It probably seemed a good idea at the time but, granting some organizations exemption from taxation has resulted in considerable injustice to the majority of our citizens. Does your organization provide services that feed the hungry, clothe and shelter the poor, etc.? Seems very commendable, but - how about the other guys, the rich dudes with the kooky religion and the billions in property they own and profit from? Aren't they getting away with murder, so to speak?

I'm told that there are over 1.607 million tax exempt organizations in the U.S.A. They own assets over $4.03 Trillion, and have incomes over $2.93 Trillion. I believe that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, etc. are entitled to the same perks and privileges as Catholics, Baptists, Scientologists, etc. Is any government justified in spreading the tax burden in a fashion that results in inequality at the same time it claims to be democratic? I submit that the original idea has, like many well-meant ones, outlived its usefulness and has resulted in a slippery slope of abuses we would do well to rectify.

I believe that charity is a good thing. Whether or not it should be tied to income tax exemption is debatable. Because it is and because I have certain favorite charities and a limited income, I have tried to confine my donations to Veterans Organizations. The results are that every organization with the slightest hint of a connection to: soldiers, sailors, marines - active, retired, wounded , or deceased sends me address labels, note pads, dimes, nickels, dollar bills, etc. etc.
Upon investigation it turns out that the charity itself gets little of the money it raises. Most of the funds produced go to the fund raiser company, a small portion to pay for the labels, dimes, nickels, etc. Being a trifle skeptical, I'm suspicious that some unscrupulous people will approach any group with a desire for funds and a plausible appeal to others to supply them. "Let us borrow your cause and raise funds for you in your name - keeping only a portion for our administration and expenses." An offer too good to refuse, even for the Society for the Protection of Polecats, for instance..

I think there is an obvious solution that requires more than one small voice in the wilderness to bring about. I wonder how many Answerpudlians agree that present practice results in unequal justice for all???