The Parish Exemption, unconstitutional. O_O

[Deleted]

I am The Riddler. I never 'make stuff up'. Take a look at the original article referenced by the OP...

I can't find anything that contains enough maniacal laughter for this statement.

[Baelic]

Now if only they could abolish the tax exemption in Canada... Oh wait the CONservatives are in power right not...

[Prokne]

I didnt know there was a law that allowed it but I did know that churches were able to give housing allowances to ministers tax free. I dont agree with the spirit of the ruling though. IMO if you tax people who work for a religious or tax exempt institution then you are indirectly taxing that institution because they will have to pay their employees more so that they still make competitive wages. If atheists have a problem with that then they should make their own tax exempt atheist "church" and use the same rules.

Most ministers dont make very much which is why the law was used to help finance their housing. In the meantime the corporate world is still allowed to own and operate the homes of their high ranking employees who are making plenty of money.

[The Riddler]

I can't find anything that contains enough maniacal laughter for this statement.

Mwa-hahahaha! I am The Riddler. I never "make stuff up"... Deal with it!



http://s13.photobucket.com/user/Nafa...Laugh.mp4.html

[Payday]

U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a strong, 43-page decision Friday declaring unconstitutional 26 U.S. C. § 107(2), passed by Congress in 1954. Quoting the Supreme Court, Crabb noted, “Every tax exemption constitutes subsidy.” The law allowed “ministers of the gospel” paid through a housing allowance to exclude that allowance from taxable income. Ministers may, for instance, use the untaxed income to purchase a home, and, in a practice known as “double dipping,” may then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes.

“The Court’s decision does not evince hostility to religion — nor should it even seem controversial,” commented Richard L. Bolton, FFRF’s attorney in the case. “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.”

Sounds good to me.

[Spectral]

Guess who's money that is?

It's the money of bilked rubes that have been sold a bill of goods. If they're happy with their purchase though, more power to them.

[RicardoZ]

Religion should not be an excuse for tax evasion.

If religious organizations paid taxes they would demand representation. We decided taxation without representation was a bad idea a few hundred or so years ago.

The church wielded incredible political power in Europe because it was the main source of income for local governments because it was the most wealthy institution in town. That led to a lot of really bad things.

[Crissi]

If religious organizations paid taxes they would demand representation. We decided taxation without representation was a bad idea a few hundred or so years ago.

The church wielded incredible political power in Europe because it was the main source of income for local governments because it was the most wealthy institution in town. That led to a lot of really bad things.

If the pastors are voting, they are being represented. Hell they have lobbies too.

Otherwise, our congress would be HUGE from the amount of organizations that would need to be represented, religious or not.

[RicardoZ]

If the pastors are voting, they are being represented. Hell they have lobbies too.

Otherwise, our congress would be HUGE from the amount of organizations that would need to be represented, religious or not.

That's because pastors, regardless of their religious affiliation, are private citizens with the right to vote.

Churches are considered non-profit organizations. Like most non-profits, they are tax exempt. You could start up a non-profit dedicated to the spread of atheism and destruction of Bibles and get a tax exempt status for it.

[Crissi]

That's because pastors, regardless of their religious affiliation, are private citizens with the right to vote.

Churches are considered non-profit organizations. Like most non-profits, they are tax exempt. You could start up a non-profit dedicated to the spread of atheism and destruction of Bibles and get a tax exempt status for it.

Sure, but they cant actually be represented in congress beyond a lobbying standpoint, as that "taxation without representation" was applied to individuals. Are U.S citizens being represented? yes.

[RicardoZ]

Sure, but they cant actually be represented in congress beyond a lobbying standpoint, as that "taxation without representation" was applied to individuals. Are U.S citizens being represented? yes.

Taxation without representation wasn't applied to individuals, it was applied to the colonies as an entity. We asked for one single seat in Parliament from which to voice our grievances in exchange for the crap-ton of money we were making for the Crown and King George refused.

If churches were taxed as though they were businesses they would become a gigantic source of income for the government and the entire basis for the separation of church and state would collapse.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

If religious organizations paid taxes they would demand representation. We decided taxation without representation was a bad idea a few hundred or so years ago.

