Ship of Fools: Should churches get tax breaks?

Thread: Should churches get tax breaks? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023054

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Reading the debate in today's NYT made me realise how hard it is to define the "religious" use of the money donated to churches (and getting tax receipts).

I can understand that one needs a building to meet in (although even that is debatable) But do large, flossy buildings, - such as medieval parish churches or televangelists' palaces - actually promote the Kingdom of God?

I don't see anywhere in the NT that building costs were part of evangelisation. I do see the communities sharing their wealth in order to enable the members to be active participants, not just watchers in the pews.

So: intro to debate:

quote:
The Trinity Broadcasting Network has always been proud of its extravagant profits, but rarely mentions the extravagant tax breaks that fueled them. According to a recent lawsuit, the company provides mansions for executives and calls them “parsonages” to avoid property taxes, and it ordains TBN chauffeurs and sound engineers and performers at the Holy Land Experience theme park, meaning their pay is tax-free.

Religious exemptions from taxes and regulations are often thought of as separating church and state, but are they having the opposite effect — serving as a state subsidy for religious organizations? Should religious entities be subject to taxes and rules like labor and civil rights laws?

I'm sure you can name examples of irrelevant spending by your own church, and of lack of spending on "the poor, the orphan, the widow, the prisoner"

Does the church, individually or as a whole, do enough of the appropriate spending to deserve tax breaks?

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

The preservation of historic buildings is a worthwhile secular endeavour, worthy of tax breaks. Whether it's a good use of church money is another debate, but if the church doesn't preserve these buildings then the general public are going to have to pay for it, and they'd definitely get a tax break for money donated to it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I am opposed to tax breaks period. Every £ and $ should be worth as much as every other one. Yup, even charities and pension contributions.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent Alert

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I am opposed to tax breaks period. Every £ and $ should be worth as much as every other one. Yup, even charities and pension contributions.

Sioni Sais, I don't agree with you on either point, but requiring people to pay their pension contributions after tax is only defensible at all if all pension payments are free of tax. No, I'll go further than that. It would quite simply be wrong, both morally and economically. Otherwise, everyone who provides for their old age is being taxed twice on it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent Alert

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I am opposed to tax breaks period. Every £ and $ should be worth as much as every other one. Yup, even charities and pension contributions.
Sioni Sais, I don't agree with you on either point, but requiring people to pay their pension contributions after tax is only defensible at all if all pension payments are free of tax. No, I'll go further than that. It would quite simply be wrong, both morally and economically. Otherwise, everyone who provides for their old age is being taxed twice on it.

What are pension contributions other than a form of savings? Tax relief is limited far more severely on other forms of savings and investment. If the bias towards pension schemes, caused by the tax advantages was removed would this reduce the power of pension fund managers, because I'm not sure they are the most effective or efficient of that ilk.

btw, I'm aware that I'm being provocative, but such a tax regime would reduce the scope for creative accounting considerably.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What are pension contributions other than a form of savings? Tax relief is limited far more severely on other forms of savings and investment.

Yes, but you aren't taxed when you make a withdrawal from your savings account. You are taxed on withdrawals from your pension scheme (i.e. your monthly payment).

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

quote:
The Trinity Broadcasting Network has always been proud of its extravagant profits,

If there are no shareholders to whom profits could possibly be distributed, then how can one say that there are profits? I doubt that the network itself uses that term.

It's appropriate that churches should pay the costs of police and fire protection for their property. I would also have no objection to church-owned residences being subject to normal residential property tax if they are separate from church property. But churches do not exist to make money for their owners. With the exception of the above, how are they getting any "tax breaks" that don't also apply to museums and universities, for instance?

quote:
I'm sure you can name examples of irrelevant spending by your own church, and of lack of spending on "the poor, the orphan, the widow, the prisoner"

I can't. Like most churches, we can barely pay the bills.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

I would consider churches not having taxes breaks if and when tax breaks are abolished for:

-political donations
-resource exploration (this is mostly oil these days)
-investments and capital gains
-corporation input and expansions

and, if and when favourable tax treatment for higher and higher levels of income for individuals is ended (I've mentioned the 80% bracket for the disgustingly excessive salaries that formerly existed in the 1970s before), and when corporations pay their fair share via corporate taxes, which has not occurred for approximately 30 years (starting with Thatcher-Reagan-Mulroney & others).

