The ministry, what a racket

[Skwim]

and with the blessing and assistance of the government no less.


In another thread I brought up the fact that the U. S. government will forgive a portion of a student's educational loan debt if the student goes into the ministry. Nice little benefit. Additionally, there are other financial perks to going into the ministry.

According to IRS publication 517 a minister can request and receive an exemption from SE (self employment) tax. Ministers also receive tax-exempt allowances for a residential rental or parsonage.

Pretty nice, but why? What is it about being a minister that inspires such benefits?

Why, just because one decides to go into the business of serving a spiritual belief, should it prompt a forgiveness of debt? Why should a minister be exempt from paying self employment taxes? And why should money spent on housing be tax-exempt. I know mine certainly isn't.

Can anyone justify these perks?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

because of the separation of Church and state perhaps?

 

[Revoltingest]

because of the separation of Church and state perhaps?

....or because of a lack thereof.

 

[Smoke]

It seems to me that separation of church and state would mean no special privileges for clergy. What we have instead is a situation in which churches and clergy are effectively subsidized by the rest of us.

 

[Willamena]

Pretty nice, but why? What is it about being a minister that inspires such benefits?

Where I live (Canada) the government would subsidize any bachelor or master's degree for its employees, not just a degree in divinity. It's part of employee training and education.

 

[Skwim]

Where I live (Canada) the government would subsidize any bachelor or master's degree for its employees, not just a degree in divinity. It's part of employee training and education.

So the Canadian government also subsidizes a degree in divinity?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think Ministry's awesome:

[youtube]p4d3UaHSFM8[/youtube]

 

[Zadok]

and with the blessing and assistance of the government no less.


In another thread I brought up the fact that the U. S. government will forgive a portion of a student's educational loan debt if the student goes into the ministry. Nice little benefit. Additionally, there are other financial perks to going into the ministry.

According to IRS publication 517 a minister can request and receive an exemption from SE (self employment) tax. Minister also receive tax-exempt allowances for a residential rental or parsonage.

Pretty nice, but why? What is it about being a minister that inspires such benefits?

Why, just because one decides to go into the business of serving a spiritual belief, should it prompt a forgiveness of debt? Why should a minister be exempt from paying self employment taxes? And why should money spent on housing be tax-exempt. I know mine certainly isn't.

Can anyone justify these perks?

Ministers are not the only "profession" that receives government to pay student debt.

Being LDS - I do not believe in a paid ministry but when government passes a law to assist non-profit professions it is bigotry to think of prejudicial treatment towards a legal non-profit profession just because you do not happen to like that certain one.

Zadok

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pretty nice, but why? What is it about being a minister that inspires such benefits?

I don't think it excuses the practice, but I think these laws are the product of a time when most ministers took vows of poverty.

because of the separation of Church and state perhaps?

Subsidy of religion violates the separation of church and state.

Where I live (Canada) the government would subsidize any bachelor or master's degree for its employees, not just a degree in divinity. It's part of employee training and education.

We also give special tax credits solely to religious ministers and members of religious orders for housing.

Ministers are not the only "profession" that receives government to pay student debt.

Being LDS - I do not believe in a paid ministry but when government passes a law to assist non-profit professions it is bigotry to think of prejudicial treatment towards a legal non-profit profession just because you do not happen to like that certain one.

Zadok

Non-profit organizations and charities receive special treament on the basis of their presumed benefit to society. I see no bigotry in demanding that this special treatment be extended only to those who actually provide such benefit.

 

[sojourner]

and with the blessing and assistance of the government no less.


In another thread I brought up the fact that the U. S. government will forgive a portion of a student's educational loan debt if the student goes into the ministry. Nice little benefit. Additionally, there are other financial perks to going into the ministry.

According to IRS publication 517 a minister can request and receive an exemption from SE (self employment) tax. Minister also receive tax-exempt allowances for a residential rental or parsonage.

Pretty nice, but why? What is it about being a minister that inspires such benefits?

Why, just because one decides to go into the business of serving a spiritual belief, should it prompt a forgiveness of debt? Why should a minister be exempt from paying self employment taxes? And why should money spent on housing be tax-exempt. I know mine certainly isn't.

Can anyone justify these perks?

Be happy to! First of all, the ministry is not like any other "job." We don't get paid for the work we do. In effect, we don't get a "salary." We receive a stipend. In other words, because the church expects us to be at their beck-and-call, the church takes care of our living expenses. That way, we are freed from the constraints of a "job," so that we can concentrate on taking care of the community. "Living expenses" includes housing.

