Judge strikes down law that gives clergy members tax-free housing allowances

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wisconsin State Journal

As someone who's seriously exploring a pastoral career, this worries me quite a bit.  I'm no fan of megachurches certainly, but the average church has less than 200 members or less in them.  The powers that be may have had those big, rich televangelists in mind when this exemption was removed, but this could result in more churches closing their doors as many can barely afford to stay open as it is.

I know a lot of the secularists here might not give a damn, but for the sake of the average clergyman, I think the exemption ought to stay in place if not revamped.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't see why religions should get preferential treatment in policy. This flies in the face of the 1st Amendment.

Good decision.

[bedstuy]

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't see why religions should get preferential treatment in policy. This flies in the face of the 1st Amendment.

Good decision.

Keep in mind that religious organizations/churches aren't always for profit.  The small church I attend in the town next to me uses most of its funds for keeping the building refurbished and preparing the annual mission trips.  The senior pastor lives in a small house right in front of it that's been around for 250 years.  Surely, we should at least be consistent with our aid programs and help people who need to make a living?  Or are we just going to ignore them because religion happens to be their business?

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

I have trouble with the tax code as it is.  In my opinion, it should be a means of collecting revenue.  Period.  No special loopholes for your favorite interest group.  I'd happily trade the tax exemption for expanded social programs, which would include both pastors and social workers in secular institutions, but is that politically feasible?

[bedstuy]

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

I have trouble with the tax code as it is.  In my opinion, it should be a means of collecting revenue.  Period.  No special loopholes for your favorite interest group.  I'd happily trade the tax exemption for expanded social programs, which would include both pastors and social workers in secular institutions, but is that politically feasible?

That doesn't really make sense.  If you don't support special loopholes, you can't support this one.  If you don't support this loophole, you can't offer it as a trade-chip in exchange for something else.

[Torie]

I have never thought about this issue before, but my initial surmise is that the tax free housing allowance for religious ministers, priests, imams, and rabbis, is highly vulnerable to Constitutional challenge, unless expanded to afford such an allowance to all who work for 501(c)(3) charitable institutions. Otherwise, it does to me seem just a flat out specialized subsidy promoting religion (and to get out of that box, the exemption would need a broader scope, off which religious institutions could piggyback, just as they do off church properties being exempt from property taxes).  I googled around, and found this FWIW.

Anyway, at first blush, if I were on SCOTUS, I think I would vote, with regret, to tank the exemption as now designed.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

I have trouble with the tax code as it is.  In my opinion, it should be a means of collecting revenue.  Period.  No special loopholes for your favorite interest group.  I'd happily trade the tax exemption for expanded social programs, which would include both pastors and social workers in secular institutions, but is that politically feasible?

That doesn't really make sense.  If you don't support special loopholes, you can't support this one.  If you don't support this loophole, you can't offer it as a trade-chip in exchange for something else.

I'm saying ideally, there would be no special loopholes for anyone.  But if a loophole is the only politically feasible option for helping people make ends meet, we might as well have this one if we can't get an entirely loophole-free tax code in exchange for better social programs.  I don't see the loopholes in our tax code effectively being diminished in the near future, if at all.

[bedstuy]

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

I have trouble with the tax code as it is.  In my opinion, it should be a means of collecting revenue.  Period.  No special loopholes for your favorite interest group.  I'd happily trade the tax exemption for expanded social programs, which would include both pastors and social workers in secular institutions, but is that politically feasible?

That doesn't really make sense.  If you don't support special loopholes, you can't support this one.  If you don't support this loophole, you can't offer it as a trade-chip in exchange for something else.

I'm saying ideally, there would be no special loopholes for anyone.  But if a loophole is the only politically feasible option for helping people make ends meet, we might as well have this one if we can't get an entirely loophole-free tax code in exchange for better social programs.  I don't see the loopholes in our tax code effectively being diminished in the near future, if at all.

