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.
Let's look at the qualifications you've provided one at a time:
A private residence is not religious, educational, scientific or charitable, in nature or purpose.
My dad's a priest. He still actually does his taxes. He just doesn't get taxed on his housing. So :horror: do the taxpayers pay for it? Not really (see below). And also, the church pays for some of it. It's part of the willing offering that the churchgoers do. This also covers many Christian charities. That's part of the tithe, or 10% offering, which accounts for about $50 billion given to others all told (that's a low estimate, $373 billion listed elsewhere). YOU are not paying it.
So then, if the charities get that much, surely the priest is loaded and must get tons of money himself. Sorry, nope. They are paid as bad as schoolteachers.
The Jewish priest earns $100k more. Maybe they don't get housing included and that's how they make up for it, maybe Jews are more popular, I dunno but they seem to make do. On the other hand, a priest is not making big bucks. So my question, what are you jealous about? Why want to take it away?
Here's another thing that might interest you. The taxes you supposedly owe? It's a fraud. Income tax is not necessary to run the government, and in fact wasn't done as a permanent thing until 1913. Nor is it done in all states, some conservative states like Texas do not have it, and have better job growth. So, no, it isn't this deal where you're giving taxes unwillingly to the poor. That's welfare. Some of it is exemption, some is part of the collection, but it's taken care of. What isn't, is the rising cost of stuff like Social Security, Food Stamps, etc, etc, etc. Who pays that? You. Me. Random dudes that are richer than whoever is collecting. Is it reasonable to expect that a worker receive his wages? Yes, and it's biblical. "5Whatever house you enter, begin by saying, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. 7Stay at the same house, eating and drinking whatever you are offered. For the worker is worthy of his wages.b Do not move around from house to house."
The church is using the money for charitable means. They get exempt. They pass on that exemption because they are decent ppl. Unlike you apparently, who despite probably getting some side effect of church handouts (any organization that helps ppl gets at least some church donations) or maybe welfare, act like an ungrateful twit. You're very welcome btw.
Most private residences contain furniture and appliances purchased for the owner's personal use, by the owner from their own working salary. That is most definitely an example of 'net earnings' being inured to the benefit of a private individual.
I'm not sure that's paid for. http://catholicdioceseofwichita.org/...2042014-1/file
"Furniture/furnishings the priest takes with him when he moves." Why would the church buy furniture that the priest with him when he moves? Also, it's marked here under personal expenses.
By voting, or addressing a city council, a homeowner is attempting to 'influence legislation'.
Wrong. The priest is acting as a citizen. Nor is the church holding election boths in their church an attempt to influence elections. An attempt to influence elections would be like the entire temple trying to literally elect Hillary or Obama, because they have an interest as a Muslim for promoting Islam, or as a leftist to promote leftist policy. Or likewise as some other religion. What they mean is a church behaving like a labor union and gang-pressing members to vote or else. They don't do this.
Again, by voting, a homeowner intervenes in a political campaign.
I'm starting to believe you're stupid. You don't appear to get the difference between private and public. I'll spell it out for you. The citizen is a private citizen. The church is a private collective subject to these laws. Unless you want to point out a church that has bribed political officials to drop out, donated their offering money to a candidate, or sabotaged an election. And you know what? If they did do that, they can lose their exemption. How Can a Church Lose Its 501(c) Status? | LegalZoom Legal Info
This much, I won't dispute -- the owner of a private residence must still follow the law.
The church must follow the law. The deal is with the church, not the minister, so long as the minister doesn't lead his church to defy the law. In return, the church is exempt as an organization. As part of cost-saving they pass on their benefits in lieu of the extra money it would take to have the priest around if they had to provide housing. And some churches do start a collection instead of having a parish as our church did (we had an old run-down parish house that literally had mold and the priest bought her house instead, so our priest doesn't even have housing exempt, unless she needs it).
So, given that a private residence fails to qualify under four of your five criteria, why should such a private residence receive an exemption from reporting their housing allowance?
Now, let's hold up all of the good a church does (even HuffPost agrees and they're secular as hell), against a mosque. I don't hear anyone telling about how it's so horrible they get exemptions. So how is it they deserve their exempt status?