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

What tax breaks for churches are we talking about? From OP it is clear how this varies across different places. In UK clergy salaries are subject to tax like everyone else (although there are multiple tweaks and allowable expenses to apply to that principle.

Tax breaks for churches here (AFAIK)
Gift Aid - getting the tax back on gifts given to the church, this applies to all groups with charitiable status. An important boost in church finances and in breaking even for many.

Reduced VAT on repairs - bit hazy on this one, I know there are petitions about plans to remove this and the impact on churches, but isn't this about grade 1 listed buildings? And the rule includes non-churches so is for heritage reasons not church aimed - if government wants to make rules that we can only repair such sites with the extra expensive heritage fittings, then the tax break is about easing these enforced extra costs.

What other tax breaks do we have?
And how does this vary country to country?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
I would consider churches not having taxes breaks if and when tax breaks are abolished for:

-political donations
-resource exploration (this is mostly oil these days)
-investments and capital gains
-corporation input and expansions

Not familiar with all of these categories, but in the U.S. political donations don't get a tax break. That's one of the reasons for the laws against direct politicking (as opposed to "issue advocacy") by churches. An institution that could provide a tax write-off for political donations has an unfair advantage over one that can't.

It should be noted that the tax rate for capital gains in the U.S. is 15%. While this is unfairly low when compared with the tax rate on wages, it's still a lot higher than the 0% tax rate religious institutions pay.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
I would consider churches not having taxes breaks if and when tax breaks are abolished for:

-political donations
-resource exploration (this is mostly oil these days)
-investments and capital gains
-corporation input and expansions

and, if and when favourable tax treatment for higher and higher levels of income for individuals is ended (I've mentioned the 80% bracket for the disgustingly excessive salaries that formerly existed in the 1970s before), and when corporations pay their fair share via corporate taxes, which has not occurred for approximately 30 years (starting with Thatcher-Reagan-Mulroney & others).

this

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

If heritage buildings in gemneral get favourable tax consideration, then, yes, churches that have heritage buildings should get that consideration.

But that is separate from the actual work of the church, as I seem to remember a particular carpenter's son saying.

If you are persuaded by the tax regime to give more to active charity (rather than to chauffeurs and pastors of parking), this will save the government some of the cost of doing the charitable work that the church claimed that it did. This would make you happier, because you have given directly to what you think matters, and the government has somewhat less cost.

It was pointed out some years ago that if the evangelical Christians in the US actually tithed to their churches, there would be enough money to provide health care for most of the poor in the world (not just the US). "The Gummint" wouldn't have to be involved at all. But the evangelicals only give of the order of 3%, and falling, and that barely maintains the flags and parking lots and amorphous shopping-mall-like buildings, etc.

Separate question for islanders: how does the performance of choral services, complete with tat, in a heritage building, actually relate to the Kingdom of God?

Yes, I'm trying to be provocative. Work with me.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Separate question for islanders: how does the performance of choral services, complete with tat, in a heritage building, actually relate to the Kingdom of God?

It ain't a performance, it's prayer, not to mention an evangelism tool of sorts. Invite people to come sing with you. They may start praying with you eventually.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

In the NY Times intro:

quote:
According to a recent lawsuit, the company provides mansions for executives and calls them “parsonages” to avoid property taxes, and it ordains TBN chauffeurs and sound engineers and performers at the Holy Land Experience theme park, meaning their pay is tax-free.

Anyone have any idea how the tax-free pay works? The salaries of all the ordained people I know are taxed.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In the NY Times intro:

quote:
According to a recent lawsuit, the company provides mansions for executives and calls them “parsonages” to avoid property taxes, and it ordains TBN chauffeurs and sound engineers and performers at the Holy Land Experience theme park, meaning their pay is tax-free.
Anyone have any idea how the tax-free pay works? The salaries of all the ordained people I know are taxed.

Under the U.S. tax code there are a lot of things clergy can write off that ordinary workers can't. For example, any money spent on rent or a mortgage* can be written off on your taxes if you're clergy, as can certain other expenses.

--------------------
*The U.S. tax code allows everyone to deduct the interest on a mortgage payment from taxable income, but if you're clergy you can also deduct principle payments, homeowner's insurance, the cost of home repairs, etc.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If heritage buildings in general get favourable tax consideration, then, yes, churches that have heritage buildings should get that consideration.

How do you distinguish a heritage building from the ordinary kind?

quote:
But that is separate from the actual work of the church, as I seem to remember a particular carpenter's son saying.