So, unless we can have a perfect tax code, it's OK to have completely unfair tax breaks, so long as they help someone make ends meet.  If I gave a million dollar tax break to Donald Trump, it would be justified, if I gave a one hundred dollar tax break to a poor family through the same loophole.  That's not a very strong principle.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

I have trouble with the tax code as it is.  In my opinion, it should be a means of collecting revenue.  Period.  No special loopholes for your favorite interest group.  I'd happily trade the tax exemption for expanded social programs, which would include both pastors and social workers in secular institutions, but is that politically feasible?

That doesn't really make sense.  If you don't support special loopholes, you can't support this one.  If you don't support this loophole, you can't offer it as a trade-chip in exchange for something else.

I'm saying ideally, there would be no special loopholes for anyone.  But if a loophole is the only politically feasible option for helping people make ends meet, we might as well have this one if we can't get an entirely loophole-free tax code in exchange for better social programs.  I don't see the loopholes in our tax code effectively being diminished in the near future, if at all.

So, unless we can have a perfect tax code, it's OK to have completely unfair tax breaks, so long as they help someone make ends meet.  If I gave a million dollar tax break to Donald Trump, it would be justified, if I gave a one hundred dollar tax break to a poor family through the same loophole.  That's not a very strong principle.

Where did I say that?  If tax breaks help the poor teacher working in a secular institution, I'd say give it to them if it helps them make ends meet.  But, it would be far better to do away with unfair tax breaks in general for both secular and non-secular organizations.  That, of course, is unlikely to ever become reality.  Politically, we're better off doing that because Congress would never pass any meaningful tax reform.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't see why religions should get preferential treatment in policy. This flies in the face of the 1st Amendment.

Good decision.

Keep in mind that religious organizations/churches aren't always for profit.  The small church I attend in the town next to me uses most of its funds for keeping the building refurbished and preparing the annual mission trips.  The senior pastor lives in a small house right in front of it that's been around for 250 years.  Surely, we should at least be consistent with our aid programs and help people who need to make a living?  Or are we just going to ignore them because religion happens to be their business?

I support giving non-profit religious activities the same benefits we give to other non-profit activities, and giving for-profit religious activities the same benefits we give to other for-profit activities.

[bedstuy]

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

I have trouble with the tax code as it is.  In my opinion, it should be a means of collecting revenue.  Period.  No special loopholes for your favorite interest group.  I'd happily trade the tax exemption for expanded social programs, which would include both pastors and social workers in secular institutions, but is that politically feasible?

That doesn't really make sense.  If you don't support special loopholes, you can't support this one.  If you don't support this loophole, you can't offer it as a trade-chip in exchange for something else.

I'm saying ideally, there would be no special loopholes for anyone.  But if a loophole is the only politically feasible option for helping people make ends meet, we might as well have this one if we can't get an entirely loophole-free tax code in exchange for better social programs.  I don't see the loopholes in our tax code effectively being diminished in the near future, if at all.

So, unless we can have a perfect tax code, it's OK to have completely unfair tax breaks, so long as they help someone make ends meet.  If I gave a million dollar tax break to Donald Trump, it would be justified, if I gave a one hundred dollar tax break to a poor family through the same loophole.  That's not a very strong principle.

Where did I say that?  If tax breaks help the poor teacher working in a secular institution, I'd say give it to them if it helps them make ends meet.  But, it would be far better to do away with unfair tax breaks in general for both secular and non-secular organizations.  That, of course, is unlikely to ever become reality.  Politically, we're better off doing that because Congress would never pass any meaningful tax reform.

I was assuming you support this tax loophole.  The principle that you advanced is basically that you support any existing tax break that helps someone poor make ends meet.

Would you stick by that principle if the tax break went 100:1 towards rich people?

