Those Kardashians think that by turning weddings into endorsement events, they're bringing their tacky versions of "taste" and "style" to the "poor" unwashed morons glued to their TV screens. To those people, the bozo in the too tight/wrong color shorts and ugly blouse are the most underprivileged persons in the world. Those starving people half a globe away aren't even on their radar.
The Kardashians DO write off a ton of their income--that's the "cost of doing business," you see. It's "maintenance"--like Jennifer Anniston writes off four hundred bucks a day on her beauty and fitness regimens--because her person is her business, and if it isn't maintained, she doesn't work. Or so she says.
The Kardashians DO solicit 'donations'--to corporations selling products that they endorse. The promise that comes with those donations is that they are going to help the person making the donation go from Ugly Duckling to Kardashian Swan. There's no difference between begging for money for Revlon and getting a kickback, or begging for money for Save The Starving Kiddies, and pocketing eighty percent of the income. Sure, the hook might be a kid with flies on their face, but what Save The Starving Kiddies is really selling is a SENSE OF SATISFACTION for the donator. It all goes back to the person parting with their cash, in the end. The Kardashians might be a bit more honest, but it's all bullshit.
Now, if the entire purpose of your Compare And Contrast Exercise was to lead up to your big conclusion that argues against churches getting tax breaks, you needn't have gone to all that trouble. I think they should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other major corporation, pay taxes like any other corporation, and particularly, pay property taxes to enhance the cities and towns in which they are located. They take up too much room, hand out too much shit, and don't pull their load.
= new reply since forum marked as read