William is the SBC Plodder.
If you run across a general news report on the minister’s housing allowance you should conclude that something is going on that might not be good. As long as we fly under the news radar with our Sacred Clergy Tax Break, that wonderful tax benefit by which we clergy may exclude tens of thousands of dollars from income taxes, we may relax. But, if its in the news it is likely because of (a) a legitimate but immensely compensated minister is excluding hundreds of thousands of income from taxes and living in a multi-million dollar mansion, or (b) we are in the courts defending the tax break from being taken away.
Recent news concerns the latter, the oral arguments having been heard by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last year a federal district judge in Wisconsin ruled unconstitutional part of the tax code that provides the clergy housing allowance.
Associated Baptist Press has a good story, Court hears challenge to clergy housing allowance. Baptist Press has an optimistic piece here.
The salient point is that if allowed to stand, especially if it makes it to the Supreme Court, minister’s who live or rent in homes not owned by churches will lose the ability to exclude income on that basis.
I have always benefited from the HA. I don’t think it to be an establishment of religion and thereby unconstitutional. I hope the appeals court overturns the district judge’s decision.
That said, the arguments made to the appeals court are interesting and informative. I note the following:
- The original plaintiffs, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, note that most of the arguments made by the groups supporting the HA are economic – if taken away many ministers will face economic hardship. Give the FFRA credit for seeing clearly here.
- Some of the arguments supporting the HA are rather weak. For example, the HA equalizes different religious traditions in this respect, that is, traditions that allow ministers to buy their own housing are not penalized thereby in comparison to traditions (Roman Catholic for one) where the church owns housing. I don’t see this a particularly compelling.
- Another weak argument is that ministers who own their houses have upon them certain expectations that require them to use their domicile for certain church purposes. Well, some do. Some don’t. It should be noted here that those who live in parsonages receive the HA under a provision not threatened. Most of us know that living in a church-owned pastorium, almost always next to or near the church, places many duties that are at the “convenience of the employer.” That’s why most of us celebrate when churches move away from pastoriums to paying a cash housing allowance. I own my house. The church has no claim on it even though I am a hospitable guy and am happy to have church groups out. I am not compelled to do this.
- Churches get special treatment not by the government’s largess but in order to reduce the entanglement of church and state. This is a persuasive point, in my view. Imagine some bureaucrat making a determination about your housing allowance. No thanks.
SBC leaders and others often say that they are fighting for the small church pastor when they defend the housing allowance. But the fact is that the small church pastor doesn’t pay much income tax. A pastor with a stay-at-home wife and 2-4 children could probably have a total package of $50,000 or even $55,000 without owing any income tax (maybe there is somebody with enough accounting knowledge to run the numbers). Even if the same pastor had a total package of $60,000, the housing allowance might just save him a few hundred dollars.
In contrast, Ed Young of Fellowship Church has a housing allowance of $240,000. Since he is in the top income tax bracket, that means he saves $95,000 in income tax.
If SBC leaders really cared about the small church pastor, they would be contending for a cut in the self-employment tax (back up to 15.3% for 2013 & 2014 from 13.3% in 2011&2012). For most small church pastors, self-employment tax is a much bigger burden than income tax.
Ah, the SECA tax monster once again rears its ugly head in this conversation.
Jeff is right. Income taxes aren’t near the burder SECA taxes are (especially since ministers must remember to withold enough on their income tax free Housing Allowance to pay the SECA taxes on that); however, once the minister is an empty nester or his wife starts working and makes decent money, the HA is quite a nice income tax exclusion, especially because of its status as a double tax break (we exclude mortgage payments *and* then turn around and use mortgage interest as an itemized deduction.
I once did a calculation for average salaried SBC clergy and came up with about $2,000 per year saved on income taxes. That would be enough to buy one of Dave Miller’s expensive suits.
GuideStone and the ERLC were caught flat-footed in the original case last year but are on the job working for us now.
