean spirited and selfish. While the united way does waste a lot of funds and much doesn't go to the intended recipients, they do some good work.
If you choose to belong to such a group, more power to you. I respect that choice. But do not expect me to subsidize it, directly or indirectly.
you aren't subsidizing anything, you are just whining that if we didn't give them tax exemption status there would be more taxes and you think that somehow your taxes would go down which shows a fundamental failure in understanding how politicians create budgets, and a failure in realizing that that removing tax exemption status would result in the destruction of a charitable organization that does good work, while providing no new taxes, at the expense of tax payers who created these organizations from the ground up with their own funds for the specific purpose of doing charitable work and guiding their communities.
just because you don't like religion does not mean they are not charities.
