The Defecit!

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
this housing allowance is no different than any allowance than anyone else gets. so the claim about ministers getting to spend their tax free money on big screen tv is hogwash.
It's much different than an allowance that other people get, read below.
***2. Ministers do NOT pay income taxes on housing expenses --either your parsonage or if you own a house the money you spend on housing is income tax-free including the following: loan principle, interest, utilities, furniture, grass-cutting and all other housing “appurtenances” (generally whatever a priest would get for free as part of his housing). All these costs are tax-free—which seems unfair but “it’s the law.”
LIMITATION #2: It is also limited to the "Fair rental value of the house plus utilities." This is obvious—you can’t charge as housing more than the house is worth on the rental market (plus utilities). For instance if you own a house that is worth $100,000 usually it would rent for $1,000 a month meaning you would be limited to charging housing to $1,000 a month (plus your utilities) as your tax free housing allowance.
4. Ministers buying a house also get to take their housing interest as a regular deduction—so called “double dipping.” This sounds really unfair and wrong. It IS unfair (forget the notion that taxes are “fair” the laws are designed to benefit some people and not others). After you have excluded your housing expenses (including the interest on your loan) from income taxes “off the top” you can also take the interest expenses again as a normal deduction—just like you deduct your tithe and medical expenses. Amazing! Go look up the law—this is really true (and an unfair gift to ministers). This means that when you first buy a $100,000 house with maybe 5% down payment your monthly payments might be something like $800 and $700 is interest—totaling $8400 interest a year. You will first exempt this $8400 from your income taxes (along with the principle and other housing expenses) all “off the top” as housing THEN YOU GET TO TAKE THE $8400 AGAIN AS A DEDUCTION. Incredible! This unfair gift from the federal government to ministers ought to be changed some day, but for years it continues as a big break to ministers so, like salvation, it is offered to you freely and it is up to you to take it or not. All this means ministers have a BIG advantage in income taxes that the laity do not have.
******
Their entire housing costs including loan principle, interest, utilities, furniture, grass-cutting and all other housing “appurtenances”, is given to them %100 percent tax free then they get to claim their housing expenses as a regular deduction such as everyone else would do, meaning not only do they get all this for free but they get more back on top of it. Quite a large difference from what everyone else gets. And this is only in relation to the housing exemptions.

 

[jones]

Social Security Taxes (FICA)
Except for those employees engaged in unrelated business activities, a church can elect to exempt its employees from FICA. To obtain such an exemption, the church must certify that it opposes such taxes for religious reasons. The exempted employees will still be subject to self-employment taxes, but the church has no obligation to match employee FICA contributions or to handle any FICA payments.
In addition, any ordained, commissioned, or licensed ministers, priests, rabbis, members of a religious order, and Christian Science practitioners may elect to be exempt from self-employment taxes. The exemption will be granted on religious grounds if the organization that ordained, commissioned, or licensed the applicant qualifies as a religious organization. Only compensation received for duties performed in their religious capacity are exempted. Self-employed members of religious faiths can qualify for the exemption using a different form than church employees. Members of religious orders who have taken a vow of poverty are automatically exempted from self-employment tax and do not need to file an application.

 

[jones]

I found this one interesting.......
****
Reporting Requirements
Churches are automatically tax-exempt without the requirement of filing an Application for Tax Exempt Status (Form 1023). While other 501(c)(3) entities must report their financial status, activities, and compensation paid to directors and officers on an Annual Information Report (Form 990), churches are exempt from filing these annual informational returns. Congress gave churches the reporting exemption for constitutional protection of religious institutions. Because these forms are available for public review, the filing exemptions for churches remove them from public scrutiny. Without access to the form information, the IRS is also less likely to investigate a church. In many cases, an entity claiming to be a church comes under IRS review only for income tax evasion or charitable income tax deductions on an individual's tax return. There are proposals to greatly expand the reporting requirements of tax-exempt organizations following the 9/11 attacks and recent corporate abuses, but under current proposals, valid churches would remain free from these additional disclosure requirements.
****
I wanted to emphasize this part
***
Congress gave churches the reporting exemption for constitutional protection of religious institutions.
***
Doesn't sound like an absolute seperation of church and state to me, sounds more like "constitutional protection of religious institutions". Which, I'm not arguing is necesarily a bad thing. Just an interesting point.