“once the minister is an empty nester or his wife starts working and makes decent money, the HA is quite a nice income tax exclusion”
This hypothetical couple might make over $100,000. It is hard to justify why this couple should get a tax break not available to other Americans. I am more sympathetic to the small church pastor with stay-at-home wife and children (which I am), and the housing allowance doesn’t help him much (if at all). This pastor would be helped more by a bigger child tax credit or bigger earned income tax credit or a cut in self-employment tax. But SBC leaders haven’t shown much interest in these kinds of things.
Jeff
While I am the empty nester, I do agree with you that our concern should be that small to medium size church pastor with kids at home. They are in the majority and should receive the most consideration. As I have reached empty nester the tax break is indeed nice. However, I needed it much more in the earlier years.
As far as the “Ed Young scenario”, I see no problem, put a cap on the HA that can be deducted and call it a day.
This should not be about pastors with large church salaries versus pastors with small church salaries. Our President promotes enough class warfare all by himself. We don’t need to jump on board that wagon.
Anything that legally keeps money out of the hands of the government and in the hands of Christian people should be applauded. Whether a pastor is wealthy or barely paying the bills, I would bet that 99 times out of a 100, the pastor will be a better steward of the money than the federal government would.
I discussed small churches vs big churches because SBC leaders said they are fighting for housing allowance for the sake of small churches; but the HA doesn’t help small church pastors much. SBC leaders in this instance have shown that they are out-of-touch elitists.
Jeff Haney, Most SBC churches are considered small and their average salary + housing allowance levels mean most of them derive some benefit from the HA. The out-of-touch elitists is a gratuitous cheap shot.
…but I appreciate your contribution here otherwise.
Bro. William
Just for clarification because I’m not sure I understand your comment, I am coming from the standpoint of a small church pastor. (150 ish) My salary/ha/insurance is commensurate with a congregation of that size. My primary point is that while I am for the HA, I don’t believe that we can stand on it, as a Biblical right, and we must be careful as to how far we “fight” in lieu of damaging the cause of our work.
Matt, much wisdom in that statement. It wasn’t until the early 1900s that the Federal Government was bequeathed the ability to take money whether there was a bill or not. Individuals do a much better job of using the money they have earned to create freedom in a society. So, I agree, any law that weans the government to a “reasonable” use of others money is a prudent and American strategy, all at the same time.
Thanks, Chris. I certainly agree with you.
Jeff,
I am not a big church pastor, but the housing allowance greatly influences how my wife and I use our salary, and it has been a great blessing to me. If it helps a mega church pastor a lot more than me, then I am happy for the mega church pastor, but it is good for all of us.
I would also disagree with you that men like O. S. Hawkins and Russell Moore are “out-of-touch elitists.” I know that you didn’t use names, but I personally am very appreciative of Guidestone and the ERLC and what they do for all Southern Baptist ministers. I can’t say whether a mega-church pastor would be treated better by them than me, but I can say that few organizations have ever been more respectful or responsive to me than these SBC entities.
just a few thoughts from a couple of years ago. . .
http://changeworthmaking.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/clergy-housing-allowance-and-the-ffrfr/
“I don’t think it to be an establishment of religion and thereby unconstitutional.”
Why not? It is a piece of tax law that offers a unique, favorable benefit to religious leaders that it doesn’t give to anyone else. By it the government is saying that religious leaders perform a service to society beneficial enough to merit special treatment. Religious leaders are singled out for favorable treatment. I grant that this is not government endorsement of a specific religion, but it is impossible not to see this as government endorsement of religion in the whole.
The constitution does not prohibit endorsement of religion only “establishment” of it…meaning they cannot sanction a specific religion or faith as the official one and create a theocratic govt.
That is what the founders meant by the establishment clause.
Additionally, it is not just ministers that get this exemption…so do other many of those employed by charities and even educational entities.
Lastly, this tax benefit is no different than other “tax benefits” that the govt. offers to people, charities, political lobbyists, corporations, etc… from every corner of society that the govt. deems profitable enough for the society as a whole and we all know there are a plethora of those.
The only people who object to this are people who hold hate or resentment toward religion.
I will be careful to say that some pastors and churches misuse this benefit and abuse these benefits…they should be singled our for corrective action, and if be intentional deceit or malfeasance punished according to the law.