I'm must be having a senior moment. Could you remind me where?

quote:
Separate question for islanders: how does the performance of choral services, complete with tat, in a heritage building, actually relate to the Kingdom of God?

It affirms the dogma of the Incarnation. The building was built as a church to the glory of God. The music sung was written to the glory of God. And the performances, if you want to call them that, are freely open to the public. Do you want to argue that these buildings would be better owned by others and used for other purposes (beer hall or discotheque, maybe), and that masterpieces of sacred music are most authentically sung by secular choruses on a concert stage, whose livelihood depends on ticket sales? Or are you just a philistine who regrets that they exist at all?

[ 10. May 2012, 19:29: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:

Reduced VAT on repairs - bit hazy on this one, I know there are petitions about plans to remove this and the impact on churches, but isn't this about grade 1 listed buildings?

e-petitions and youtube videos too

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If heritage buildings in general get favourable tax consideration, then, yes, churches that have heritage buildings should get that consideration.
How do you distinguish a heritage building from the ordinary kind?

In the UK pretty easily, whether it is Listed or not. If you are being fussy, you could specify the category of listing. Anything listed as grade 1 in my opinion probably has a decent claim on public funding as the restrictions on what can be done often entail hefty financial cost on the owner. When work is agreed it has to be up to the standard required by the listing. However I think I would rather see this as grants towards work carried out of listed buildings rather than tax breaks.

Jengie

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Thanks, that answers the question in the most literal sense. But it raises a few others, especially relating to the quality of construction whereby a building can reach the age of 150 years or more at all, let alone be interesting enough to be listed if it does. How rare that is nowadays! In some ways, standards have only fallen since the industrial revolution.

Why should the church be penalized for doing today as it has done in centuries past? If the distinction that Horseman Bree proposes is made, a church intrepid or committed enough to demand such high-quality work in new construction would get no relief for at least a generation, and probably require a much longer period than that. To tax costly real estate that was not intended to make money for the owner, and which does not in fact do so to any significant degree, as though this were its essential purpose, is bound to be a killer. It is not designed for profit, but "given to the glory of God" and often "in loving memory of...".

It also discriminates against those denominations who hold that embracing the created order in worship (and the rest of life) is part of thanking and telling the truth about God-- vis-a-vis those (and they exist) who would have no trouble with a governmental policy that treats infrastructure only as a utilitarian, necessary evil.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

What was Jesus doing when he said those famous lines, "render unto Cesar..."? If Jesus had to pay taxes, why can't his followers today?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
What was Jesus doing when he said those famous lines, "render unto Cesar..."? If Jesus had to pay taxes, why can't his followers today?

I suppose that principle was lost when when the Church became an arm of the state (AFAICT) in about 326 AD. The church then had every advantage going, and kept most of them after the fall of Rome. Individuals still had to pay to Caeser but I doubt the church paid much.

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

Horseman Bree, as a Canadian, perhaps you could look into the history of the Clergy Reserves.
The churches gave huge reserves of land over to the government in exchange for ongoing tax exempt status; trillions of bucks would be owed to the churches were that status to be revoked.
That, of course, is the simplified version, look it up in detail if you would like to.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In the NY Times intro:

quote:
According to a recent lawsuit, the company provides mansions for executives and calls them “parsonages” to avoid property taxes, and it ordains TBN chauffeurs and sound engineers and performers at the Holy Land Experience theme park, meaning their pay is tax-free.
Anyone have any idea how the tax-free pay works? The salaries of all the ordained people I know are taxed.

I'm not sure the low level employees are getting the tax break here but rather the employers. I suspect he 'tax' may be for unemployment insurance which means the employees may be in deep trouble if they are laid off. Also the church may opt not to pay social security taxes for its employees so they would have to pay the full social security (if ordained they could try for a clergy exemption on paying social security; however, that means not getting any of the benefits).

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If heritage buildings in general get favourable tax consideration, then, yes, churches that have heritage buildings should get that consideration.
How do you distinguish a heritage building from the ordinary kind?

In the UK pretty easily, whether it is Listed or not. If you are being fussy, you could specify the category of listing. Anything listed as grade 1 in my opinion probably has a decent claim on public funding as the restrictions on what can be done often entail hefty financial cost on the owner. When work is agreed it has to be up to the standard required by the listing. However I think I would rather see this as grants towards work carried out of listed buildings rather than tax breaks.

