That's not how taxes work.
Churches owe taxes because they conduct business in the United States. The government pays those taxes instead. That's a subsidy.
Churches owe taxes because they conduct business in the United States. The government pays those taxes instead. That's a subsidy.
And you owe the bully your lunch, because you conduct your presence in his class. When the bully says he won’t take your lunch today, he is actually buying you your lunch. That’s a subsidy.
If it sounds stupid, that’s because it is. Tax exemptions are not subsidies.
Alternatively, here's a definition of subsidy:
> A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks).
I just have to go with the definition. Part of the brevity of the original communication was that semantics shouldn't really require discussion, as words have meanings. Even if your position is believed, and taxation is coerced; "subsidy" is defined as including tax breaks. You might think it sounds weird that a bully giving the money back is a subsidy, but that's what that word means. I can find opinion pieces making the case you're making, but that's not the definition used by the majority of other publications.
It also really shouldn't matter either way. Whether the government is "subsidizing" a Library or "not bullying" a Church, the original point was that they are receiving special treatment from the government.
I don't mean to be flippant, but engaging with a disconnected hypothetical takes away from the discussion of reality. In my original comment, I believe I sufficiently communicated that I disagree that taxes are extortion. In the context of funding libraries and churches, I don't think that disagreement is going to lead us anywhere.