Lastly, since pastors pay self employment tax the benefit is typically not as large (in the vast majority of cases) as some might think. But, honestly I would like to keep this benefit as every little bit helps feed hungry people who need a decent place to live and clothes to wear – my family.
“The only people who object to this are people who hold hate or resentment toward religion.”
Nice straw man.
“That is what the founders meant by the establishment clause.”
Whatever they may or may not have meant is irrelevant, what’s relevant is what it says. Either way, the intent seems plain enough: those who crafted the constitution wanted government to stay in the business of governing all her citizens without dabbling in the affairs of religion. Singling out religious leaders for special treatment is endorsing religion – establishing an official government position toward religion – and is not permitted by the constitution. The only people who want the government to do it anyway are people who think religion should get favorable treatment in society (thought I’d throw in my own straw man for you).
“What the founders meant is irrelevant…”
Chris,
That is just ridiculous.
If the interpretation of the constitution is not tied to the intent of the writers then the interpretation “of what it says” will be forever a moving target.
Do you realize you just argued against “intent” and then made an argument based on what you think they intended?
“Whatever they may or may not have meant is irrelevant, what’s relevant is what it says. Either way, the intent seems plain enough: those who crafted the constitution wanted government to stay in the business of governing all her citizens without dabbling in the affairs of religion.”
“It only matters what it says.”
The constitution only reads that the govt. may not ESTABLISH a religion, nor can they prohibit the free excersize of religion….it does not “say” any more than that. It ‘says’ nothing about endorsement.
“nice Straw man”
Who is suing for the establishment of this benefit…strong faithful adherents of religion…or those who hold some animosity toward it…just wondering?
Think about it, use google if you wish….
Told ya…like I said…people who argue for a blanket ending of it are those who are not supportive of the idea of religion in the first place.
In fact, I bet you used to support it when you were enthralled in the pastor game you were playing – didn’t you?
*Who is suing for the establishment of this benefit
should read
Who is suing for the abolishment of this benefit…
Of course I supported it. It got me more money, the purest of motives.
Chris,
If you’re so altruistic and no longer “motivated my money”….I wonder – would you pay back the government all of the savings that you received from the housing allowance while you were playing pastor? While you’re at it – return all the money the church(es) paid you played? Maybe even the SBC who helped fund the education you received to further the fraud you perpetrated?
That is unless you’re still motivated by money – you know – the purest of motives?
I’d have to agree that the Constitution does not prohibit the government from promotion of religion in general. However, I wont go all David Barton and say the establishment clause was written to protect from theocracy. That wasnt the model for “established” religion they had know. England was not a theocracy.
As long as it’s not one religion over another, then it’s fine.
Right. Adam.
They wanted to protect against not so much a theocracy (bad word choice) but an established/required religion by the govt. where in order to exist in society and relate to the govt. one had to practice a certain religion.
Please don’t insult me by insinuating I’m “going Barton”. Lol.
Tarheel, sorta agree…
I wouldnt even go as far as saying it was intended to prevent “required religion” as you stated and defined it, but to simply prevent the Govt from preferring one religion (or one denomination) over another. However, the compulsive aspect you mentioned would be implied.
In this regards, the time when the Constitution was written wasnt really anything like the pluralistic time we live in today. Pretty much everyone was a Christian of some sort. But, the colonists were very familiar with denominational persecution. That is the ground from which the Establishment Clause sprouted, not some worry about future compulsive sharia law or something like that…but it solved that problem as well.
I figured the Barton line would at least get your attention. ha!
Well, Adam..if ya sota agree with me – you are kinda right insomuch as you do!
😉
I would like for you to back up your claim that it is “unethical, unfair, and abhorrent” for pastors who make a lot to take the HA exemption. How? How is it unfair to take the legal exemptions that the IRS allows? It is not their fault that the IRS has created a loophole or has written a bad law. I have no problem with anyone taking the legal exemptions that are allowed. If a wealthy pastor is transparent, following proper accounting protocol and taking the exemptions allowed — how is that unethical, abhorrent and unfair?
