Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This common, unsavory tactic of yours generates heat but not light. No one said or even remotely implied any such thing. No one even said it would be impossible under any circumstance to respect a pastor who is wealthy. None of those issues are being discussed.
What's at issue is a clear misuse of special privilege to accumulate wealth in violation of the intent of the tax laws. It is arrogant, entitled, opportunistic behavior unbecoming someone claiming to be a man or woman of god.
Why would you be comfortable with a pastor living in the inherent conflict of interest of teaching moderation, humility, temperance, balance, ethics, morality, etc and living like a king on the backs not only of one's parishioners, but of other taxpayers as well? Why would you be comfortable with a pastor testing the limits of the law or what can be gotten away with, when they should be decrying such practices? Why would you be comfortable with a pastor flouting the law and thus failing to be "beyond reproach" ... one of the key Biblical requirements of a pastor's qualifications?
Is it reasonable for a pastor to own five parsonages? For what purpose does she need that many homes? Does she not like the parquet floor in the first four?
If she's giving away 80% of her exempt monies to charity, and she still has enough left to own and support five parsonages, why doesn't she set an example for her flock and display some humility by living in just one?
So, yeah, I'm asking the same questions the IRS is asking: what in the world is going on?
I don't think it is reasonable for a pastor to own one parsonage. The pastor is not the non-profit church. If a church owns a parsonage, that is one thing. If a pastor owns it, it clearly is personal property. The home should be taxed the same as any other home.
This common, unsavory tactic of yours generates heat but not light. No one said or even remotely implied any such thing. No one even said it would be impossible under any circumstance to respect a pastor who is wealthy. None of those issues are being discussed.
What's at issue is a clear misuse of special privilege to accumulate wealth in violation of the intent of the tax laws. It is arrogant, entitled, opportunistic behavior unbecoming someone claiming to be a man or woman of god.
Why would you be comfortable with a pastor living in the inherent conflict of interest of teaching moderation, humility, temperance, balance, ethics, morality, etc and living like a king on the backs not only of one's parishioners, but of other taxpayers as well? Why would you be comfortable with a pastor testing the limits of the law or what can be gotten away with, when they should be decrying such practices? Why would you be comfortable with a pastor flouting the law and thus failing to be "beyond reproach" ... one of the key Biblical requirements of a pastor's qualifications?
That certainly is the implication that a pastor can not be wealthy and Christian. If she is truly giving over 80% of the funds to charitable functions then I don't see any fault with enjoying the blessings of living comfortable. For all we know, these houses were funded by sales of her books and there is nothing wrong with personally profiting from one's hard work. She has been under IRS investigation on and off for over a decade. Funny that no charges are ever brought forth.
That certainly is the implication that a pastor can not be wealthy and Christian. If she is truly giving over 80% of the funds to charitable functions then I don't see any fault with enjoying the blessings of living comfortable. For all we know, these houses were funded by sales of her books and there is nothing wrong with personally profiting from one's hard work. She has been under IRS investigation on and off for over a decade. Funny that no charges are ever brought forth.
Did you even read the article? The houses, and the utilities, are being paid for with church funds.
For once, you post an expose' that gets even me twisted up!
Wow...what a scam! Terrible. The people are getting shafted!
In the interest of what is fair and just, something needs to be done about this! And post haste!
If I haven't entirely got you sussed Out (actually I don't think I said I had - I had seen though your argument) is it any wonder? Am I the only one to think that our pal is pulling our metaphorically collective plonker here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Did you even read the article? The houses, and the utilities, are being paid for with church funds.
Are you OK with that?
Jeff is ok with anything the church does so long as he is ok with whatever it does.
Remind me - what is his view on Evangelical Learjets?
I don't think it is reasonable for a pastor to own one parsonage. The pastor is not the non-profit church. If a church owns a parsonage, that is one thing. If a pastor owns it, it clearly is personal property. The home should be taxed the same as any other home.
Yes, that's rather the way I see it. Of course if you can claim a Learjet is needed for Church work, then you can claim you need five parsonages to use as a base for evangelical work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
So you only respect pastors who live in poverty?
No. But living in Luxury or extravagance is overdoing it. Besides, the issue here is, isn't it? What is earned personally is subject to Tax. What is earned and used by the church is (by law) exempt. The question arises of what is personal earnings and what is Church.
Kent Hovind was banged up for guessing wrong. We may be looking at another fraud case.
Yes, that's rather the way I see it. Of course if you can claim a Learjet is needed for Church work, then you can claim you need five parsonages to use as a base for evangelical work.
No. But living in Luxury or extravagance is overdoing it. Besides, the issue here is, isn't it? What is earned personally is subject to Tax. What is earned and used by the church is (by law) exempt. The question arises of what is personal earnings and what is Church.
Kent Hovind was banged up for guessing wrong. We may be looking at another fraud case.
The article is old and the IRS has never charged her with any wrongdoing. I kinda think that means she hasn't done anything wrong.
Quote:
The inquiry in question was launched in 2007 by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Finance, and concluded in 2011. Meyer was targeted in the financial probe along with ministers Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Paula White, Eddie Long, and Kenneth Copeland. The group, its members also referred to as prosperity preachers, was dubbed the "Grassley Six."
None of the targeted ministers were obligated to comply with the Senate committee's requests for detailed information on their financial practices, and faced no penalties for choosing not to. Meyer and Hinn did respond to the inquires and were commended by the panel for doing so, although Meyer was the only one who's ministry joined the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA).
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,882,410 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The article is old and the IRS has never charged her with any wrongdoing. I kinda think that means she hasn't done anything wrong.
July 5, 2016 is old? What is with this frequent trope fundamentalist are pulling out lately dismissing negative news as "old news". Hardly being honest, is it?
That certainly is the implication that a pastor can not be wealthy and Christian. If she is truly giving over 80% of the funds to charitable functions then I don't see any fault with enjoying the blessings of living comfortable. For all we know, these houses were funded by sales of her books and there is nothing wrong with personally profiting from one's hard work. She has been under IRS investigation on and off for over a decade. Funny that no charges are ever brought forth.
Well, if the houses were bought with her books proceeds, then that's personal income which the 16th amendment states may be taxed...
She just has good lawyers...A friend of mine fought the IRS for over 12 years, even received a letter of apology from the IRS for harassment, but, in the end he finally got nailed...So Will Meyers...
If I haven't entirely got you sussed Out (actually I don't think I said I had - I had seen though your argument) is it any wonder? Am I the only one to think that our pal is pulling our metaphorically collective plonker here?
Nothing of my views is new here TRANS.
Do a search under my handle for "Organized Religion". I have never endorsed Organized Religion and have always been of the view that the world would be better off without it.
I have also always felt, and stated, that only the legitimately charitable component of a Religious based entity be tax exempt. Tax all the rest of it the same as anything else in that tax district.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I haven't entirely got you sussed Out (actually I don't think I said I had - I had seen though your argument) is it any wonder? 
Am I the only one to think that our pal is pulling our metaphorically collective plonker here?
