Should charitable contributions be tax deductible in general? Isn't that the real question? That deduction by the way "costs" a huge amount of revenue. I know what my fix would be, but that is neither here nor there. The deduction will not be repealed. It has too many powerful interests supporting it.
No, that isn't "the real question." It is within the bounds of the Constitution to tax charitable contributions, but, not religion. The power to tax is the power to destroy. There is no Constitution protection for "charity," but, there is a Constitutional protection for religion.
Taxing charities like everyone else is taxed is hardly "destroying," and has never been so held by SCOTUS, and never will. Well, SCOTUS may never had said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." It was Ronald Reagan. Given the opportunity to side with either the Supreme Court, or Reagan, I choose to side with Reagan.
It is mathematically obvious: if the government, in principle, has the right to tax 5% of the receipts of a charity, then it has the right to tax 100% of the receipts of charities. That is, in principle, the state has the power to effectively ban organized charity. Unfortunately, the same is true of you, or I. In principle, the Constitution grants the federal government the right to impose a 100% tax on your income, or mine.
Fortunately, religion is protected by the Constitution. In principle, the state cannot effectively ban religion. Claiming that the state has the right to tax religion, is, in principle, claiming the state has the right to ban religion by imposing a 100% on its receipts.
Charity can be decided on the policy merits, but, the Constitution is clear concerning religion.
That the fallacy of assuming your own conclusion. Since you are assuming your own conclusions, why don't you just assume your speculations in that regard are correct and share them with us?
Back in the thirties, FDR tried to regulate farm production. He crossed the line when he tried to dictate to farmers what they could and could not grow for their own personal use. The Court ruled that since the food he ate wasn't sold it effected interstate commerce.
I happen to believe that that was an action of a banana republic, not a Constitutional Republic. Apparently, we have a profound disagree there.
King George might have had a different opinion on that one.
Look, for example, I don't think Marxists are being realistic if they believe that a state based on the principle, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!," will ever exist. That said, I don't begrudge them the right to pursue an ideal even if it is impractical and profoundly immoral. I believe the appropriate response to Marxists is to answer their arguments, not, take a posture of a condescending derision towards them.
Poll