Unethical in that Christian ministers should have some higher morality that causes them at some point to eschew even legal tax exclusions.
Unfair in that for a member of the clergy to be able to exclude hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of ministerial income while average working stiffs have no such opportunity is unfair.
Abhorrent in that it should cause revulsion when members of the clergy live like kings and are not taxed as they do it.
Other than all that, I’m ok with it.
Unethical — availing oneself of the all available tax regulations is not immoral or unethical…it’s smart.
Unfair– really? Then it is unfair for those with children to use the child tax credit while those who have no children can’t. There are hundreds of tax rules that favor some person or situation over another. But, that is not what this post was about. The post was claiming that it is unfair for wealthier pastors to take the HA. (sounds like the reasoning of the “occupy” movement)
It is fair. The poorer pastor can avail himself of the same HA that a wealthier pastor can.
Abhorrent — here you have shifted the conversation. You are not longer discussing the HA, you are discussing a salary cap for pastors. Different conversation. It might be abhorrent for a pastor to live like a “king”. But, it is not abhorrent for a pastor to follow legal rules and accept the HA no matter what level his salary is at.
By the way, in your opinion what should be the upper dollar cap for a pastor?
Dave, I have written often on what I see as the abuses of the HA. This is a small but very potent part of the matter that generates considerable I’ll will towards clergy. The simple solution would be to cap the HA along the lines of the military HA.
In the FFRF case, the abuses might add some color to the arguments but is not the foundation of the lawsuit.
William,
See my post below…I do not think I would be opposed to a cap for wealthy abusers…
But surely you know that “ill will” will always exist and most of it has NOTHING to do with a HA its just a convenient bit of political rhetoric to throw. 😉
“The poorer pastor can avail himself of the same HA that a wealthier pastor can.”
If the poor pastor has a stay-at-home wife and 4 kids and makes less than $55,000, he doesn’t owe any income tax. But this poor pastor is having a hard time paying the very regressive self-employment tax and (if he owns his home) paying very regressive property taxes. The rich pastor has his self-employment tax capped, and doesn’t have to pay any self-employment after $117,000. He gets to deduct his mortgage interest twice. And he gets his housing allowance deduction in the top bracket, so multiply his HA by .396 to get his tax savings.
Scott, I have no issue with any transparent compensation contract between two private parties. The simple solution is to cap the HA. I don’t care if you live in the Biltmore House and make millions in clergy income. Tax policy should not reward you, however.
“Unethical in that Christian ministers should have some higher morality that causes them at some point to eschew even legal tax exclusions.”
It is not absolutely NOT unethical in any way for a Christian minister to take advantage of a legal and offered tax break than it is for Joe Schmo Christian (hey isn’t the standard of ethics similar) who is not a pastor to deduct his business expenses or his childcare credit.
“Unfair in that for a member of the clergy to be able to exclude hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of ministerial income while average working stiffs have no such opportunity is unfair.”
There are all kinds of breaks that I do not qualify for..does that make all of them unfair?
“Abhorrent in that it should cause revulsion when members of the clergy live like kings and are not taxed as they do it.”
Add the word “some” between your words “when” and “minsters” and I would agree with that statement….but this is not a Housing allowance issue….it is an issue of integrity and the heart and I should not (nor other honest minsters) be punished for the actions of some.
If the IRS were to say..hey some on the top end (how many are we talking anyway less than 1% of ministers in the SBC) who “live like kings” (not sure how to define that, and I sure ain’t comfortable with politically appointed govt. bureaucrats defining it.)
Hit submit before finishing thought.
…therefore we (the IRS) are altering the HA allowances allowed under code for those who are at the way top end of the spectrum (for example the Obama Administration is fond of calling those making 175K rich).
I think I would be OK with that.
The housing allowance should probably be capped at about $15,000 or $20,000. Ed Young should not get to deduct $240,000 and save $95,000 in income tax.
I would think that a 25K housing allowance cap would be acceptable.
However, I think, if enacted, this policy should affect EVERYONE who gets an HA.
After all, fairness is what we are after, right?
The highest ranking officer in the military has a cap of somewhere around $40k. With all the four star pastors we have, I’d not cap below that.