In the past (and in many cases yet), the clergy were provided with quarters to live in -- a rectory or parsonage -- owned by the church. Having grown up in a minister's family, I can tell you that many of those places are not cushy! If that's the case, the minister doesn't pay rent or property taxes, because the minister is not renting and does not own. In order to balance that out, those clergy who do own their homes (as opposed to living in a rectory), are afforded a deduction.

You see, as part of the remuneration package, there is the cash stipend, as well as pension, health plan, etc. In addition, there is that part of the package that is called a "housing allowance." That means that the church is awarding the minister $ to offset basic living expenses. So, there's either a house provided, or money provided to pay for a house. Either way, it's the church taking care of the minister's living expenses, not the government. Since there's separation of church and state, church-provided housing is non-taxable.

However, we do have to pay property taxes annually if we own the home. We also have to pay utilities. So, it's not like our "income" is "not taxed." The housing allowance is completely separate from monetary stipend.

Make sense?

 

[Smoke]

Being LDS - I do not believe in a paid ministry but when government passes a law to assist non-profit professions it is bigotry to think of prejudicial treatment towards a legal non-profit profession just because you do not happen to like that certain one.

Like I said on another thread, the government's preferential treatment of clergy is a logical consequence of the fiction that private clubs operate for the public benefit.

The real question is why churches should be considered tax-exempt organizations in the first place. It's amazing what greedy clergy and compliant politicians can accomplish in a supposedly secular society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Be happy to! First of all, the ministry is not like any other "job." We don't get paid for the work we do. In effect, we don't get a "salary." We receive a stipend.

Doesn't matter for taxes what you call it. Income is income.

In other words, because the church expects us to be at their beck-and-call, the church takes care of our living expenses.

I know several people who have demanding jobs or are on-call 24 hours a day. They still pay taxes like everybody else.

That way, we are freed from the constraints of a "job," so that we can concentrate on taking care of the community. "Living expenses" includes housing.

Let me get this straight... so you spend your time performing various duties, and the people you serve pay you... but it's not a "job" - you're working for free(?), and the people you serve give you something like an honorarium so you can continue to do this for them?

Does this argument actually work on anyone?

In the past (and in many cases yet), the clergy were provided with quarters to live in -- a rectory or parsonage -- owned by the church. Having grown up in a minister's family, I can tell you that many of those places are not cushy! If that's the case, the minister doesn't pay rent or property taxes, because the minister is not renting and does not own. In order to balance that out, those clergy who do own their homes (as opposed to living in a rectory), are afforded a deduction.

A low-quality taxable benefit is still a taxable benefit. The rectory might qualify as "low rent" if it were out on the public market, but it's still worth something.

And I've lived in some pretty crummy rental accommodations myself, but I still had to pay my rent with after-tax dollars.

You see, as part of the remuneration package, there is the cash stipend, as well as pension, health plan, etc. In addition, there is that part of the package that is called a "housing allowance." That means that the church is awarding the minister $ to offset basic living expenses. So, there's either a house provided, or money provided to pay for a house.

So you get a portion of your income paid as cash, and another portion paid as services and materials in kind. They're all still taxable benefits to anyone but a minister.

Either way, it's the church taking care of the minister's living expenses, not the government. Since there's separation of church and state, church-provided housing is non-taxable.

Separation of church and state implies no special treatment of religion... positive or negative. What you're suggesting is a subsidy for religious ministers... IOW positive special treatment of religion. For the second time in the thread: this violates the principle of separation of church and state.

However, we do have to pay property taxes annually if we own the home. We also have to pay utilities. So, it's not like our "income" is "not taxed." The housing allowance is completely separate from monetary stipend.

Make sense?

Not at all.

I know the historical background, but I think in a purportedly secular society, this sort of treatment is totally unjustified.

 

[Willamena]

We also give special tax credits solely to religious ministers and members of religious orders for housing.

As well, students and instructors from China coming to get an education or work at the U of A.

I don't think religion is particularly favoured in our country.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As well, students and instructors from China coming to get an education or work at the U of A.

I don't think religion is particularly favoured in our country.

They might be able to get some other tax credit, but there's a special one just for religious ministers:

IT-141R Consolidated, Clergy Residence Deduction

 

[Willamena]

They might be able to get some other tax credit, but there's a special one just for religious ministers:

IT-141R Consolidated, Clergy Residence Deduction

I understand, but I'm saying that other special interest groups get tax credits, too. There's a credit in Alberta for "nothern living," choosing to work in Fort McMurray or the oil sands fields.

