• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down law that gives clergy members tax-free housing allowances

Kreton said:
If the church cant afford the missions then so be it. It will not stop or prohibit people from attending a service or worshipping.
Click to expand...

What you apparently miss is that Mission work is a major part of the doctrine of many of these churches. Whether that's the local food pantry, UNICEF, LAMP, or any number of other missions inside and outside of their local communities.
 
Kreton said:
You dont know what so ever, nor have I ever said anything to indicate hatred for a religion. Get off your high horse and stop trying to guess at things and instead try to address what was actually written.
Click to expand...

Yes....And you wrote this: "The fact is most churches spend a decent amount of money on missions, harassing people and various other activities that would easily cover the cost of the taxes." Why? Because you hold no ill feelings for religion obviously...:roll: Maybe you should not try and be clever...You're not good at it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
From the link in the OP:



sounds to me like a government subsidy for ministers, which would be a violation of the Constitution. My tax money shouldn't go to support religion, should it?

While there at it, maybe they could take a look at some of the other exemptions and exclusions that are unfair to the rest of the taxpayers.
Click to expand...


Agreed, that would cover all group specific exemptions.
 
danarhea said:
I agree with this decision. In giving clergy members special treatment over everybody else, when paying taxes does not hinder their ability to do their job, the establishment clause of the US Constitution is violated.

I guess I don't need to beat the IRS by forming my own religion now. LOL.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

It should be noted, just to be fair, that although the housing allowance is excluded from income tax it is subject to self employment tax. It should also be noted that the tax is applied even if the clergy member doesn't own the property.
 
Dittohead not! said:
From the link in the OP:



sounds to me like a government subsidy for ministers, which would be a violation of the Constitution. My tax money shouldn't go to support religion, should it?

While there at it, maybe they could take a look at some of the other exemptions and exclusions that are unfair to the rest of the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

The Church racket is the biggest single fraud in America. The IRS processes hundreds of thousands "Church" applications. Most non-profits are scams and the religion scam is the biggest of them all.

Send your Donations to The Church Of The Most Holy Specklebang. Taxes are for little people.
 
Tigger said:
Yes, the wealth of the congregation does figure into the health of a church. I won't/can't speak for the Catholic Church and its heirarchy since that's not something I am intimately familiar with. I do see that doing this would force churches to decrease the monies available for things like missions and outreach work. It would put the storefronts out of business ASAP. The mega church groups would not really be affected. How about when a church has a large following but simply doesn't have money? Inner cities. Small midwestern towns. Things like that.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this affects the Church, it affects the preacher. The Preacher has to pay taxes on the value for the use of the house. I would think the Church doesn't 'belong' to the Preacher and he gets to dip into the tithes for his personal use.

I am very familiar with small town churches- they vary is size from the simplest building to the First Baptist Church- a huge building. Each does what it can, the tiny churches we have in Walters don't fund massive outreach programs now. I dare say the preacher for the First Baptist having to pay a fair value amount in taxes on the use of the 'Church house' doesn't dent the outreach programs, might dent his sending his kids to a non church supported school a mite....

The mission work the Church does over seas is done through a private donation drive within the entire community and those going on the mission. The Church in no way funds the trips 100%, so I don't see that as a hit. Now back in the days I attended the First Methodist Church we had more envelopes than a postal carrier! One was for the building fund, one for the community service work, and one for the overseas church we supported in Africa. Separate money going into a separate pocket so the issue doesn't seem to be one of affecting the good works a church may or may not actually be engaged in.

Now inner city churches- I can see a national network type church pulling a money draining church. But that is a different issue I would say.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No, but it is a violation of the 14th amendment. It does not establish any particular national religion, but it does offer unequal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

The first amendment prohibits a great deal more than just the official endorsement of a national religion. The government cannot prop one religion up over others in any way, nor religion over the secular. You'd have to see if precedent supports your 14th amendment argument, though. I don't think it does.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are way out there now, since the clergy are not self employed - they are paid employees of the church.
Click to expand...

Actually many preachers are self employed, much simpler for the smaller churches to meet the tax codes. A business that provides something of value in lieu of salary for an employee has to report that as an expense for the business- it would appear on the W4 of the employee. Until now that was an exemption for the Church and employee, now apparently it won't be.
 
Tigger said:
What you apparently miss is that Mission work is a major part of the doctrine of many of these churches. Whether that's the local food pantry, UNICEF, LAMP, or any number of other missions inside and outside of their local communities.
Click to expand...

Just because they really want to be able to do these things with their money rather than pay their taxes doesn't mean that they should. I find it hilarious that you have your lean as "very conservative" and yet you are on here talking about these people should have special rights and priveledges. Aren't you people against that?
 
j-mac said:
Yes....And you wrote this: "The fact is most churches spend a decent amount of money on missions, harassing people and various other activities that would easily cover the cost of the taxes." Why? Because you hold no ill feelings for religion obviously...:roll: Maybe you should not try and be clever...You're not good at it.
Click to expand...

Acknowledging that churches harass people is a form of hate now? So then you either are saying that churches do not harass people or you hate religion as well. Which is it?