I would seem that class envy exists even within the church. Theres seems to be an assumption that those who make significantly more that I do must be money grubbing charlatans.
I deserve the HA, of course, but those “rich pastors” ought to do without it.
Of course there are injustices – the IRS should deal with those. But the class warfare mentality behind some of these comments bothers me.
Dave,
My comments that you thought sounded like “class warfare” were not motivated by envy, but by irritation at this recent article:
http://www.bpnews.net/43323/housing-allowance-weighed-by-appeals-court
Both ERLC and Guidestone said they were primarily motivated by desire to help small churches and their pastors, but pastors of truly small churches that make less than $55,000 (and have a stay-at-home wife and lots of kids as SBC leaders tell us we should do) don’t get much or any benefit from the housing allowance. Basically, the SBC leaders are defending a huge tax break for pastors of big churches while pretending that they are doing it for the pastors of small churches.
Regardless of one’s take on this matter, and I certainly don’t think there is any worth is comparing what a pastor with a large salary should or shouldn’t declare versus a pastor with a median or small salary, the real issue is government intrusion into the realm of religious institutions.
The truth is that, until the late 1950s, the government did not even classify pastors as employees (for the basis of Social Security). Moreover, most church members don’t even realize that when calculating a pastor’s “pay package” that said pastor is required to pay twice as much SECA as “typical employees”. Granted, a regular employer calculates that before offering a salary, but most churches don’t consider it. Furthermore, Guidestone, the ERLC, and Moore personally say it is unethical for pastors to opt out of Social Security (which a pastor can do within the 1st two years of Ordination) because they say there isn’t a legitimate reason. PLEASE! Government intrusion to take, take, take, is the only reason pastors were required to become involved in Social Security to begin with.
While the Housing Allowance, which has been in effect since the start of the nation, may be declared null and void, the government certainly won’t declare their intrusion for SECA taxation null and void. If they want to be consistent they should only include in SECA those pastors who want it, versus forcing us to opt out.
And, don’t give me the, “pastors won’t save for retirement” line. If pastors can’t have enough wisdom to set aside for their family’s future they shouldn’t be in the ministry (1 Tim 3). Furthermore, for the 15.3% the govt. takes, a pastor could afford to save for retirement, buy a long-term disability policy, and life ins. that would protect their family.
Well written, William. I agree with your approach to the matter.
For those that feel it is not Biblically justified, the Books of Numbers and Joshua–especially Joshua–give ample examples of the special status of Gods set aside servants.
For those that don’t think it is moral, simply don’t take it. It is not compulsory.
I look beyond the tax issue to the broader issue of contempt for Christianity in our culture at large. It is here. It is increasing. It will present a challenge to the church. Many churches will simply cave into culture and “go with the flow,” sort of like a dead salmon swimming downstream.
Others, a remnant, will push against the increasing pressure of compromise knowing that ultimately, culture will overcome civic religion. What will be left will be a smaller, purer, more powerful church.
Since our burdensome self-employment SECA tax always comes up in these discussions, someone else can write the article arguing that clergy should be exempt from such. It has nothing to do with the Housing Allowance. It has a lot to do with making ends meet for the brethren/sistren.
The payroll tax/self employment isn’t just a burden for pastors. It is a burden for low income people in general. It is a very regressive tax and an obstacle to job creation and a discouragement to work. It might be better just to eliminate it and then fund Social Security and Medicare through income taxes and some form of consumption or value added tax. Of course means testing for Social Security and something like the Ryan Plan for Medicare (where people are given vouchers to buy insurance) are going to be necessary to fund both programs in the future. I write all of this as somebody who favors a smaller but more redistributive government. Most of my comments on the housing allowance are written from this perspective.
My CPA never would allow me to claim a housing allowance. He said I would be breaking the law because it was intended for ministers who doesn’t own a home.
Get another CPA. I’ve found many tax preparers, even CPAs, to be uninformed or underinformed on this. GuideStone provides SBC clergy with a valuable service in this regard, as do many state conventions.