 

[Zadok]

Like I said on another thread, the government's preferential treatment of clergy is a logical consequence of the fiction that private clubs operate for the public benefit.

The real question is why churches should be considered tax-exempt organizations in the first place. It's amazing what greedy clergy and compliant politicians can accomplish in a supposedly secular society.

The answer to your "real question" is separation of church and state.

And for the record in general I find politicians, businessmen, educators and even sport fan’s to have a much higher propensity toward greed and exploitation of others than I have found in general among clergy – even the clergy of ideologies I personally find illogical, silly and difficult to like. I realize there are always exceptions – and that is the point. Among clergy it does seem to be an exception but among politicians, humility is a very rare exception.

When you can demonstrate you help those in need better then the Salvation Army then I will consider you a worthy judge of “greed” among those that dedicate their lives to such causes.

Zadok

 

[Smoke]

The answer to your "real question" is separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state does not require that churches be subsidized by the rest of us in the form of tax exemptions. Quite the opposite.

When you can demonstrate you help those in need better then the Salvation Army then I will consider you a worthy judge of “greed” among those that dedicate their lives to such causes.

I've sheltered and fed far fewer people than the Salvation Army, but on the other hand I've never forced a single one of them to get up at five to clean the toilets and attend a religious service of my choice, either.

 

[Skwim]

Ministers are not the only "profession" that receives government to pay student debt.

Being LDS - I do not believe in a paid ministry but when government passes a law to assist non-profit professions it is bigotry to think of prejudicial treatment towards a legal non-profit profession just because you do not happen to like that certain one.

Zadok

I'm just going to assume you have no answer to my questions. Fair enough.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think it excuses the practice, but I think these laws are the product of a time when most ministers took vows of poverty.

I wouldn't doubt it. Although taking a vow of poverty back then probably made little difference. Vow or no vow, I doubt many ministers were nearly as well off as their congregants.

Be happy to! First of all, the ministry is not like any other "job." We don't get paid for the work we do. In effect, we don't get a "salary." We receive a stipend.

Call it what you like it makes no difference. You're remunerated for the work you do, just like everyone else who isn't a slave or doing charity.

In other words, because the church expects us to be at their beck-and-call, the church takes care of our living expenses.

That's the church's decision, and yours. But it isn't only the church that's taking care of your living expenses, it's also every citizen who has to pick up the slack in revenue that you don't have to pay. How about picking up the slack for us sometime?

That way, we are freed from the constraints of a "job," so that we can concentrate on taking care of the community. "Living expenses" includes housing.

"Taking care of the community"! Don't make me laugh. The only community you take care of is the one that pays your way. However, if the community service you may actually do is anything like I've seen other clergymen do you deserves no more remuneration than that done by ordinary citizen volunteers, who ask nothing in return, including tax breaks and loan forgiveness.

In the past (and in many cases yet), the clergy were provided with quarters to live in -- a rectory or parsonage -- owned by the church. Having grown up in a minister's family, I can tell you that many of those places are not cushy!

So what?

If that's the case, the minister doesn't pay rent or property taxes, because the minister is not renting and does not own. In order to balance that out, those clergy who do own their homes (as opposed to living in a rectory), are afforded a deduction.

And as I pointed out, ministers receive "tax-exempt allowances for a residential rental or parsonage." I don't get any such perk, nor do those living in not so cushy abodes.

You see, as part of the remuneration package, there is the cash stipend, as well as pension, health plan, etc. In addition, there is that part of the package that is called a "housing allowance." That means that the church is awarding the minister $ to offset basic living expenses. So, there's either a house provided, or money provided to pay for a house. Either way, it's the church taking care of the minister's living expenses, not the government.

Yes, and that allowance, whether in monetary form or in value as housing is tax exempt, a perk denied to us common every-day folk.

Since there's separation of church and state, church-provided housing is non-taxable.

Right now I seriously doubt you have any conception of what separation of church and state means.

However, we do have to pay property taxes annually if we own the home. We also have to pay utilities. So, it's not like our "income" is "not taxed." The housing allowance is completely separate from monetary stipend.

*sigh* Irrelevant.

Make sense?

Do I understand what you're saying? Certainly. Do I think it explains why ministers should be receiving governmental perks? No.

 

[Mister Emu]

No taxation without representation...