For the record I have had churches, sometimes the same church over and over again, even after I told them I have a church and not interested in theirs. Is that not harrassment? They leave flyers on people cars and doors, and hand them out in person. They are outside, downtown constantly asking me if I would like to pray or preaching about things people are doing whether warranted, asked for or not. I get phone calls from churches. I hear about it at work. The fact is churches spend a great deal of time and money finding more and more ways to tell people about their beliefs even after being asked to stop. They harass people.

Of course you must maintain that no church ever takes part in any of these or other types of activities because by acknowledging that these things ever happen would mean you sir must hate the religion.
 
Paschendale said:
The first amendment prohibits a great deal more than just the official endorsement of a national religion. The government cannot prop one religion up over others in any way, nor religion over the secular. You'd have to see if precedent supports your 14th amendment argument, though. I don't think it does.
Click to expand...

Care to support that bold assertion using a precedent?

Tax law special provision overturned by equal protection argument:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/ebrody/classes/brodynonprofitf08/Coursedocs/brody-EOTR-prop-tax.pdf
 
notquiteright said:
Actually many preachers are self employed, much simpler for the smaller churches to meet the tax codes. A business that provides something of value in lieu of salary for an employee has to report that as an expense for the business- it would appear on the W4 of the employee. Until now that was an exemption for the Church and employee, now apparently it won't be.
Click to expand...

Again you screw up. A W4 declares your filing status and number of dependents to the employer, a W2 declares taxable income paid to and taxes withheld from the employee. ;)
 
notquiteright said:
I don't see how this affects the Church, it affects the preacher. The Preacher has to pay taxes on the value for the use of the house. I would think the Church doesn't 'belong' to the Preacher and he gets to dip into the tithes for his personal use.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for the Protestant (predominantly Lutheran) churches I'm familiar with, but in those cases the Pastor is a salaried employee. They get a weekly/monthly paycheck just like the rest of us. That is what they have to live on, no dipping into church funds for personal expenses.


Kreton said:
Just because they really want to be able to do these things with their money rather than pay their taxes doesn't mean that they should. I find it hilarious that you have your lean as "very conservative" and yet you are on here talking about these people should have special rights and priveledges. Aren't you people against that?
Click to expand...

What I think you're missing is that organized religious groups and clergy have a slightly different place in society than a regular citizen or business. This nation was founded on the ideal that the Government has no place in religious matters. Unfortunately that's changed somewhat over the years, but that is the foundation upon which these tax exemptions were created. To remove them would totally change the church-government relationship.
 
danarhea said:
I agree with this decision. In giving clergy members special treatment over everybody else, when paying taxes does not hinder their ability to do their job, the establishment clause of the US Constitution is violated.

I guess I don't need to beat the IRS by forming my own religion now. LOL.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, IRS Code section 119 pertains to this type of housing.

26 USC § 119 - Meals or lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a) Meals and lodging furnished to employee, his spouse, and his dependents, pursuant to employment
There shall be excluded from gross income of an employee the value of any meals or lodging furnished to him, his spouse, or any of his dependents by or on behalf of his employer for the convenience of the employer, but only if—

(1)in the case of meals, the meals are furnished on the business premises of the employer, or

(2)in the case of lodging, the employee is required to accept such lodging on the business premises of his employer as a condition of his employment.​


So, for example, when the President of a University of California campus, say UC Berkeley, is provided housing as a requirement of employment, the value of the use of the mansion he gets to live in is not taxable as income.

But, as a result of the lawsuit brought by the "Freedom from Religion" activists, a Minister living in a church provided home, as a requirement of employment, must claim the use of a church provided home as income.

Perhaps the fallout from this suit will strike deeper than intended. Liberal educators will likely have some problems, if I'm reading this right.
 
Tigger said:
What I think you're missing is that organized religious groups and clergy have a slightly different place in society than a regular citizen or business. This nation was founded on the ideal that the Government has no place in religious matters. Unfortunately that's changed somewhat over the years, but that is the foundation upon which these tax exemptions were created. To remove them would totally change the church-government relationship.
Click to expand...

So to be clear, you do think that special rights are more important that equal rights? That because someone serves the church they should not be held to the same standard as the rest of us. It is important to you that certain groups be given special rights and priveledges? Does that about sum it up?
 
Kreton said:
So to be clear, you do think that special rights are more important that equal rights? That because someone serves the church they should not be held to the same standard as the rest of us. It is important to you that certain groups be given special rights and priveledges? Does that about sum it up?
Click to expand...

I don't believe in Rights. I believe in Privileges, granted by society to those who have proven themselves capable and willing to maintain proper lifestyle. I also believe that the Government and Religious Organizations should be totally separated; neither one having anything else to do with the other. TOTAL SEPARATION of Church and State.
 
Tigger said:
I don't believe in Rights. I believe in Privileges, granted by society to those who have proven themselves capable and willing to maintain proper lifestyle. I also believe that the Government and Religious Organizations should be totally separated; neither one having anything else to do with the other. TOTAL SEPARATION of Church and State.
Click to expand...

