[1rudeboy]

It might go a long way towards limiting the number of lawsuits filed.

You can't be serious.

[itsPatAmerican]

Encouraging more taxation, even on things we dislike, is never the answer. It becomes a wicked slippery slope. Maybe they will start to tax me on the sense of well being my church provides.

[baa39]

No, because those organizations are likely tax-exempt with a 501(3)c status.

[usurper]

I think you are under the miss-impression that NGOs such as the ACLU, Sierra Club, ACORN and others are funded through the benevolence of charitable contributions.

A significant amount of their money comes from government grants.

[airedale]

Isn’t it imputed income? If they didn’t provide the services for free the client would have to pay for it.

[Anima Mundi]

Some of the replies to you seem to think that you are saying the organizations would be taxed. I believe you are saying those receiving the services would be taxed.

This is a possible good tactic. This is sort of Alinsky-like. You take the premise of the enemy, in this case, paying taxes is good, and you press it to the max and apply it to their own sacred cows.

Excellent idea perhaps.

[factoryrat]

Only if they tell the feds about it. If you do “under the table” work, or “barter”, you’re supposed to compute the taxes from any estimated gains, or something like that. Like I’m actually going to let them in on that little secret.