Jess
The operative word in your CPA’s statement is “intended”. I do not know what the drafters of the law “intended” but I know what the law SAYS.
I agree with William T and Dave. Get another CPA and get the material GuideStone puts out. It is excellent.
D.L. Payton,
I attended a meeting with GuideStone and found out I could save a fortune by switching CPA’s. I found out I could claim mowing my own yard as a deduction as well as many other deductions that I never dreamed of.
My wife and I just didn’t feel right about all those deductions and we didn’t take them. I felt as though I would be cheating someone. I don’t want anymore deductions than any average Joe. That’s the way I have lived my life as a Christian, and don’t regret a minute of it.
I’ve been working and paying taxes since I was fourteen years old. I would go to college during the day and work in the Coal mine at night. Please never try it! Perhaps things would have been better if I had a less physical demanding job.
I’m proud of the way I’ve turned out. I’m a Centrist in politics, a blood bought born again believer in Christ, and a chosen vessel that holds no alcohol.
I’m strict in my beliefs, I don’t believe in judging someone with a grain of sand in their eye, if I have a boulder in mine. I believe if I’m not an example before others then I need to repent.
Jess, you seem to indicate that you have achieved some level of superiority by “not taking legal deductions.” I have no doubt you have much to be proud about in your life, but I don’t think your desire to give more taxes to government is anything to be proud about.
In fact, you would probably be surprised to hear me say you have been outright disobedient to the clear command of the Lord by paying taxes you did not need to pay. I’m sure you are aware that Jesus said, “Only give Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Also, by giving money to the government, that money is most certainly wasted on bloated payrolls. So, you sent money to the government you could have given to someone who was hungry.
So, while I accept your self-evaluation that you have much to “be proud of,” I don’t think wasting money by sending it to the government is one such thing.
CPA couldn’t be more wrong.
It is a shame that you have not taken a legal tax break over the years.
Read the Guidestone material on this – some of the best out there.
Dave,
Have you even considered I might have thought my government might need the money more than myself.
Well good for you, Jess. Give them as much as you want just don’t mess with me as I joyfully embrace this legal tax benefit.
Mr. miller,
I agree with the class warfare comments you made…that’s why I said IF the IRS were to institute a cap – then it should be for everyone who is eligible for one – including military….everyone.
Come to think of it …. I am not sure I’d support a cap at all under our current tax code.
I said earlier, as you did, deal with those trying to get over or abusing….leave the rest (the vast, vast) majority alone.
Military already has a cap, Dave…around $40k max for generals and admirals. Big shot 4 star pastor like you would have to live with that. Are you still on board?
Glad you brought that up…. Am I going to get all the tax breaks they get in addition to the 40k HA? Let’s be fair. That’s what we’re supposedly after right? There are some people out there who resent/ have ill will toward military who get lots of breaks so should we write blogs about thier “sacred” breaks? Maybe everyone will suddenly like the military if we end some of the cushy breaks they get? (I’m not one of the haters – I think they should get more breaks). I think you see the point.
See, everyone has different breaks – I don’t resent the military getting what they get….nor do I resent doctors, lawyers, or mega church pastors getting the ones they get….
Im not a person who lives in envy or jealousy or angst over tax benefits/salaries others get that I’m not qualified for.
I think that everyone should get to keep more of the compensation they earn for the jobs they perform. I think the govt. takes too much from most working people of all professions – so there.
I’m almost always game for grumbling about the senseless tax code but are you sure that it is wise for clergy to spend diminishing moral capital defending fabulous tax breaks for highly paid megapastors, ministry leaders, and similar? At least military personnel offer a cogent rationale for their veteran benefits and special taxation.
While I am accustomed to receiving responses on this subject that include defending people like Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer and their income tax exclusions, it still somewhat surprises me.
Um, I wouldn’t be saying anything that you could construe in that way (although it’s not exactly what I said in context) if you posting about it and insinuating anyone who takes a HA is acting “abhorant and unfairly”.
I wonder, do you accept yours when your taxes are done?
Like Miller said…. It seems like your saying “it’s cool for me to take mine, but they shouldn’t get one”. ( they being determined sujectively.)