The church wielded incredible political power in Europe because it was the main source of income for local governments because it was the most wealthy institution in town. That led to a lot of really bad things.

So what you're saying is that churches can be tax exempt but their members can't vote? Sounds good to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but they cant actually be represented in congress beyond a lobbying standpoint, as that "taxation without representation" was applied to individuals. Are U.S citizens being represented? yes.

How is this any different than a business? We don't get a McDonald's representative or anything like that.

[Endus]

I'm not sure why churches are tax-exempt to begin with. Much less adding other special exemptions on top of it.

It's a fairly simple rule. They aren't supposed to use their pulpits to support a particular candidate, and in exchange, they're granted non-profit tax-exempt status.

They can say "We think abortion is wrong, and here's why." What they can't add to that is "And that's why you should vote for <Insert Republican Representative>" (republican only picked because they're mostly anti-abortion, not to make a political point).

If they were to campaign for or endorse a specific candidate, they'd lose their status as a religious entity, and under the tax law would be considered a political group, not a faith group. And thus lose that religious exemption.

It works both ways, basically. If you make them pay taxes, then they're gonna campaign on behalf of specific representatives.

If religious organizations paid taxes they would demand representation. We decided taxation without representation was a bad idea a few hundred or so years ago.

No. They already have representation. That's why ministers and priests and whatever get a vote.

Corporations don't get a vote, and thus aren't represented directly, for the same reasons churches don't and aren't. It's unrelated to the tax exemption, which is about a distinction between religious and political groups.

[RicardoZ]

So what you're saying is that churches can be tax exempt but their members can't vote? Sounds good to me.

How in the world did you get that from my post?

No. They already have representation. That's why ministers and priests and whatever get a vote.

Corporations don't get a vote, and thus aren't represented directly, for the same reasons churches don't and aren't. It's unrelated to the tax exemption, which is about a distinction between religious and political groups.

Ministers and priests get a vote because they are private citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation.

A corporation is perfectly free to bring its grievances before government. A church technically isn't. Religious people can do so as private citizens, but a church as an entity cannot go to its representatives in congress and say "We, as 1st St. Church, want the following things...". The only exception is that government is allowed to make an exception if a faith-based group is deemed to be a charitable organization, in which case funds can be allocated for aid.

And this prohibition does, in fact, arise from churches' tax-exempt status under section 501 (C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

How in the world did you get that from my post?

Well going to the other end of the idea, no taxation = no representation.

[Spectral]

If religious organizations paid taxes they would demand representation.

They are represented. Overrepresented, in fact.

[Sunseeker]

I think we should eliminate the tax exemption on chruches and religious stuff in general, in turn, let them talk politics. Most of them do anyway and that's a shit ton of money we're missing out on that goes completely unreported as "income" by the church AND gives wealthy folks huge tax breaks, so it's double expensive.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Churches are already well represented in our government. While not directly represented as a politically affiliated group, their views are all too obviously represented by their membership.

[NYC17]

Sounds good to me.

Agreed. Let the cries of persecution begin!

[Rennadrel]

If I misinterpreted the OP, then it was due to the OP's poor communication skills. In the second sentence the OP claims that "the 1954 law costs the US something like 71 billion a year". The 1954 law referenced is 26 U.S. C. § 107(2): "Rental value of Parsonages". This law in no way at any point in time ever totaled anything even remotely close to 71 billion a year in tax revenue. Therefore the OP's 2nd sentence is so fundamentally incorrect that it cannot be said that I 'misinterpreted' it.

Remember, you have to keep 71 billion in scale and perspective. That's a HUGE amount of money, and there is no way that the value of church parsonages could possibly touch that figure. The value of the ENTIRE Cosmetics & Toiletries industry in the United States is something on the order of one third of that value (about 24 billion). That is the total value of the entire C&T industry too - not just net profits. And we're supposed to believe that the value of just the TAXES on church parsonages is 3X as much as the entire value of the whole C&T industry - lock stock and barrel? Such a claim would be farcical on its face.

Maybe 71 billion since 1954, that would be more accurate, however the figures would have had to of been small for the first 10-15 years compared to now. Population growth and all that jazz.