Jengie

As the owner of a grade II* listed building I would love to know what tax breaks you are talking about? As for grants for repairs they are as rare as hen's teeth to the private owner.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
What was Jesus doing when he said those famous lines, "render unto Cesar..."? If Jesus had to pay taxes, why can't his followers today?

First of all, the issue was idolatry-- not just taxes, but taxes to Caesar, using coinage which declared the Caesars to be divine. The conversation took place in the temple, where good Jews should not carry such coins on their persons (if ever). When Jesus asked his questioners for one of these coins, they got it out of their purses without a second thought, proving themselves to be hypocrites.

Second, Christians are no more exempt from taxes than anyone else. This thread is about what we do with anything that might be left after we've paid our taxes.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

This thread reminds me of this quote, apparently from someone called Priscilla Shirer:

'In the first century in Palestine, Christianity was a community of believers. Then Christianity moved to Greece and became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome and became an institution. Then it moved to Europe and became a culture. And then it moved to America and became a business.'

The concept of 'church as business' is still quite alien to British Christians, and I think business savvy is undervalued by churchgoers. Things are changing, though. Some of the new churches are much less awkward when it comes to addressing the issue of money. As for the mainstream congregations, particularly the Nonconformists, they're slowly realising that they won't be able to maintain their 'way of life' unless they raise money by letting their building out to other users. Some buildings are more suitable for this than others, though.

I believe the vast majority of church closures in the UK involve a lack of finances. Were taxes to be levied on churches, there would be even more closures - I have no doubt about that whatsoever. And it wouldn't be the big, wealthy 'megachurches' that would close, but small, local, historical churches that are holding on, but are also, in many cases, trying to serve their communities.

I don't know whether taxes would apply to buildings, or to groups of Christians. In any case, I'm sure there'd be loopholes. Christian lawyers would be onto the case. Some churches already exist outside the system and they'd have lots of advice to offer to the others.

Posted by savedbyhim01 (# 17035) on :

It is great to encourage people to give to charitable causes including churches or other charities. However, there should also be some kind of accountability for how these funds are used. Buying mansions and calling them "parsonages" is clearly over the line. Unfortunately throughout the entire history of the church wolves will dress up in sheep's clothing and use religion as an excuse to cheat people.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Alogon (et al.): My rather jaundiced view of religious-service-as-performance comes from having dealt with too many people who think that the performance aspect overrides the religious. The worry about choreography, the importance attached to being seen to be in charge of some minor aspect of the performance, the necessity of being close to the Bishop or other hierarchically-important person, the opulence of vestment (check out Simon's new spring attire!), and the relatively minor role that prayer,especially prayer that the audience participates in - all leave me cold. I do not see how the above contribute to the work of the cbhurch in the world. I guess I'm more a fan of Justin Duckworth than I am of cathedral/other "big" church services.

I realise that YMMV.
The fact that

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
Buying mansions and calling them "parsonages" is clearly over the line.

Of course in the English context, the presence of bishops in palaces makes this a more complex argument...

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

My usual justification for churches being exempt from income taxes it that, traditionally, they have been incubators for endeavours and institutions that create value for wider society. In North America churches have played a significant role in the establishment of hospitals, universities, colleges, private primary and secondary schools (often in inner city areas were public schools are in poor shape), charities, etc. which have benefited society as a whole. These institutions were generally created through their own funds and sweat equity and then nurtured for the benefit of all.

Something like 90% of the hospitals in the U.S. were established by religious institutions. Churches also gave us the Ivy League (Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, Columbia, etc.), Georgetown, Pepperdine, University of Toronto, Queen's University, Bishop's, etc. which have nurtured cultural, scientific and political talent that benefited both church and unchurched alike.

With the erosion of the social safety net, churches have stepped in to pool funds to create food banks and homeless shelters which are generally open to all. The Salvation Army's services are so widespread that it would be hard to imagine how city budgets would be impacted if they disappeared.

Then finally, in mainline denominations, the church often serves as one of the last refuges of music, performance and art that isn't a profit-focused industrial endeavour. In my area, if you want to hear baroque music, or see community theatre, or go to an art exhibition, it is often at a church. Many playwrights, artists or new musicians have their first debut at churches.

I would think placing income and property taxes on religious institutions would significantly and negatively impact that creative endeavour.