 

[jones]

On a side note. This is an issue that I never even gave much thought at all to before reading this thread. Many just arguments could be made for the reasons that religious activities are not taxed, and I could very easily see myself possibly being convinced by them.
I would just like to reiterate the point that, from where I'm standing, the whole "taxation equates to endorsement with special considerations being owed" idea just doesn't seem to hold any water, regardless of which angle you look at it from.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
You can go back and read the thread. Maybe your getting me confused with someone else.
One last time. Im sure you know why and how write offs work, but Ill try. If you normaly owe $10,000 in taxes and during the year you donated $1,000 to a charity.
Im not sure of the percentages but lets just say the law allows you to deduct 50 percent of charitable donations. Then you get to deducted $ 500 off your taxes that you would have normaly had to pay. And you only pay a total of $9,500. So your only out the $500 that the Gov. did not give back to you from the deduction for your original $1,000 donation to that charity.
But the charity has $ 1,000 in its pocket. So if your only out the $500 because you got to write off $500, and the Gov. is out the $500 because you would have normaly owed it on your taxes, then do you understand that the other $500 that the charity has in its pocket, because it has $1,000, came from the Gov. and not you.
If your fine with the gov. supporting charities this way, then thats how you feel and your right as an individual to think how you want too, but to say, if thats what your saying, that thats not whats going on just shows me that perhaps you dont understand how it works.
the government doesn't support charities anymore than they support students, parents, homeowners, etc etc etc. the only way you can make any logical claim that YOUR taxes are affected by a donation to a church is if you have absolutely zero tax write offs. and if you don't have any write offs out of hundreds or thousands that are available, that's your own fault. you have just as much right to pick any charity that you choose to make a tax deductible donation to as I do. so your taxes are not affected by what another person gives.
while we're talking about taxes, ever wonder why they tax every paycheck you get instead of a lump sum at the end or beginning of a year? because if they did one lump sum, you could spend the rest of the year investing the money and making a personal financial gain off of it. but no, the government does that instead, because they think they know how to handle your money better than you do. so they tax your money weekly (or however often you get paid) and make their own profits off it, and I use tax deductions at the end of the year, who's really affecting the money in your bank account, me or the government?
instead of worrying about who gets what deductions, maybe we should be worrying about how the government wastes money. ever look at how much money is wasted on pointless programs, or how much is spent on programs that you or I are not entitled to? that's what upsets me, not who may save a few hundred dollars off their taxes.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Pontius
the government doesn't support charities anymore than they support students, parents, homeowners, etc etc etc. the only way you can make any logical claim that YOUR taxes are affected by a donation to a church is if you have absolutely zero tax write offs. and if you don't have any write offs out of hundreds or thousands that are available, that's your own fault. you have just as much right to pick any charity that you choose to make a tax deductible donation to as I do. so your taxes are not affected by what another person gives.
instead of worrying about who gets what deductions, maybe we should be worrying about how the government wastes money.
Well at least now your agreeing that the goverment does support the charities. Just as they suport the other items you listed.
As far as the people that write those donations off of their taxes is the issue that they are not paying their share because I dont feel the charity donations should be wrote off ( other write offs like some you listed that are available I agree with and some I dont ) and that goes toward your point of the goverment waisting money. As I said, if you think the gov. supporting charities/religion is fine then fine.
I dont have AS much of a problem with most charities but mainly the religious ones.

 

[pontius]

first, I'm not saying the government is supporting religion because the Supreme Court's interpretation of church/state clearly says that the government does not have a right to this money.
what you're saying is that the government should pick and choose what should be tax deductible and what should not be. I totally disagree. if you say religious people should not be able to get write offs because the non-religious don't, then I say parents should not get write offs for their children when childless people don't get write offs. what's the difference?
it also makes no sense that a person with no children has to pay taxes that go to building new schools. and don't tell me about how these schools add anything positive to society, because that's another debate.
what I'm saying is that if you really feel your taxes are affected by religious write offs (which I don't agree with), then I am telling you that you are entitled to just as many write offs. and I'm not talking about donations....I'm talking about the fact that you have the right to get a student loan, or have children, or get a house, or whatever you decide.
an unmarried, childless person that rents a single bedroom apt and donates 50% of his taxes to his church will still end up paying more taxes than a married person (of an equal salary) with children who owns their own home and donates no money at all to any charity. where's the logic in that?

