In a May 21 ruling, U.S. District Judge William Shubb stated that “plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts which, if accepted as true, `leave open the possibility’ that … Section 107 goes too far in aiding and subsidizing religion by providing ministers and churches with tangible financial benefits not allowed secular employers and employees.”
Why did I know this was in California before I opened the article?
We pay tax in hard cash for the “fair market value” equivalent of the rent that would be paid for living in a rectory. That is money above whatever salary we pay tax on. If the parish helps out by giving cash to help cover the tax, then we pay tax on that money.
What’s the problem here? When the person who sorts out my complicated taxes gets done, I am paying tax upon tax. So these folks should be comforted that the IRS gets us six ways from Sunday.
It has always seemed to me that the provision for the exclusion of housing/housing allowance from IRS tax was a kind of rough-justice quid-pro-quo balance for the requirement that clergy be considered self-employed in the calculation of Social Security/Medicare payroll tax.
Bruce Robison
It’s strange that there is no mention that it’s the same provision which provides the same benefit to members of the military regardless of where they are stationed or if they are in harms way. Will they also lose their housing exemption status? Oh, excuse me, they’re not associated with a religion, so that must be “more equal” to everyone else.
To be clear, the government has assumed unto itself the right to tax it’s citizens and it has always been a slippery slide to more and more taxation. Frankly, there should be not pretense that governments are somehow fair, equitable, just or even-handed in most of their efforts to levy taxes. I can think of any number of exemptions and shelters which are not “equally applied to all citizens.” What’s next, outlawing the tax exempt status of Churches based on separation of Church and State? (I suspect so.)
On a more personal levee, Flat Tax, anyone?
Albeit, what you’re referring to is the Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) paid to married military personnel, regardless of their rank, and who are living off base with their families. In many cases, it only partly defrays the actual cost of housing, as I know from personal experience. I suppose one could think of the housing exemption granted to clergy as being the same, so I fail to see why they should be treated any differently than military personnel; religion notwithstanding. I see this as nothing more than another blatant attempt to squash religion.
[b]Albeit:[/b]
Personally, I’m against a flat tax. It works fabulously well for the wealthy, but not so much for the poor.
For example, to make the math easy, let’s assume a 10% flat tax. A’s yearly income = $1 million; B = $100,000; C = $50,000; and D = a mere $10,000. That means: A owes $100,000 in taxes; B = $10,000; C = $5,000; and D = $1,000.
Now, most people would agree that $100,000 is a big chunk of change – but A still has $900,000 left over, which is a lot. B has $90,000 left, which is also a lot, [url=http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml#data]given that the average per capita income in the US in 2007 was approximately $37,500.[/url] C has $45,000 – likely sufficient to support himself, but if he’s the sole breadwinner for a family, things are probably a bit tight in the C household. D, meanwhile, has only $9,000 left. Ever tried to live on $9,000 a year – or, worse yet, support more than just yourself on $9,000? Just pay rent and buy only necessary food and clothes, and nothing else, and even a sale and coupon junkie would already be in debt.
In other words, a flat tax is regressive – it has a disproportionate effect on the poor. The same is true of doing away with income taxes and using instead only sales taxes, or changing the [i]income[/i] tax into a [i]salary[/i] tax. (Typically, less than half of a wealthy person’s yearly income comes from his paycheck, while poorer people generally get all or the vast majority of their yearly income from their paychecks. In other words, with a salary tax, the wealthy would be taxed on less than half of what they bring in each year, but poorer people would be taxed on most or all of what they bring in.)
And while I agree with you that we shouldn’t try to pretend “that governments are somehow fair, equitable, just, or even-handed in most of their efforts to levy taxes,†I don’t think that provides sufficient excuse to use the tax system to punish the poor so much more heavily than the wealthy.
[b]#3: BMR:[/b] I always made the same assumption.
#6. fishsticks: I was being facetious with respect to my comment on the flat tax.
Incidentally, the typical current Administration and Congressional leadership is serious consider a VAT. Not that is economic injustice at it’s worse. And why? GOVERNMENT G-R-E-E-D!!!
Fishsticks,
In regard to the fairness of a flat tax. God seems to think it is fair. The tithe of 10% is just that, 10%. A person who makes the $1,000,000 and gives $100,000 to his parish is following God’s law. The person who makes $10,000 and gives only $500 to the church, is STEALING FROM GOD!!
I know it sounds harsh, but it is Biblical. (I know that many people feel that the tithe is not binding in New Testament times, but that is another argument altogether.)
This also works for Churches. In our denomination, each parish is expected to give the first 10% of weekly offerings. So say, there is $500 in the plate, send a check for $50 to the diocese. This expectation is the same for the 25 member parish and the 400 parish. Now obviously, the 25 member parish would take in say $500 and the 400 member parish would take in say $8000. The first would owe the $50 and the second would owe $800. The first would be left with $450 to get through the week and the second would have $7200. Again, it does not seem “fair” but it is proportional.