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.
I'm sure this will get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. Somehow it seems right though, especially when one thinks that there are many low income workers who do not get that benefit. From the decision:
"A desire to alleviate financial hardship on taxpayers is a legitimate purpose, but it is not a secular purpose when Congress eliminates the burden for a group made up of solely religious employees but maintains it for nearly everyone else."
What possible argument could one make to maintain the exemption?
I'm sure this will get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. Somehow it seems right though, especially when one thinks that there are many low income workers who do not get that benefit. From the decision:
"A desire to alleviate financial hardship on taxpayers is a legitimate purpose, but it is not a secular purpose when Congress eliminates the burden for a group made up of solely religious employees but maintains it for nearly everyone else."
What possible argument could one make to maintain the exemption?
Religious institutions are not really tax payers, they get property and income special exemptions in pretty much every corner.
It is merely by tradition (because religion started out here getting paid for by the government) that our secular society has granted religious institutions such special tax breaks (without having to file for nonprofit status). Nonprofits thrive anyway (they just can't have a bank, and all money must be accounted for).
Do they not already receive housing tax-breaks (Catholic monks/nuns, etc) as long as they set themselves to keeping the rest of the population in check (i.e. applying to be an "accepted" religion)?
I'm sure this will get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. Somehow it seems right though, especially when one thinks that there are many low income workers who do not get that benefit. From the decision:
"A desire to alleviate financial hardship on taxpayers is a legitimate purpose, but it is not a secular purpose when Congress eliminates the burden for a group made up of solely religious employees but maintains it for nearly everyone else."
What possible argument could one make to maintain the exemption?
Housing costs are a business expense to a pastor. My pastor entertains in his home, and uses it for ministry. Heck...he had to rent a house because he took the job and moved. It's no different than anyone else that claims business expenses on their taxes.
My pastor has also opted out of SS, meaning he won't draw SS when he retires. To take away a housing allowance is a serious breach of trust between the government and America.
Nonprofits thrive anyway (they just can't have a bank, and all money must be accounted for).
Non-profits can have a bank, actually; they're just required to use surplus capital to run the business, instead of distributing the money to shareholders (or similar groups).
I'm sure this will get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. Somehow it seems right though, especially when one thinks that there are many low income workers who do not get that benefit. From the decision:
"A desire to alleviate financial hardship on taxpayers is a legitimate purpose, but it is not a secular purpose when Congress eliminates the burden for a group made up of solely religious employees but maintains it for nearly everyone else."
What possible argument could one make to maintain the exemption?
i am not surprised, vulgar free speech, vulgar gun laws, Vulgar welfare laws, and now this. A troop of chimps acting just like a troop of chimps.
Non-profits can have a bank, actually; they're just required to use surplus capital to run the business, instead of distributing the money to shareholders (or similar groups).
Oh that is weird. How do you use capital to run a business if it is sitting in the bank?
Housing costs are a business expense to a pastor. My pastor entertains in his home, and uses it for ministry. Heck...he had to rent a house because he took the job and moved. It's no different than anyone else that claims business expenses on their taxes.
My pastor has also opted out of SS, meaning he won't draw SS when he retires. To take away a housing allowance is a serious breach of trust between the government and America.
I'm not sure how your pastor's unwillingness to invest in Social Security has anything to do with "trust"
Why is the U.S. government running (aiding and abetting) the sweet business of pastors/clergy/imams/monks/etc?
I'm very confused by how anyone could ever think this stuff is fairness (other than saying that since States used to run religion (and give it tax exemption) such special exemptions should remain even now that States don't run religion, but it would still be a far-reach).
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-11-2017 at 07:19 PM..
Housing costs are a business expense to a pastor. My pastor entertains in his home, and uses it for ministry. Heck...he had to rent a house because he took the job and moved. It's no different than anyone else that claims business expenses on their taxes.
My pastor has also opted out of SS, meaning he won't draw SS when he retires. To take away a housing allowance is a serious breach of trust between the government and America.
How does that work? He doesn't have to pay into SS?
I'm not sure how your pastor's unwillingness to invest in Social Security has anything to do with "trust"
It's fairly typical of clergy in the US. They opt out of SS, and don't get a guaranteed income later. The housing allowance allows one to put money into a house and have assets later. Not to mention, cover business expenses, the way anyone else would do so.
Keep in mind, the housing allowance really just gives on a tax deduction off of the self-employment portion of the taxes. He is considered a private contractor, and pays self-employment fees. Just like any small business owner does. If you want to open a business and work out of your home, go for it. You can probably even get a deduction.
Quote:
Why is the U.S. government running (aiding and abetting) the sweet business of pastors/clergy/imams/monks/etc?
Because it makes for a healthy, stable society to have churches.
Quote:
I'm very confused by how anyone could ever think this stuff is fairness (other than saying that since States used to run religion (and give it tax exemption) such special exemptions should remain even now that States don't run religion, but it would still be a far-reach).
How does that work? He doesn't have to pay into SS?
No. And he doesn't draw from it later on.
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.