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
it also makes no sense that a person with no children has to pay taxes that go to building new schools. and don't tell me about how these schools add anything positive to society, because that's another debate.
If that's another debate that you don't want to hear about, then why bring it up here? This statement actually bothers me much more than any debate about churches and taxes. Since you brought it up, I will respond to it. Even if you are selfish enough to not care about and not want to perpetuate the educating of the young in our society, or if you are shallow minded enough to believe that better educating our youth doesn't go leaps and bounds toward improving our society, then you should at least be able to see that helping to improve the schools in your own area directly influences your property values. Giving you an actual, real benefit that even the purely selfish should be able to appreciate.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
If that's another debate that you don't want to hear about, then why bring it up here? This statement actually bothers me much more than any debate about churches and taxes. Since you brought it up, I will respond to it. Even if you are selfish enough to not care about and not want to perpetuate the educating of the young in our society, or if you are shallow minded enough to believe that better educating our youth doesn't go leaps and bounds toward improving our society, then you should at least be able to see that helping to improve the schools in your own area directly influences your property values. Giving you an actual, real benefit that even the purely selfish should be able to appreciate.

yeah, a government sponsored school that dictates what your children will and will not learn at the dime of the taxpayer adds as much to society as churches. if you are too narrow minded and boneheaded to see the good that churches do in every community, that's your problem. the prisons are full of people who grew up without the discipline and faith that religion can instill in a person. you think there's no logic in my arguments? what makes you the authority to say what's selfish in this discussion. this government schooling happens to have our children lagging behind most of the free world. I tried to explain to you last night that I am done arguing with your moronic bs rants, so don't feel obligated to respond to any more of my posts, because I feel myself being lowered to your level of insults and namecalling. like I said last night, just know that when you wake up tomorrow, there will still be a separation of church and state and therefore, I will still be right.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Pontius
first, I'm not saying the government is supporting religion because the Supreme Court's interpretation of church/state clearly says that the government does not have a right to this money.
What money is the Gov. takeing from a church?
Again, Im not saying tax a church.
The money Im talking about is the money they let the individules keep instead of paying taxes that they owe.
As I said there are many ways and things the Gov. taxes people for and some of them are some you listed but there are many write offs that I dont agree with either and charitable donations is just one..
The tax code/laws in the country does need to be fixed but its controled IMO buy the polititains that are controled by the powers to be in the country and the lobbiest and the powers to be that control them. Like they want to give tax breaks to oil companies while they are makeing record profits. $36 billion in profit for exxon alone this year. The powers to be.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
yeah, a government sponsored school that dictates what your children will and will not learn at the dime of the taxpayer adds as much to society as churches. if you are too narrow minded and boneheaded to see the good that churches do in every community, that's your problem. the prisons are full of people who grew up without the discipline and faith that religion can instill in a person. you think there's no logic in my arguments? what makes you the authority to say what's selfish in this discussion. this government schooling happens to have our children lagging behind most of the free world. I tried to explain to you last night that I am done arguing with your moronic bs rants, so don't feel obligated to respond to any more of my posts, because I feel myself being lowered to your level of insults and namecalling. like I said last night, just know that when you wake up tomorrow, there will still be a separation of church and state and therefore, I will still be right.
Wow pretty testy for someone who is so positive he is right.
These government sponsored schools happen to be what the majority of americans can afford, so it behooves us all to work to improve them. Not every child has the luxury of a private school. Children don't even make the choice of what school they attend, their parents do, so you think they should be left to fend for themselves in a failing school system, without any attempt to help them improve? Your anymosity and anger do nothing to help these children. Where's the altruistic angle that is inherent in all of the christian religions? Ofcourse our schools are severely lacking, all the more reason to actually make significant sacrifices to create real improvement. I'm the closed minded one? I've told you that I think churches usually benefit people and society a great deal, but I certainly don't believe that abandoning millions of children simply because you want to see them put through a church sponsored school is an open minded, reasonable thing to do. In fact it's a view that is entirely lacking in the most basic compassion and altruism that christian religions represent.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
yeah, a government sponsored school that dictates what your children will and will not learn at the dime of the taxpayer adds as much to society as churches. if you are too narrow minded and boneheaded to see the good that churches do in every community, that's your problem. the prisons are full of people who grew up without the discipline and faith that religion can instill in a person. you think there's no logic in my arguments? what makes you the authority to say what's selfish in this discussion. this government schooling happens to have our children lagging behind most of the free world. I tried to explain to you last night that I am done arguing with your moronic bs rants, so don't feel obligated to respond to any more of my posts, because I feel myself being lowered to your level of insults and namecalling. like I said last night, just know that when you wake up tomorrow, there will still be a separation of church and state and therefore, I will still be right.