Would you stick by that principle if the tax break only went to orthodox rabbis?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The provision exists to equalize the tax effects upon clergy whether their residence is provided directly by their church or they themselves have to provide it.  Nor do I see it as violating the first amendment so long as all religions have equal access to the benefit, which they currently do.  Also, I fail to see how the plaintiff had standing to file the case.  I could see a person serving as the pastor of one of those newfangled atheist megachurches having standing to file suit if they were denied the benefit, but in such a case I would hope that the judge would rule that they would have to be granted it, not that it should be stripped from all clergy.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

I have trouble with the tax code as it is.  In my opinion, it should be a means of collecting revenue.  Period.  No special loopholes for your favorite interest group.  I'd happily trade the tax exemption for expanded social programs, which would include both pastors and social workers in secular institutions, but is that politically feasible?

That doesn't really make sense.  If you don't support special loopholes, you can't support this one.  If you don't support this loophole, you can't offer it as a trade-chip in exchange for something else.

I'm saying ideally, there would be no special loopholes for anyone.  But if a loophole is the only politically feasible option for helping people make ends meet, we might as well have this one if we can't get an entirely loophole-free tax code in exchange for better social programs.  I don't see the loopholes in our tax code effectively being diminished in the near future, if at all.

So, unless we can have a perfect tax code, it's OK to have completely unfair tax breaks, so long as they help someone make ends meet.  If I gave a million dollar tax break to Donald Trump, it would be justified, if I gave a one hundred dollar tax break to a poor family through the same loophole.  That's not a very strong principle.

Where did I say that?  If tax breaks help the poor teacher working in a secular institution, I'd say give it to them if it helps them make ends meet.  But, it would be far better to do away with unfair tax breaks in general for both secular and non-secular organizations.  That, of course, is unlikely to ever become reality.  Politically, we're better off doing that because Congress would never pass any meaningful tax reform.

I was assuming you support this tax loophole.  The principle that you advanced is basically that you support any existing tax break that helps someone poor make ends meet.

Would you stick by that principle if the tax break went 100:1 towards rich people?

Would you stick by that principle if the tax break only went to orthodox rabbis?

Do I support the tax loophole in its current form?  No, but what else is there?

[Torie]

The provision exists to equalize the tax effects upon clergy whether their residence is provided directly by their church or they themselves have to provide it.  Nor do I see it as violating the first amendment so long as all religions have equal access to the benefit, which they currently do.  Also, I fail to see how the plaintiff had standing to file the case.  I could see a person serving as the pastor of one of those newfangled atheist megachurches having standing to file suit if they were denied the benefit, but in such a case I would hope that the judge would rule that would have to be granted it, not that it should be stripped from all clergy.

The issue is not equality between various religious denominations, but rather the state promotion of religion itself, vis a vis non religious charitable institutions. That is how I see it anyway.

It would seem to me any taxpayer should have standing to challenge this (or one serving a non religious charitable institution at least), but I don't claim to be an expert on standing issues.

[bedstuy]

I think the exemption ought to stay in place if not revamped.

Do I support the tax loophole in its current form?  No, but what else is there?

Seems like you changed your mind.  To answer your question, the simple answer is that churches should pay their employees more. 

[Badger]

Being on my church's budget committee, I'm not happy with the ruling.

Sadly though, like Torie, I can see why it's probably correct.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think the exemption ought to stay in place if not revamped.

Do I support the tax loophole in its current form?  No, but what else is there?

Seems like you changed your mind.  To answer your question, the simple answer is that churches should pay their employees more. 

No.  I don't like the way the current tax code is structured at all.  In other words, I oppose the nature of the tax exemption, but I don't oppose helping churches in principle.  I agree with Antonio that we should treat religious organizations the same way we treat secular ones.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think that like her 2010 ruling that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional, this will be overturned.  Barbara Crabb has proven in the past to be far more antagonistic to religion than the judiciary as a whole has been.

[bedstuy]

I think the exemption ought to stay in place if not revamped.

Do I support the tax loophole in its current form?  No, but what else is there?

Seems like you changed your mind.  To answer your question, the simple answer is that churches should pay their employees more. 