All mosques are in violation of our tax laws, and actually violate the public policy of our country that assures Americans that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Let me go over this point by point.1. a mosque must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes. Muslims, while inside mosques, engage in recruiting terrorists and jihad training within their confines, and none of this is for religious purposes or for charity but is for the singular purpose of killing or hurting those they consider infidels. 2. net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder.Muslims, while inside mosques, raise monies to bail terrorists out of jail, and to send monies overseas to support recognized terrorist organizations like The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. 3. no substantial part of the mosque’s activity may be attempting to influence legislation.Muslims, while inside mosques, hold meetings to organize, push for, and write papers and such to prepare their case for sharia law to be implemented in this country. 4. a mosque may not intervene in political campaigns.Muslims, while inside mosques, actively work for, and campaign for, muslim or pro-muslim leaning candidates so they win their elections and thus can infiltrate our government and influence legislation in their favor, and5. a mosque’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy. And here in number 5 is the hoped for sticking point, for a mosque to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to anything that our government declares ‘legal,’ that mosque has jeopardized its tax exempt status.
Sharia law btw, always acts in opposition to what our law declares legal, because it is a rival law system, so yea. Congrats, 5 for 5. Meanwhile, none of your 5 were correct, as they discussed actions of ministers (private citizens under the law) not the temple (as I demonstrated with the above quote) as a whole. So when you're done apologizing for Islam while at the same time persecuting the church for doing nothing but making you uncomfy (suck it up), perhaps you'd like to tell us why it's important to you to try to defund an organization that helps everyone, including those very people I mentioned that seem to deserve it the least.
My dad's a priest. He still actually does his taxes. He just doesn't get taxed on his housing. So :horror: do the taxpayers pay for it? Not really (see below).
Yes they do. If clergy don't pay taxes on a portion of their income, then they are paying fewer taxes. If fewer taxes are collected, deficits increase, which increases debt, which increases debt service, which increases taxes. Which I pay.
Quote:
And also, the church pays for some of it. It's part of the willing offering that the churchgoers do. This also covers many Christian charities. That's part of the tithe, or 10% offering, which accounts for about $50 billion given to others all told (that's a low estimate, $373 billion listed elsewhere). YOU are not paying it.
Any other profession receiving housing as a part of compensation has to pay taxes on the fair value of the housing. University presidents are an example. They often receive housing as part of the position, they entertain in that house, they work for a non-profit, and they have to pay taxes on the value of the housing. Therefore it is not relevant who pays for the housing, clergy tax exmption is simply legal tax evasion
Quote:
So then, if the charities get that much, surely the priest is loaded and must get tons of money himself. Sorry, nope. They are paid as bad as schoolteachers.
$33,420. For a Catholic Priest. $36k for most Protestants.
The Jewish priest earns $100k more. Maybe they don't get housing included and that's how they make up for it, maybe Jews are more popular, I dunno but they seem to make do. On the other hand, a priest is not making big bucks. So my question, what are you jealous about? Why want to take it away?
If they don't make big bucks, their taxable income will be relatively low and they won't have to pay much. That would be fair. Instead, they have to pay less than other relatively poor people.
Quote:
Here's another thing that might interest you. The taxes you supposedly owe? It's a fraud. Income tax is not necessary to run the government, and in fact wasn't done as a permanent thing until 1913. Nor is it done in all states, some conservative states like Texas do not have it, and have better job growth. So, no, it isn't this deal where you're giving taxes unwillingly to the poor. That's welfare. Some of it is exemption, some is part of the collection, but it's taken care of. What isn't, is the rising cost of stuff like Social Security, Food Stamps, etc, etc, etc. Who pays that? You. Me. Random dudes that are richer than whoever is collecting. Is it reasonable to expect that a worker receive his wages? Yes, and it's biblical. "5Whatever house you enter, begin by saying, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. 7Stay at the same house, eating and drinking whatever you are offered. For the worker is worthy of his wages.b Do not move around from house to house."
Your feelings on income tax should go to economics or great debates. The fact is income tax exists, and clergy are treated differently than others.
Quote:
The church is using the money for charitable means. They get exempt. They pass on that exemption because they are decent ppl.
Don't be ridiculous. It isn't legal to pass on a tax exemption, and tax law doesn't work that way.
Quote:
Unlike you apparently, who despite probably getting some side effect of church handouts (any organization that helps ppl gets at least some church donations) or maybe welfare, act like an ungrateful twit. You're very welcome btw.
Not true. I doubt planned parenthood gets church donations. I know that a friend of mine that runs a non-profit dedicated to getting prostitutes off the street complains that churches never donate to her charity. I work for a college, and we don't receive any church donations.
Fact is, it really doesn't matter what responses are given to the OP. I could present several peer-reviewed studies from major universities and they'd still complain. The pack of naysayers here is here for one thing: to bash religion. They're not willing to listen to reason, but to whine and moan only.
Fact is, it really doesn't matter what responses are given to the OP. I could present several peer-reviewed studies from major universities and they'd still complain. The pack of naysayers here is here for one thing: to bash religion. They're not willing to listen to reason, but to whine and moan only.
I'm not sure how pointing out an injustice (a tax break that no other class of people can access) turns into bashing religion? No one I am aware of wants to restrict your belief in any religion you choose, as long as that religion does not impact others who choose not to believe your particular brand of the supernatural. When an entity, or a person, pays less tax than another, it affects others.
I'm not sure how pointing out an injustice (a tax break that no other class of people can access) turns into bashing religion?
Again...doesn't really matter what we actually say to defend it, does it? You're bound and determined it's an injustice.
Quote:
No one I am aware of wants to restrict your belief in any religion you choose, as long as that religion does not impact others who choose not to believe your particular brand of the supernatural. When an entity, or a person, pays less tax than another, it affects others.
It is not right. Period.
Every day people in this country pay taxes that others don't pay. Others get deductions that others don't get. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
Fact is, it really doesn't matter what responses are given to the OP. I could present several peer-reviewed studies from major universities and they'd still complain. The pack of naysayers here is here for one thing: to bash religion. They're not willing to listen to reason, but to whine and moan only.
Not at all true. If you give responses that make sense and aren't internally contradictory you will probably convince a few people.
All you have done is try to confuse the conversation and ignore facts.
Again...doesn't really matter what we actually say to defend it, does it? You're bound and determined it's an injustice.
Yes, it is an injustice. But how does that bash religion? It is bashing the practice.
Quote:
Every day people in this country pay taxes that others don't pay. Others get deductions that others don't get. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
You're absolutely right. However, name me one other class of individuals, defined by law, that can write off the entire value of their housing allowance? Tax free. You can't, can you, and that is the issue.
Yes, it is an injustice. But how does that bash religion? It is bashing the practice.
Perhaps I assumed that since you linked to an article quoting Dan Barker that you actually believed as he does. He's a bitter ex religious person who has made it his life mission to kill Christianity.
And no--it's not an injustice anymore than giving a tax cut to any group of people is an injustice.
Quote:
You're absolutely right. However, name me one other class of individuals, defined by law, that can write off the entire value of their housing allowance? Tax free. You can't, can you, and that is the issue.
And no--it's not an injustice anymore than giving a tax cut to any group of people is an injustice.
Ok, I will run with this one.
Based on this statement, you seem to be acknowledging that the tax cut doesn't have a religious basis. It is simply arbitrary tax policy. Given that, we should then see if there is a compelling reason to maintain this tax cut. Other tax laws are generally wriitten to promote something. We deduct mortgage interest because we recognize home ownership as beneficial. We give deductions for children because we recognize children as economically non-productive and parents have an extra burden in raising them. We deduct business expenses to promote economic activity, and so forth.
I see no reason why clergy, as a group, are deserving of this tax benefit. There is simply no compelling public interest in providing a private benefit of this nature.
Based on this statement, you seem to be acknowledging that the tax cut doesn't have a religious basis. It is simply arbitrary tax policy. Given that, we should then see if there is a compelling reason to maintain this tax cut. Other tax laws are generally wriitten to promote something. We deduct mortgage interest because we recognize home ownership as beneficial. We give deductions for children because we recognize children as economically non-productive and parents have an extra burden in raising them. We deduct business expenses to promote economic activity, and so forth.
I see no reason why clergy, as a group, are deserving of this tax benefit. There is simply no compelling public interest in providing a private benefit of this nature.
Get rid of it.
Thankfully your opinion is of little consequence in this issue.
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.