I sense an awful lot of anger and hatred in your response here. Tell me, was it your church sposored school that taught you to have such a closed mind, and be so intolerant and impatient that in a short little quip online so much hatred can come so quickly boiling out of you? No, couldn't be, you must be one of those who went to those awful government sponsored schools.

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by Pontius
second, it is a known fact that cigarettes kill people, religion does not, so you're comparing apples and oranges.
.
The cigarette themselves are not harmful unless lit and smoked. Much like Bin laden's Islam is harmless unless preached to an extremist. Just the as christianity itself is harmless unless someone lights a fire and brings about acts like the crusades.
They are the same in this regard. Harmless yet dangerous at the same time. So using the defense taxing a religion shows support by the government is a false point of view.

 

[vegasbaby]

First I'm going to say - I'm a republican. Last election did not vote this way.
Yes, we owe this money to foreign countries. Like China. Not good!
Bush has really got us in a jam!

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by Pontius
second, it is a known fact that cigarettes kill people, religion does not, so you're comparing apples and oranges
I have been reading this thread from the begining and really didnt want to get involved, but now...
Fact: The #1 cause of War is Religion... so to say that religion doesnt kill is wrong...
and people choose to smoke, they dont choose to get a scud missle launched at their city because they choose Marlboro over Camel...

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by ruaround
I have been reading this thread from the begining and really didnt want to get involved, but now...
Fact: The #1 cause of War is Religion... so to say that religion doesnt kill is wrong...
and people choose to smoke, they dont choose to get a scud missle launched at their city because they choose Marlboro over Camel...
um, no. the number one cause of war is religious FANATICS that use religion as a reason. Bin Laden uses the minds of religious fanatics to further their agenda. the ingredients of religion does not cause death, the ingredients of cigarettes DO.

 

[pontius]

Wow pretty testy for someone who is so positive he is right.

why don't you go back and read this thread from the beginning and see that YOU were the one that started the unnecessary badmouthing which such statements as "backward logic", etc. that's because you know you're wrong and losing the argument that you had to resort to such tripe. and I'm sure you're to narrow minded to even see that you started the mudslinging. that's why I said I was done reading what you post. btw, the above quoted sentence was the last thing I read by you, so if you continue posting to make a point to me, don't waste anymore of your time.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Pontius
um, no. the number one cause of war is religious FANATICS that use religion as a reason. Bin Laden uses the minds of religious fanatics to further their agenda. the ingredients of religion does not cause death, the ingredients of cigarettes DO.
Didnt Bush say that he felt GOD wanted him to go into Iraq, or something simular ? Is there really a differance.
PS. I dont mean cigarettes

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by Pontius
um, no. the number one cause of war is religious FANATICS that use religion as a reason. Bin Laden uses the minds of religious fanatics to further their agenda. the ingredients of religion does not cause death, the ingredients of cigarettes DO.
So the Roman Crusades werent about religion? or the isrealites and the egyptions? or hitler meglomaniacal acts werent? or how about the crusades of Count Orlok (you may know him as Count Dracula)? And then we get to our President who did reference god for a reason we went to Iraq... I guess all of these people could be "FANATICS" or even better radicalists...

 

[ruaround]

as far as the origin of this thread taxing the churches is a great idea, and has nothing to do with separation of church and state... separation of church and state means that a government establishment will not show a preference to one religion over another, so if there was a blanket effect and ALL religions were taxed it may work...