No.  I don't like the way the current tax code is structured at all.  In other words, I oppose the nature of the tax exemption, but I don't oppose helping churches in principle.  I agree with Antonio that we should treat religious organizations the same way we treat secular ones.

I have no idea what you're saying then.  Do you support this tax loophole?  Putting aside Constitutionality, would you feel differently if it only applied to Jewish clergy? 

[DC Al Fine]

I think the exemption ought to stay in place if not revamped.

Do I support the tax loophole in its current form?  No, but what else is there?

Seems like you changed your mind.  To answer your question, the simple answer is that churches should pay their employees more. 

Assuming this is permanent, expect lots of smaller churches to close, merge or switch to part time ministry. The worst hit will be the 2-4 point charges* in rural areas. Megachurches and prosperity preachers will do just what you suggested, but most smaller mainline churches cannot afford to increase their ministers' pay.

I think it's unhealthy for churches to accept money or special favours from Caesar. Assuming the largesse will continue leads to poor financial decisions, and there's always a chance that the money will be used to incentivize "correct" behaviour, belief or theology.

* Minister looks after multiple churches

[Indy Texas]

It's easy to feel sorry for anyone having trouble making ends meet.  But, there are equally poor people employed by secular institutions who don't have this tax benefit.  If you want to keep this, you have to justify why a pastor making $40k deserves a tax break and a public school teacher doesn't.

I have trouble with the tax code as it is.  In my opinion, it should be a means of collecting revenue.  Period.  No special loopholes for your favorite interest group.  I'd happily trade the tax exemption for expanded social programs, which would include both pastors and social workers in secular institutions, but is that politically feasible?

That doesn't really make sense.  If you don't support special loopholes, you can't support this one.  If you don't support this loophole, you can't offer it as a trade-chip in exchange for something else.

I'm saying ideally, there would be no special loopholes for anyone.  But if a loophole is the only politically feasible option for helping people make ends meet, we might as well have this one if we can't get an entirely loophole-free tax code in exchange for better social programs.  I don't see the loopholes in our tax code effectively being diminished in the near future, if at all.

So, unless we can have a perfect tax code, it's OK to have completely unfair tax breaks, so long as they help someone make ends meet.  If I gave a million dollar tax break to Donald Trump, it would be justified, if I gave a one hundred dollar tax break to a poor family through the same loophole.  That's not a very strong principle.

Where did I say that?  If tax breaks help the poor teacher working in a secular institution, I'd say give it to them if it helps them make ends meet.  But, it would be far better to do away with unfair tax breaks in general for both secular and non-secular organizations.  That, of course, is unlikely to ever become reality.  Politically, we're better off doing that because Congress would never pass any meaningful tax reform.

To the extent that a tax break means less taxes paid and more after-tax income, tax breaks help everyone make ends meet. But that misses the point. The tax code exists to raise revenue; it shouldn't be used as a hidden form of industrial policy or social welfare program.

If pastors have trouble "making ends meet" without this tax break, they are no worse off than anyone else in this world who has trouble making ends meet. And unlike most people, they work for organizations that would be turning their backs on their own ideals if they didn't ensure their employees had roofs over their heads.

[Cassius]

What a shame. Ah well, onward roll drab, grey secularism. Whilst I can see the legal arguments in favour of ending this tax benefit, its still a sad thing to see.

[Indy Texas]

What a shame. Ah well, onward roll drab, grey secularism. Whilst I can see the legal arguments in favour of ending this tax benefit, its still a sad thing to see.

If a religion needs tax-free housing to justify its continued existence, it's probably better that it fall by the wayside.

[J. J.]

At one point, the value of housing was taxable, but retired ministers could claim a housing deduction.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What a shame. Ah well, onward roll drab, grey secularism. Whilst I can see the legal arguments in favour of ending this tax benefit, its still a sad thing to see.

If a religion needs tax-free housing to justify its continued existence, it's probably better that it fall by the wayside.

What are you using the word 'justify' to mean here, exactly?