To me, this is part of a social contract. It certainly places a responsibility on both sides. Once the church oversteps its role by engaging in political activity and/or using their status for tax avoidance or evasion, I'd be the first to say yank it. But otherwise I'd reckon we'd likely kill the goose that is laying a golden egg.

[ 14. May 2012, 01:37: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
Buying mansions and calling them "parsonages" is clearly over the line.
Of course in the English context, the presence of bishops in palaces makes this a more complex argument...

And some people actually seem to resent the CofE for selling its old rectories to millionaires and sticking its clergy in ugly, modern buildings!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I would think placing income and property taxes on religious institutions would significantly and negatively impact that creative endeavour.

To me, this is part of a social contract. It certainly places a responsibility on both sides. Once the church oversteps its role by engaging in political activity and/or using their status for tax avoidance or evasion, I'd be the first to say yank it. But otherwise I'd reckon we'd likely kill the goose that is laying a golden egg.

My problem with this assessment is twofold. First, religious institutions usually get tax breaks far beyond those offered to non-religious charitable orgainizations. Second, these tax breaks are extended to religious groups regardless of whether they're engaged in any kind of socially benficial charitable activity.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

[Slight tangent with regard to reasons for church closures as raised by SvitlanaV2:
In the UK, sadly many church building closures are due to the community having migrated from the geographical area. By then, tax breaks are imaterial]

[ 14. May 2012, 19:10: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
[Slight tangent with regard to reasons for church closures as raised by SvitlanaV2:
In the UK, sadly many church building closures are due to the community having migrated from the geographical area.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. In fact, my own former church could be said to have suffered from this situation.

In recent times, it's not so much a loss of population (e.g. as in the case of city centre churches in Victorian or Edwardian times), but rather, a change of population that's the issue. So, a church in an area that becomes more working class will lose its upwardly mobile members as they move to the leafy surburbs further out. Yet there are still many other people living in the vicinity.

Because of the way they're funded, some churches begin to suffer before others do. The CofE often seems willing and able to subsidise tiny congregations in some areas, whereas Nonconformist churches have often had to close down while hosting larger congregations; lack of money to pay for maintainance often trumps the size of the congregation itself, although numerical decline obviously has a close relationship with declining finances.

In addition to the megachurches that could easily manage to pay tax, we might mention those rare congregations with a small number of attenders, who manage to generate a large income by other means - usually by letting out their church property to a variety of other groups. Many churches would collapse without such lettings, and a few are probably doing very well indeed through these means.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[R]eligious institutions usually get tax breaks far beyond those offered to non-religious charitable orgainizations.

News to me - at least in the UK, apart from the buildings actually used for worship, which are zero rated for business rates. Historically clergy got a 50% rate cut on their parsonage, but that went with the poll tax, and I don't think was restored when council tax arrived.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[R]eligious institutions usually get tax breaks far beyond those offered to non-religious charitable orgainizations.
News to me - at least in the UK, apart from the buildings actually used for worship, which are zero rated for business rates. Historically clergy got a 50% rate cut on their parsonage, but that went with the poll tax, and I don't think was restored when council tax arrived.

It's a bit different in the U.S. For example, property taxes are assessed by state or local governments, so sometimes all non-profits are exempt but usually only churches get out of paying property tax. So while Pastor Grifter Cheetham's Prosperity Gospel Megaplex isn't on the hook for maintaining local roads or schools the free clinic across the street often has to pony up the cash.

Likewise for salaries. One of the things less reputable religious establishments will do is take advantage of the housing loophole I mentioned earlier by paying salaries primarily in the form of a "housing allowance", not all (or even most) of which has to be spent on housing. So Pastor Cheetham gets his wages mostly tax free while his neighbor Dr. Doright from the free clinic gets no such consideration.

Finally, there's the question of scrutiny. Non-religious non-profits have to make extensive filings with the government to verify that no money has gone missing. While churches are also required to keep books along these lines, the level of scrutiny applied to them is much more lax (and thus the opportunity for fraud that much greater).

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

Data points from the US tax code.

I seem to recall hearing someone from a nearby parish speak about the woes of their rectory: it was exempt from property tax (one of the major tax breaks churches get in the US - especially non trivial to those of us sitting on location, location, location in high-value areas) when the rector was living in it, but the property tax came due when it was rented out to a non-church employee. My own parish pays a percentage of property tax that would otherwise be due to the county to compensate for the "for-profit"/commercial tenants renting portions of the space (it's either 10 or 20% of what our full-freight bill would be depending on which assessor does the calculations).

