PROTECTED]>
To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:19:07 -0400
Subject: RE: Tax On Theology Majors
Rick's discussion touches a point that I find particularly troubling
about the Locke decision. Rick is co
On Thursday, May 27, 2004, at 10:49 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:
I think the point is that from an economic
perspective, there is little or no difference between
a targeted $1,000 tax and a targeted exclusion from a
generally available $1,000 benefit.
One difference in practice would be that all the ta
I guess there is a difference between the questions whether
a state may target religion by imposing a tax on it and whether a state
may avoid taxing others to pay for religion.
Louise Weinberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:49 AM 5/27/04, Rick wrote:
If it is pure rational basis, I
guess the legitimate
lt;<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Tax On Theology Majors
> Alan Brownstein wrote:
>
> &
ram or activity" conditions in the Rehab Act, et al.
- Original Message -
From: "Douglas Laycock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Tax On Theology
Alan Brownstein wrote:
> For the same reason in Locke, if the student majors in theology at a
college he pays for with his own funds, he can not be denied > a
scholarship for his other studies.
Well, actually, he could be and he was. If he declared a major in
Theology, he lost the scho
I don't know that I can explain or rationalize constitutional doctrine
relating to taxes and subsidies, but the distinction between taxes and
subsidies, burdens and benefits, takings and givings is fairly pervasive in
constitutional law -- so much so that it is hardly surprising when the
Court
. Rev. 1420, 1441 (1999).
From: Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tax On Theology Majors
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:37:59 -0700 (
7, 2004 11:38 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Tax On Theology Majors
Doug and Marty's intuitions are mine as well. I am
just trying to figure out reasoning that decides Locke
one way and the tax case the other.
Another distinction emhasized by Locke and whic
Doug and Marty's intuitions are mine as well. I am
just trying to figure out reasoning that decides Locke
one way and the tax case the other.
Another distinction emhasized by Locke and which forms
part of its narrow holding is that in Locke the
student could still keep the scholarship (in theory a
Rick Duncan wrote:
I think the point is that from an economic
perspective, there is little or no difference between
a targeted $1,000 tax and a targeted exclusion from a
generally available $1,000 benefit. The Court has
specifically made this point on many occasions
including, I believe, in Sherber
--- Marty Lederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would be the conceivable state interest in
> imposing such a targeted tax? Assuming there is no
> legitimate interest in singling out "theology from a
> devotional perspective," the classification would
> violate the Equal Protection Clause, an
If it is pure rational basis, I guess the legitimate
interest might be in raising revenue. The law is
generally very deferential toward classifications
concerning tax policy, even toward classifications
that appear irrational(just look at the IRC for an
infinity of examples).
I think the point is
What would be the conceivable state interest in
imposing such a targeted tax? Assuming there is no legitimate interest in
singling out "theology from a devotional perspective," the classification
would violate the Equal Protection Clause, and presumably the Free Exercise
Clause as well, per
14 matches
Mail list logo