Someone suggested that we should not “fight quote for the HA as a constitutional “right”. I agree. No one here has, I don’t think.
However, it’s clearly not unconstitutional, abhorant, unfair or whatever other pejorative terms have been attached to by the author of the OP and some commenters either!
I agree with William Thornton’s statement about the diminishing moral capital of clergy. I live in a secular city and am friends with many agnostics and just non-church goers in general. Most value religion only for the charity work it does. If a church runs a shelter or a food pantry or a coat drive, then it’s viewed favorably. So a purely utilitarian outlook on churches and the clergy who run them.
Now look at the military, this is a group highly endorsed by my non-church going friends. After all they put themselves in harms way and can be called up at a short notice to go somewhere awful.
Now look at first responders. These folks put themselves in danger to save us, oftentimes saving us from our own foolishness (a careless candle left burning too near a drape, a forgetting to check the blind spot before passing etc.) Yet first responders get no tax break on their housing. And my non-religious friends would see their calling as more beneficial to society than the clergy’s calling.
Well, at $40,000 I’d be okay.
The other downside of this “cap” idea is that it doesn’t recognize regional costs.
In Sioux City you can live in pretty nice houses for not that much money.
My son lives in Boston. My home, in Boston, would cost 750K to even a million – depending on where it was.
So, a $40k cap on HA in Sioux City would be reasonable, but for pastors living in expensive areas like SF, Boston, NY etc, it would be punitive.
Jess, you are always free to give any amount to the US government you choose. If I’m going to donate money, it would be to a Christian organization, but that is your choice.
My point is that if you are using a CPA who does not understand the basics of ministerial tax law, you might not be getting the best advice.
Dave,
Here is how I look at it, no Christian organization will feed as many people as the government.
I merely grazed at the comments until my eyes glazed, and then I decided to call attention to the reality that taxes are a means of control and destruction. The Communists wanted the income tax as a means to accomplish their goals. Other have wanted them for the same reasons though with different goals in mind, perhaps. The real problem is that the folks who want this change have ignored the contribution the churches made toward securing freedom and the rights that we enjoy. Consider Elijah Craig, chairman of the Committee of Baptists in Va. which met with the colonial legislators and made an agreement that in exchange for freedom to practice our faith Baptist ministers would encourage their young men to enlist in the Patriots’ Cause. Elijah and his relatives must have been quite successful in their encouragement. I found one whole regiment of Virginia colonial militia in which every member bore the last name of Craig (our son’s first name, given to him before he was born by my grandmother (her maiden name)). A friend of mine was a direct descendant of Elijah Craig. O yes, and Scotch clans are extended families as the name indicates. Anyway, the Baptists provided the cannon fodder, while the Presbyterians provided the mid-level officers and the Episcopalians (formerly the Anglicans) provided the generals. Now we are far enough for everyone to have forgotten what really took place in the Revolution, and the text books tell us a pack of lies often. So we lose and big time, and this is just the start. A Black fellow worker told about being a student in high school back in the 80s, when the teacher and the textbook asserted that the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians. He said, “That’s a lie. They gave thanks to God.” An African American who stood proud and tall. By the way his last name was Craig, and he had a White grandfather that he loved. Life is full of many amusing and curious contradictions. Imagine getting religious liberty in law and practice from a religious group (the Baptists, no less). Thank you Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke. And thanks to Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers who were very much aware of, and even made reference to, the Rhode Island experience where the first synagogue was built in the new world and which stands at the last account I had. Brethren, start getting involved. Ask your reps what will be their stand on religious liberty and the contribution all de- nominations made to this practice?
Jack,
I think we all must do what tickles our fancy and have no regrets. I think I have accomplished that.
Dave, military HA rates vary by location. That would be unnecessarily complex for clergy so just set the cap high. If $50k is deemed sufficient for the highest grade officer, that should suffice for clergy. To avoid rancor from the megacompensated clergy, make it $75k, $100k. We aren’t talking about much money for the treasury. The optics and fallout from the public understanding what how much income a few clergy exclude call for something in my view…but we’re fine until the next expose.