"Housing allowance" paid to clergy is non taxable, and a significant clergy perk. There are caps on this now because a certain famous pastor was very publicly urging other pastors to take their compensation as "housing allowance" instead of "salary" to avoid paying taxes. Clergy salary is taxable just like for the rest of us working stiffs.

For some reason perhaps lost in the mysteries of time, clergy are treated as self-employed by the US tax code, are not subject to W2 withholding, have to make quarterly tax payments, and have to pay the full freight of their FICA/SSI, aka the "Self-Employment Tax" (W2 employees generally pay half of the amount with the employer picking up the other half). The compensation package for my rector includes adjustment for this.

Anyone who itemizes his/her deductions can claim them within the guidelines for charitable, professional dues/development, and business expenses.

Another anecdote: a friend of mine took up a mainline clergy post in a small US town and found to his horror that various church employees (I'm a bit hazy on the details but they weren't clergy) thought they didn't have to pay income tax "because they worked for the church". He was pleased that he caught and corrected this before the IRS did. So it's not just a "megachurch/TV ministry" attitude.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Alogon (et al.): My rather jaundiced view of religious-service-as-performance comes from having dealt with too many people who think that the performance aspect overrides the religious. The worry about choreography, the importance attached to being seen to be in charge of some minor aspect of the performance... I realise that YMMV.

It sure does. If I'm the organist and choirmaster, you'd better bet that it's my job to oversee every aspect, however minor it may seem. The same goes with others in their respective purviews, such as sacristans and masters of acolytes. I'm not saying that I always do it successfully, working with amateurs, and accidents happen. But the ideal standard is the same as that to which the conductor and members of the greatest symphony orchestras in the world also aspire. If such aspirations are appropriate in a secular setting, can you explain why they are not also appropriate to the glory of God, especially in that the church was where it all started? Josquin Des Pres, William Byrd, and J.S. Bach would not have troubled to compose what they did if no one at the time was interested and capable of singing it properly.

Edward Higginbottom of New College Oxford has stated that there were over two hundred choir schools in France until the unpleasantness of 1789 swept them all away. Even if choirs aren't your thing, presumably you don't have anything against schools, do you? Kids need an education, and choir schools do an outstanding job of it.

With so many more labor saving devices etc. today, we're presumably richer and more powerful than we were in 1780, so why has maintaining twenty semblances of a choir school (let alone two hundred) become such a burden? Until one gives the matter a little study and thought, one has no idea how far some matters have deteriorated since.

If you don't agree theologically, that's fine, but please don't try to enforce your prejudices on others by means of novel changes in the tax code. [Mad]

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Alogon (et al.): My rather jaundiced view of religious-service-as-performance comes from having dealt with too many people who think that the performance aspect overrides the religious. The worry about choreography, the importance attached to being seen to be in charge of some minor aspect of the performance... I realise that YMMV.

Dude, are you serious? Many non-profit/community organizations have people in them who are jockeying for position (they want to be IN CHARGE of something ... caps because they'll tell you!) and/or worried about details major and minor. It's human nature.

Would you deny them tax breaks as well?

If you prefer something more loosely structured ... fine for you, but remember, that's not for everybody.

And there's probably still someone there who's thought about the details and is working hard behind the scenes.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

As far as I'm aware ministers in the UK don't get tax-free housing allowances but do get housing. As it is a tied-cottage (ie it is necessary for them to live there in order to perform their job) it is tax-free.

Churches, like any charity, don't pay taxes. I guess this is because they don't make profits as any surpluses are used for their work another year. One issue at the moment is that churches don't pay rates (local property taxes) and this is done by giving the buildings a nil rateable value. Water payments for non-commercial properties are based on rateable values so churches (and other charities) don't pay for their water and sewage. The water companies (now privately owned) have got wise to this and want to charge.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

In the US, at least, taxation implies some control and encroachment. However, to call chauffeurs and doormen ministers of religion is somewhat over the top.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Churches in the UK usually get tax breaks etc. because they are considered to be charitable organisations. This page on the Charity Commission's website explains what objectives qualify as charitable in the UK, and I've been wondering recently whether 'the advancement of religion' should even qualify as a charitable purpose.

If churches are doing philanthropic work such as running community centres, food banks and the like then fine, let them have the benefits of charitable status. But should the advancement of religion in itself be considered as a charitable objective, thus allowing all the financial benefits that folks have described upthread? I'm not so sure...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0