So you dont think the government has the right to tax? And since you believe in priveledges not rights you dont think think you have a right to bare arms, or freedom of speech? Which then sounds like you believe in total government control. In which that control would extend the priveledge of taxes the church the same as anyone else.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Again you screw up. A W4 declares your filing status and number of dependents to the employer, a W2 declares taxable income paid to and taxes withheld from the employee. ;)
Click to expand...

You are desperate to try and sound like you know something. :roll:

Yes I switched W4 and 2 but the employer still has to report the payments/fair market value just like banks and investment houses report an interest income directly to the IRS.

Nothing changed.
 
Tigger said:
I can only speak for the Protestant (predominantly Lutheran) churches I'm familiar with, but in those cases the Pastor is a salaried employee. They get a weekly/monthly paycheck just like the rest of us. That is what they have to live on, no dipping into church funds for personal expenses.
Click to expand...

The last part is kinda what I was driving at, the monies gathered for outreach and mission work are separate from the money going to a preacher. This preacher of yours, was his paycheck based on the weekly tithes given? Who wrote the check? Was it the local congregation or the supervising religious leadership? I ask all of that because it seems to me the tax change doesn't affect the Church's good works but rather the lifestyle of the individual Preachers.
 
Kreton said:
So you dont think the government has the right to tax? And since you believe in priveledges not rights you dont think think you have a right to bare arms, or freedom of speech? Which then sounds like you believe in total government control. In which that control would extend the priveledge of taxes the church the same as anyone else.
Click to expand...

I strongly believe in the right to bare arms. As a matter of fact, I am wearing a sleeveless t-shirt right now. :mrgreen:
 
notquiteright said:
The last part is kinda what I was driving at, the monies gathered for outreach and mission work are separate from the money going to a preacher. This preacher of yours, was his paycheck based on the weekly tithes given? Who wrote the check? Was it the local congregation or the supervising religious leadership? I ask all of that because it seems to me the tax change doesn't affect the Church's good works but rather the lifestyle of the individual Preachers.
Click to expand...

In all of the churches that I've been associated with there has been a separation of funds. One fund for the physical plant and operation of the church building and staff and another for missions, outreach, etc.... Monies could not be transfered from one to the other without a congregational meeting. Tithes given without an allocation were split 50/50. The pastor was paid by the congregation, from congregational funds based on a formal, written employment contract which spelled out his pay, benefits, etc... In every one of those congregations on an almost yearly basis there would have to be a "push" at the end of the year to get people to donate to the operational budget so that things like the heating and electric bills could be taken care of, along with other operational expenses. More than once we came way too close to not having the funds to meet operational obligations.
 
Kreton said:
So you dont think the government has the right to tax? And since you believe in priveledges not rights you dont think think you have a right to bare arms, or freedom of speech? Which then sounds like you believe in total government control. In which that control would extend the priveledge of taxes the church the same as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Under my reading of the US Constitution, I do not believe our current tax system is legal; however that's a topic for another time and place.

I believe that at this point Government control is the only practical means to reimpose proper order on society. I do not support the idea of otganized public religion to begin with. I believe it should be a private issue and that like all private issues it should be kept behind closed doors, not in the public eye. Given an opportunity to re-order society, public organized religion would be done away with. People could practice whatever they like in private, so long as it was consentual. Any extension of that into the public would draw significant reprecussions.
 
danarhea said:
I strongly believe in the right to bare arms. As a matter of fact, I am wearing a sleeveless t-shirt right now. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

For the record so do I. And i have seen Tigger many times mention that right in the gun threads. Suddenly when it suits his argument he doesn't believe in rights.
 
Tigger said:
Under my reading of the US Constitution, I do not believe our current tax system is legal; however that's a topic for another time and place.

I believe that at this point Government control is the only practical means to reimpose proper order on society. I do not support the idea of otganized public religion to begin with. I believe it should be a private issue and that like all private issues it should be kept behind closed doors, not in the public eye. Given an opportunity to re-order society, public organized religion would be done away with. People could practice whatever they like in private, so long as it was consentual. Any extension of that into the public would draw significant reprecussions.
Click to expand...

There goes freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, all in one sentence. Well done. LOL.
 
Tigger said:
Under my reading of the US Constitution, I do not believe our current tax system is legal; however that's a topic for another time and place.

I believe that at this point Government control is the only practical means to reimpose proper order on society. .
Click to expand...

SO then you believe that government control, including taking guns away from the public and a government imposed health care system would be appropriate? Interesting.

I do not support the idea of otganized public religion to begin with. I believe it should be a private issue and that like all private issues it should be kept behind closed doors, not in the public eye. Given an opportunity to re-order society, public organized religion would be done away with. People could practice whatever they like in private, so long as it was consentual. Any extension of that into the public would draw significant reprecussions
Click to expand...

And by that logic they wouldn't making money, and therefore wouldn't have a need to be taxed. But that is not the way it is. They are very public, and many religious institutions impose their will and beliefs into society and the government. Therefore even from the church end is not a separation of church and state. So your little argument that they shouldn't have to pay taxes still does not hold any water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom