Skip to main content

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As Congress looks for ways to cut billions of dollars from the federal budget, an Aug. 23 Wall Street Journal article shed light on a special tax privilege that makes it possible for any minister of the Gospel to “buy or live in multiple homes tax free.”

In one example The Journal cited, the U.S. Tax Court ruled that a millionaire minister did not owe federal income taxes on $408,638 provided to him by his ministry to buy a second home on a lake in Tennessee.

“At a time when the American people are facing grave fiscal challenges, it is simply outrageous to continue forcing taxpayers to pay for the housing of clergy members across the country,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, the national lobby for secular and nontheistic Americans. “Our Constitution protects citizens from having religion forced upon them, meaning no individual should have to subsidize anyone else’s religious organization through their tax dollars. As federal lawmakers consider ways to reduce our country’s deficit, these costly tax privileges for ministers should be among the first programs put on the chopping block.”  

Experts say that the parsonage allowance was originally devised to assist low-income clergy members. However, as The Journal notes, “[t]here is no restriction on the value of the home that can be claimed under the exemption.” As a result, there have been several high-profile cases of clergy paying no taxes on high-price real estate.

For example, in 2010 the Orange County Register reported that eight members of Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral Ministries in California, including five members of Schuller’s family, received the special clergy housing allowance totaling more than $832,000 annually – all of it subsidized by taxpayers.

In 2006, The New York Times reported, “Current Congressional budget records show that the exemption has cost the government as much as $500 million in tax revenue a year, shifting that much of the national tax burden onto other taxpayers.”

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) told The Journal, “It’s fair to question why a clergy member needs a tax-free allowance for more than one home, and whether tax-exempt churches should subsidize millionaire ministers.”

Earlier this year, a commission formed by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability at the request of Grassley to “spearhead an independent national effort to review and provide input on major accountability and policy issues affecting [religious] organizations” was criticized by the Secular Coalition and its member organizations for lacking representation from independent, secular, and non-evangelical Christian organizations.

 

http://secular.org/content/wal...ng-privileges-clergy

 

How do you guys feel about this?

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Skippy, they get no money in no way from the church?? Why is the LDS tax exempt?

Nope, Nun. Why does the US Federal Government Waste money on fraudulent Welfare(Free-Loaders)? Why does the Federal Government give money to China and other countries with no strings attached? Why is this Government Broke? Because of Government Fraud and Waste.

Better to Build Churches and Temples. To feed the poor. And to giving Disaster relief around the world. Remember Jenn I was a Finance Clerk for my local congregation. I was able to see first hand where our donations went. A good portion of it went to People in need right in our area. And not just members of our Church. Housing, food, clothing, utilities and in one case our church in our area bought someone in need a vehicle, so they could go to work. We have our own Employment program that not only trains but employs people until they are placed. Maybe in the future Churches should be taxed. But not until we get rid of all Government waste. Ha Ha.

Skippy

OK, so because of fraud and waste the church is entitled to be tax exempt. Don't go there about feeding the poor. IF churches actually did that there'd be no hunger in the world. BTW, using your reasoning shouldn't I be cheating on my taxes? There's so much fraud and waste shouldn't I do like the churches and get in on it?

How about the Corperations like GE? If Obama has his way will be feeding all of Mexico not to mention free Medical care. Trillions of Dollars spent on the stimulus. What do we have to show as a Country? Shovel ready jobs my As*. I personaly fret at paying the high taxes I do when I know it will be wasted or given to a free-loader. Tax the imports with tariffs. The only thing we are exporting is jobs.

Skippy

Dark

I don't see any reason why a minister needs more than one housing allowance. Unfortunately the tax code is so massive and all encompassing it is easy to find provisions to abuse and I think that's what this is ...abuse. I say get rid of ALL deductions, loopholes credits etc. including the sacred cows of charitable contribution and mortgage deduction and go to a flat rate.

I agree 100% that we should have a flat tax rate Red!

 

I don't see any reason why clergy should be given even 1 tax free housing allowance though. Basically that means that ALL Americans are footing the bill on their(clergy) share of taxes, regardless of their own personal religious beliefs.

 

I agree with the article, if we are looking at ways to cut the budget this to me is a good place to start, or at least include.

The full time ministers (General Authorities) are a minute fraction of the Ministry of our Church (LDS). And yes those that are not self sufficient receive a stipend and an apartment if needed. But the majority of officials receive nothing. This would include full time authorities administering around the World. I’m in favor of a flat rate for all as long as we can get rid of the Federal Government waste. I’m not for giving more money to the Government for them to distribute around the World such as China the UN ext.. And I’m not for the Domestic waste either. Dark Angel are you for Federal Government waste,

Welfare fraud, pork in any form?

Just Askin.

Skippy

I don't know anyone that would answer yes to that Skippy. But what you consider Government waste I may not. So I guess it would depend on what you had in mind.

 

To me we should seriously look at the tax privileges given to organized religions. That is just one of many things I feel is wrong with our Government. I am for welfare, free medical care for the poor, and taking care of our poor elderly. I think it can be stream lined and the defrauders ferreted out. We would save a lot of money if they actually implemented the laws and regulations that are already in the guidelines.

quote:   Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

99% of the clergy are low paid, and receive special tax deductions.  I have no problem with that.  That the other 1% abuse the tax breaks is easily cured by capping the amount of breaks they can take.  That millionaire ministers get to take huge housing allowances is just plain wrong.


Hi Crusty,

 

I agree with you completely!  And, I have another question for Jennifer.  Why complain about the (many living at poverty level) pastors who receive housing aid to support their families while the pastor is doing God's work to help people (this does not include the television shysters who have gotten rich off sharing false gospels) -- while we Americans give a fabulous mansion, the White House - TAX FREE -- to a man who does absolutely nothing for God, for America, nor for us?  

 

Why pay to have his wife's large entourage, costing millions of dollars -- and his multi-million dollar personal birthday party (at tax payer's expense) -- and then complain about poverty level pastors who get help, from their church and from tax breaks, to support their families.?

 

If we should restrict anyone -- START AT THE WHITE HOUSE.  Then, restrict things like ex-speaker Pelosi's personal jet at tax payers's expense.  Yes, Jennifer, there is a lot we can complain about -- but, poverty level pastors are not in that picture.

 

Or, Jennifer, isn't it true that you really have no problem with this tax break -- you just do not like anyone who is doing God's work in telling folks about salvation and eternal life?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Where should the POTUS live Bill? That is a silly thing to bring to this discussion. I agree that there are a lot of areas that our government can cut spending. But this topic is about special tax privileges for clergy.

 

Personally I don't think there should be such an exemption. If it is a small church then the pastor should have plenty of time to get a job M-F. If the church wants to have him free to do their biding then they should pay. Not me. I don't support their agenda or their beliefs. Yet my tax dollars are being used to support a religion. That is unconstitutional. Personally I could careless how the church spends their money. It's their business, but they should not have a break that others do not just because of that religion.

 

How do you feel about paying for the housing of a Muslim leader? Mormon? Scientologist? Do you like the idea of them receiving a tax break that helps them spend more of the money they get in donations to further their religious beliefs, while you pick up the tab?

DA says:

  "I am for welfare, free medical care for the poor, and taking care of our poor elderly. I think it can be stream lined and the defrauders ferreted out. We would save a lot of money if they actually implemented the laws and regulations that are already in the guidelines."

 

I just wanted to say that for once, I agree completely. If they would enforce existing laws, and at the same time close the tax loopholes so EVERYBODY paid their fair share, we could eliminate the deficit, balance the budget, and get America back on track.

 

But, as to the clergy getting free housing - most churches I know of own the parsonage building, and the pastor lives there and only gets paid enough for gas and groceries. It really is true that most of them are so poor that they WOULD qualify for welfare - even under the stricter rules and enforcement that you and I agree on.

 

And they don't have TIME, even in a small church, to get a job. They are on call 24/7. If someone gets sick, gets into an accident, has a suicidal moment, or any other need, they have to go, and go right now.  They don't just write a sermon and deliver it on Sunday. They make the rounds of all the local hospitals, they usually teach kids in confirmation classes, they run Bible studies, they usually do work at local homeless shelters - serving food, finding out what people need and getting it for them. They visit shut-ins, they organize events for the church and for charities.

 

Whether you agree with their beliefs or not, if you ever got to know a clergyperson, I think you'd agree that they are GOOD PEOPLE, who work selflessly to help others, and all for very very little pay - poverty level pay.

 

That doesn't mean there aren't creeps who run mega churches and do it for the money. But in the grand scheme of things, those types are a tiny percentage.

 

O No, if they are paid so poorly that they would qualify for welfare, then they would also qualify for the same tax deductions and exemptions any other person in America does in that situation. No need for there to be a special tax exemption for housing based on their religion.

 

That way the ones that are making the big money in these mega churches are paying their fair share of the tax burden.

 

Regardless of what you do for a living it should be fair. Some people build houses in small rural communities and don't really make that much money. Others in bigger cities make millions of dollars in construction. Their taxes are based on their income not their profession.

 

If they are not making a good enough living to take care of their families by being a clergy member then they should not expect me to pick up the tab for their decision to stay in that profession. Make a choice. Your family or your church. My husband is a musician at heart. He dearly loves playing music. He could be playing in bands in our small town for a few hundred dollars a week and doing what he loves. However that would not be enough to pay the bills. He has to work in a profession that does. So he works M-F at his job and then plays on the weekends when he can. Life is about choices.

Asking a clergyman to make a choice between his family and his chruch would be like asking a mother to choose between her two children. And as I said, most churches that I know of already OWN the parsonage. It is part of church property, so if anyone should be paying property tax on the building, it would be the entire church membership. I really think that most clergymen would qualify for at least food stamps, but they don't even apply for them, so they may not pay taxes, but they don't take the entitlements they qualify for either. I suppose if they were forced to pay taxes they could start accepting welfare and food stamps and heat assistance. They would probably end up costing taxpayers even more than they do now by simply not paying taxes.

Leave it to bill to try and muddy the water. If they can't live on their "salary" they should get another job, or do like the rest of us, let the wife go to work. There is nothing special about a preacher.  You love to try and preach, were you ever paid to do it? No, you'd probably pay to get to "play preacher." And bill, the US pays presidents, all of them. So that means even the ones we don't like. And bill, one more time, it's not a president's place to do anything for a god.

Anyone that would choose their profession over their family gets no respect from me. I know that Christians believe that God comes first, above their own wife and children and I think that is a horrible and very sad thing...but that is another discussion altogether. So as for the subject at hand, if the church owns the house then that does not apply to this discussion either. What we are talking about is clergy that get a special tax exemption for housing or buying a home (no matter how many homes they own). THAT is ridiculous.

 

Hi Dark,

You tell me, "Where should the POTUS live Bill?  That is a silly thing to bring to this discussion.  I agree that there are a lot of areas  that our government can cut spending.  But this topic is about special tax privileges for clergy."

That is true.  But, you and I know that Jennifer's reason for beginning this discussion was 100% based upon her dislike of  Christianity and all who feel called to share the Christian faith.

You say, "Personally I don't think there should be such an exemption.  If it is a small church then the pastor should have plenty of time to get a job M-F.  If the church wants to have him free to do their biding then they should pay.  Not me.  I don't support their agenda or their beliefs.  Yet my tax dollars are being used to support a religion.  That is unconstitutional.  Personally I could care less how the church spends their money.  It's their business, but they should not have a break that others do not just because of that religion."

Once again, that is a misconception.  The government is not GIVING money to support any church.  Actually, what is happening is that the churches, and the pastors, are not GIVING money to the government to support Congress's Pork Projects which have put us in such debt.  If you are willing to give Pork Project money to Congressmen/women to help them buy reelection in their own constituency -- that is an animal of a different color.  And, the same applies to the current White House resident and his high-spending wife.

And, finally, you say, "How do you feel about paying for the housing of a Muslim leader?  Mormon?  Scientologist?  Do you like the idea of them receiving a tax break that helps them spend more of the money they get in donations to further their religious beliefs, while you pick up the tab?"

Although these are world religions and cult religions -- but, technically, just like atheism, they are protected under our First  Amendment.  And, this tells us that Congress cannot declare any religion the national religion -- and, it also tells us that Congress,  i.e., the government, cannot prohibit any religious worship.  

 

In other words, the First Amendment protects our religious freedom and  it prevents government from forcing their choice of worship, or place of worship, upon we the people.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:   Originally Posted by Jennifer Bestworking:

Leave it to bill to try and muddy the water.  If they can't live on their "salary" they should get another job, or do like the rest of us, let the wife go to work.  There is nothing special about a preacher.


Hi Jennifer,

 

As much as I dislike using the word "hate" in a dialogue -- there is no other way to describe your attitude toward God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, Christians, and Christianity.   All you show is pure hatred.  Deep dislikes Christianity, mostly Creationism because it refutes his pet dog, Darwinian Evolution.   But, I do not recall any extended hatred in Deep's posts.  Yet, you, on the other hand, I find it difficult to find one of your posts which does not show deep hatred toward Christianity.   So, is it any wonder why you are against ANYTHING and EVERYTHING which would help a church, a pastor, or any Christian?

 

You say there is nothing special about a pastor.  While that is true of some of them, I have met many pastors who are very special, very Godly men -- men who dedicate their lives to helping others, especially helping others come to know Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior.   A truly Godly pastor is like a general practice doctor -- no hours are off-limits, he is on call 24/7/365.

 

Let me give you an example.  Pastor Sam, through whose love and tutelage I came to know the Lord 24 years ago -- is always the first one at the hospital in times of need.  A couple of years ago, my daughter-in-law had to go into the hospital for an emergency surgery.   They live about 50 miles from us, and the hospital was even further.  As soon as we got the phone call from our son -- we jumped in our car and drove straight to the hospital.

 

When we arrived at the hospital, Pastor Sam and his wife, Ida, were already there -- from the same distance.  And, Ida was still in a wheel chair -- having suffered several major heart attacks and recently being in the hospital for about three months as a result.  Yet, they beat us to the hospital.  That is a loving, Godly pastoral family.

 

And, yes, Ida did work -- 35 years, until her retirement, for an Orange County school district -- so that Pastor Sam could dedicate 110% of his time to doing God's work.

 

You say that pastors are not special people?  I can introduce you to many people who would disagree with you.  And, I can show you other pastors just as dedicated.

 

No, I do not begrudge pastors or churches for getting a tax exemptions.  But, I do look a little funny at a certain woman congressman from San Francisco who was, for a while, Speaker of the House -- and had to have her own private Air Force plane to taxi her home on the weekends -- at taxpayers' expense.

 

And, I do look a little funny at Mr. Obama's lavish multi-million dollar birthday party -- when the country is in the middle of a major economic crisis.   I do look a wee bit funny at Lady Obama's extremely large entourage, paid for by taxpayers' dollars -- and her lavish, high priced get aways for much needed (?) multiple vacations -- at taxpayers' expense.   All this for a woman, notice I do not say lady, who -- until her husband was nominated for president -- DID NOT LIKE AMERICA.  Hmmm?

 

Yes, Jennifer, I can think of a lot wrong with America -- but, it starts in Washington DC -- not in our churches.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

As much as I dislike using the word "hate" in a dialogue -- there is no other way to describe your attitude toward God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, Christians, and Christianity.   All you show is pure hatred.

 

 

 

Show one example of hate in my posts please. You're the hater bill, and you know it. BTW I have to remind you once more, I don't read your sermons, so try to KISS.

Bill,

for once I can agree with you 92.5%. You did pretty well until you dropped the cult bomb. The Constitution does protect religion in general from the Government Waste.

Keep in mind that the money contributed to religion for what ever reason has been taxed at least once already, through income tax if nothing else. The Churches usually own their buildings and pay for them out-right. A lot of the older Church Buildings in our church anyway were built from the ground up by members donating their time. The members also donated materials and cash. Our Church until the 70’s was a very poor Church. We settled the land in Utah before it was even a part of the United States. Then the United States so graciously sent Johnson’s Army to take Our Territory over. Never got a Dime. Sounds like what the US did to the Indians. We struggled and fought for every thing we have and had. My Great Grandfather lost a lot of his land at the entrance of Zion National Park. No Compensation whatsoever. The Government took the a lot of my family off to War that never returned. My Grandfather came back crippled from Europe WW2 but never complained. He later got Cancer from the above ground Nuclear Tests in Nevada from Fall- Out that fell directly over our Southern Utah Communities. No Compensation for that or the Government would cut of his VA benefits if he filed suit. Forgive me if I’m not beholding to Uncle Sam for all the good things he has done for us. And also as far as you non-believers you would not understand the way it works, but We just don’t go to our Church. We are Our Church, We the People. That’s the way it’s supposed to be with our Government. We the People! But unfortunately it’s not. There is so much Federal Government waste, if we were able to stop their(not OUR) spending and eliminate the waste, our Country would stand a chance. And as far as your Cult remark Bill. Who says that your not the one in the Cult, because I know it’s not me. But that’s for another tread, another time.

Skippy

Sorry Jenn this one's a no brainer.

US Constitution/ Bill of Rights reads;

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Being the conservative that I think you are, how can you not understand the massive waste, foreign

Governments receiving billions from the US, the welfare fraud going on( not talking about legit poor people that try. Or the elderly that are poor with no means of support. I don't think people that have paid into SS should not be forgotten about. Enough Farm subsidies, Enough Grants. Enough of all that crap. You would be surprised how well we the People would be if we followed some of Ron Paul's Economic Ideas. If you guys want to amend the Constitution, Give it a Shot. Religion is not the problem. Wake Up America. Enough with the Free Loaders.

Skippy





Did you know that if a person comes into my town, or even if a person has lived in my town all their lives, and they are in need, they are sent to any of the local churches who will provide food, clothing, hotel vouchers, medical care, whatever is needed on an emergency basis, all free of charge. That money comes from the church member's weekly donations. If there is a lot of need as there has been lately with this economy, the pastor deducts from his own salary so there will be enough money to cover these expenses. These churches will even help you find a job!

 

Without this help, these people would probably turn to the government for help. Food stamps, welfare, emergency room care that they can't be denied, you name it. In the long run, I'd be willing to bet that the tax exempt status of churches SAVES the taxpayers a bundle!

If I did not have to pay taxes I could do a lot more to help others too. If the community donated to secular groups that did the same things (feed the hungry, help with medicine for the poor etc) then they could do more too.

 

It is not that the churches deserve to get this special treatment, to me it is that they get the special treatment and then are expected to do the right thing with the extra money. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. (note: the pastor that bought the house on the lake in TN from the article) I believe it can be done without a god thrown in there.

 

Truthfully right now it is the churches obligation to the public to help them. They have been afforded these special privileges and by god they should at least do what they say they will do with it. I expect no less. I don't think they get a special award for doing what is right. But just as you and I both said, if the ones that take advantage of these kinds of breaks were weeded out then it would be a lot better for everyone concerned. Why not take the housing tax exemption away? At least hold the number to 1 house.....

 

I actually sent a homeless guy one time to a local church for help. I saw him the next day back in the alley behind where I worked and ask him why he was back there again. He said they gave him a sandwich and a little bible and sent him on his way. I had sent him to that particular church because I had been told by one of its members that they helped those in need. When I saw her again I told her about the homeless guy I had sent over there and his experience. She said that they must have thought he was on drugs or an alcoholic. I recently talked to someone who is a Christian and they were upset that during the tornado relief her group was told by a local pastor to not give any pain relievers (advil, tylonol) to any of those that came to the shelter set up to help if they appeared to be drug users. Also to watch the people and make sure they didn't take more than they should, because they might be taking the goods (food, water, blankets etc) and selling them for drugs.....Wow.....was all I could say. These were the people that had lost EVERYTHING.

Hey, look at this! We are having a productive conversation!

 

I agree that one home and one home only, should be provided for a clergyman. And if most (as I believe) churches own the parsonage, that should be the home.

 

And I agree that there are some churches who carry things too far. If they are afraid people will use things to buy drugs, they should be given something that can't be sold, such as a place to sleep and something to eat, and medical care if they need it. In big cities, it IS a problem when helping the needy. I know that when I am hit up by a panhandler, I often wonder if they will REALLY buy food, or if they will just go out and buy another bottle of rotgut or worse. If my intention is to HELP them, i'd rather give them a sandwich too.

 

But those who refused to give out Tylenol after the tornadoes were WAY out of line!

 

Christians are just like the general population in that respect - being a jerk is an equal opportunity fault.

Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

Anyone that would choose their profession over their family gets no respect from me. I know that Christians believe that God comes first, above their own wife and children and I think that is a horrible and very sad thing...but that is another discussion altogether. So as for the subject at hand, if the church owns the house then that does not apply to this discussion either. What we are talking about is clergy that get a special tax exemption for housing or buying a home (no matter how many homes they own). THAT is ridiculous.

 

__________

If the church owns the house, it is still very much in the discussion.  Housing is a form of payment that is normally taxable.  If the church can provide for huge salaries, it can provide for huge - or multiple - houses.

OK, just a hypothetical question then: If taxing churches caused more people to turn to government help,  thus costing taxpayers even more than giving churches tax exemptions cost them, would you still think churches should be taxed? Is your "principle" more important to you than the "practicality" of saving taxpayer dollars? Serious question - I'm curious. Thanks.

 

Then I read this today.....

 

Why Is the Military Spending Millions on Christian Contractors

http://www.alternet.org/teapar...soldiers?page=entire

 

From the article:

 

"As mentioned above, what MRFF is looking at does not include chaplains or chapels -- not even the excessive spending on extravagant "chapels" like the $30,000,000 mega-church at Fort Hood, or the "Spiritual Fitness" centers being built on many military bases as part of what are called Resiliency Campuses. The examples below are all strictly from DoD contracts, with the funding coming out of the appropriations for things like "Operations and Maintenance" and, somehow, "Research and Development." (Summaries of all contracts referenced below are publicly available atusaspending.gov)

 

DoD Funded Evangelical Christian Youth Programs

Service members are not the only ones targeted by evangelical Christian programs paid for with DoD contracts. Military children are also heavily targeted, both here in the U.S. and on bases overseas. Evangelizing the children of service members is one of the largest areas of spending.

The biggest ministry contracted by the DoD to target children is Military Community Youth Ministries (MCYM), whose mission statement is "Celebrate life with military teens, Introduce them to the Life-Giver, Jesus Christ, And help them become more like Him." MCYM has received $12,346,333 in DoD contracts since 2000. One of MCYM's tactics? Stalking "unchurched" military children by following their schools buses.

Ranking second is Cadence International, with over $2,671,603 in contracts since 2003. Cadence describes itself as "an evangelical mission agency dedicated to reaching the military communities of the United States and of the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ." Cadence not only targets young service members and military children for conversion to evangelical Christianity, but also actively tries to convert members of foreign militaries in the countries where they operate under DoD contracts.

In addition to military youth ministries like MYCM and Cadence, military children are also targeted by military base Religious Education Directors, also hired with DoD contracts. These ministries and Religious Education Directors employ tactics that can only be described as "stalking" children, with some DoD contracts even requiring that the contractors identify and target the "unchurched" children at non-religious events and activities and get them into chapel programs, and to supply reports naming these children by name."

Originally Posted by O No!:

OK, just a hypothetical question then: If taxing churches caused more people to turn to government help,  thus costing taxpayers even more than giving churches tax exemptions cost them, would you still think churches should be taxed? Is your "principle" more important to you than the "practicality" of saving taxpayer dollars? Serious question - I'm curious. Thanks.

 

 

If we did away with the tax exemption from religious groups and straightened out our welfare system I think you would find we save way more. People would not stop giving to their Churches and the amount (of taxes) they paid would be based upon how much they brought in as income. So small churches would not pay as much as mega churches, but all churches would have to rethink how they too, spend their money. I think if they were truly out to do what the bible teaches then they would stop building so many basketball courts and grand sanctuaries and continue to help the poor also.

 

Wouldn't they?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×