: 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 correct that Joshua Davey could have
kept the scholarship if he had double enrolled at two colleges and used
the scholarship
well, per Lukumi.
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Duncan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Law Religion issues for Law Academics"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:07 AM
Subject: Tax On Theology Majors
Suppose a state enacted a $1,000 per year tax on stude
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
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
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
funds, he can not
be denied a scholarship for his other studies.
In a sense, we could consider a tax on theology majors or a tax on having
an abortion as a penalty on the exercise of the right. It is just like
denying a person an unrelated benefit because they exercise a right. The
person loses
27, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Tax On Theology Majors
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
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
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
