You gentlemen are probably unaware of litigation which to my knowledge extends back at least to the 1950s in various states in the funeral and cemetery industries in which people who build tombstones sue people who own cemeteries to prevent them from selling tombstones because cemeteries enjoy tax advantages. If I don't have to pay taxes and I'm competing with you in the sale of widgets I have an unfair advantage.The problem in your scenarios is precisely that the government is picking winners and losers; the solution is not to tax both, it is to tax neither. Because after the government makes its choice, we find that the market likes to pick winners and loser as well, and happens to be better at it. Maybe the consumers find it more convenient to buy at one place or the other, or one does better work than the other. Yet one has an advantage at the cash register, because the other is arbitrarily taxed.
I know of a company that put it's own satellites up in space to collect and sell weather data; the government saw how profitable this was, and put up competing satellites. Is that a just and fair use of government?
The tombstone example that you offer is not about tax breaks, per se, it is about favoring one producer over another, and giving the favored producer a leg up. The sattelite example is about government competing in the private sector. But they're different sides of the same coin-- the government is skewing the market.
For further examples of this, look no further than the price supports on corn (feed, or the more sinister ethanol), sugar, beets, peanuts, beef, milk... the list is endless. The government (you, and me) is making up the difference between what the market will pay and what the producer needs to make to stay in business. Do you understand the absurdity? The government is taking tax money out of your pocket and giving it to a profit-losing scheme, and forcing you to pay higher prices to boot! Tell you what: If you really want to get your blood going, take a few weeks off work and read the farm bill.
But this favoritism doesn't just piss off consumers and put honest people out of work, it makes waves in the economy that are felt in far flung places.
Example: Detroit. Government favoritism of unions' outrageous work rules gutted not just a few manufacturers, not just a single industry, but an entire American metropolis. The wave then extended to parts suppliers, dealers (recall Obama picking the winners), repair facilities... again, the list is endless.
If you want to take a libertarian position and deplore all taxes, I will join you on the ramparts but in the meantime there is such a thing as a level playing field. If we permit everyone who wraps himself in a sheet and calls himself swami to engage in commerce free of taxes we soon will have a general breakdown.
A breakdown? On the contrary, we will have an explosion of productivity.
It is not just a Libertarian position to deplore needless taxation; I would suggest to you that, as we're seeing with Obama's IRS dirty tricks, more Americans think there's too much government. It's becoming clear that the 2012 election was stolen due to the suppression of anti-Obama groups.
But wait, there's more. Government has a constant need to justify itself in a snake-eating-its-tail endless loop.
Get this: In the state that I live in, you need a license (that is, revocable permission and payment of a fee) to open a nail salon or a hair salon (barbershop), and pretty much any other revenue-generating enterprise. Why? Wouldn't the marketplace put a bad haircut shop out of business?
You need that license because the fee (tax) justifies enforcement, which justifies fines, which justifies penalties and arbitration, which justifies administration, which justifies bureaucracy. Which all adds up to graft, corruption and patronage. Then, we hope, collapse.
Perhaps you are better informed than I am, perhaps you are in possession of the facts and can explain the tax situation of the monks, if not, perhaps a bit of humility might be in order.
The 'tax situation of the monks' is that a group of people have chosen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and the government sees fit to interfere. My advice to the monks would be to drop the nonprofit status, so that they don't answer to the IRS as to their beliefs (which is what determines tax treatment, as we've seen). I say that not because I believe in it, but because I don't believe the IRS is capable of integrity.
But if you're in favor of taxing them, I'd respectfully suggest that you're on the wrong forum.
