General Discussion

StarrGazerr

(60 posts)

5. It's not her burden.

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:26 AM

Nov 2013

If the Church owns the building and makes it available for one of their employees (a priest) it is the Church's responsibility to pay any taxes on the building, not the priest and her family. Just like an employer has to provide the insurance when they let an employee drive a "company car."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking: Federal District Court Declares A Religious Income Tax Exemption Unconstitutional [View all] StarrGazerr Nov 2013 OP

Next stop Megachurches and Mercedes-driving ministers NightWatcher Nov 2013 #1

Prosperity-gospel preaching is a con, too, and should Ilsa Nov 2013 #13

It's a pyramid scheme NightWatcher Nov 2013 #14

Sometimes I think about these things as a fall-back position Ilsa Nov 2013 #16

All non profits yeoman6987 Nov 2013 #52

Well, nonprofits don't make any, well *profits,* and so don't qualify for taxes . . . MrModerate Nov 2013 #62

Non profits yeoman6987 Nov 2013 #63

I guess you ae unfamiliar with how many truedelphi Nov 2013 #64

If by 'profits' you mean MrModerate Nov 2013 #69

Interesting Cal Carpenter Nov 2013 #2

In that case, at least to me, the church should pick up the tax burden. I say that because, RKP5637 Nov 2013 #4

That was my thought too Cal Carpenter Nov 2013 #9

It's not her burden. StarrGazerr Nov 2013 #5

Your OP says that the priest would have to Cal Carpenter Nov 2013 #8

Correct StarrGazerr Nov 2013 #19

I don't disagree overall Cal Carpenter Nov 2013 #24

As noted above she would not pay taxes on property alphafemale Nov 2013 #10

I understand your point Cal Carpenter Nov 2013 #21

Well, it's either a violation of the establishment clause, or it isn't. MH1 Nov 2013 #32

Yep - in legal terms I totally agree Cal Carpenter Nov 2013 #33

Agreed StarrGazerr Nov 2013 #22

I'm not sure where the balance is - but there are some differences. Ms. Toad Nov 2013 #40

True. Our family member who was in the ministry would have parishioners walk into his house loudsue Nov 2013 #58

So they can move to a cheaper residence like everyone else has to. nt valerief Nov 2013 #11

Living in the housing is often a mandatory part of the job. Ms. Toad Nov 2013 #41

They can change the rules. nt valerief Nov 2013 #42

They can - but my point is that it is the wrong analogy being used. Ms. Toad Nov 2013 #43

They should pick a cheaper residence and sell the expensive building. nt valerief Nov 2013 #44

Unless there are no cheaper residences near the church. Ms. Toad Nov 2013 #45

They should do what every other poor person has to do. nt valerief Nov 2013 #48

What I was addressing was the legal analogy. Ms. Toad Nov 2013 #49

If they can't afford the taxes, they should do what poor people do when they can't valerief Nov 2013 #50

I have not been addressing affordability at all. Ms. Toad Nov 2013 #51

Sorry, I've been lazy and distracted. You're right. But churches become churches so valerief Nov 2013 #77

I hope so too - Ms. Toad Nov 2013 #78

Excellent! Why one invoking "religious' should be exempt from taxes is beyond me, and RKP5637 Nov 2013 #3

There is no constitutional basis for it Major Nikon Nov 2013 #65

Completely agree mdbl Nov 2013 #66

Could you supply a link? EOM Raine1967 Nov 2013 #6

Link StarrGazerr Nov 2013 #20

Thanks StarrGazerr, and welcome to DU! Raine1967 Nov 2013 #27

I use to go to a Mega Church Heather MC Nov 2013 #7

Drip . . . drip . . . drip . . . MrModerate Nov 2013 #12

I remember packman Nov 2013 #18

One victory at a time. mountain grammy Nov 2013 #15

Good. 99Forever Nov 2013 #17

Bravo. Can this precedent be applied to reduce unjust benefits given exclusively to religions? Coyotl Nov 2013 #23

Where are they getting $2.3 billion in lost income tax from? westerebus Nov 2013 #25

"Render unto Caesar" still good advice..... fadedrose Nov 2013 #26

+1 Dawson Leery Nov 2013 #47

Good, a first step. JimboBillyBubbaBob Nov 2013 #28

Didn't Jefferson say something along those lines Adsos Letter Nov 2013 #53

I don't know, JimboBillyBubbaBob Nov 2013 #55

It's a start anyway. obxhead Nov 2013 #29

Do politicians living in goveror's/mayor's mansions... meaculpa2011 Nov 2013 #30

No, the state usually picks up the tab for the Governor's mansion. Major Hogwash Nov 2013 #60

US Supreme Court "5" justices will rule in favor of only the "Christian" Iliyah Nov 2013 #31

suit was brought by FFRF RussBLib Nov 2013 #34

Fantastic organization!!! nt eqfan592 Nov 2013 #73

Pay UP!!! MADem Nov 2013 #35

Does this mean that Romney will have to pay taxes on his houses? VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #36

Jeez! I never thought of that angle. justhanginon Nov 2013 #39

It's About Time yellowwoodII Nov 2013 #37

Oh, please...please..let the dominoes begin falling!! n/t SpankMe Nov 2013 #38

Exactly.. The ministers/preachers are being paid a WAGE SoCalDem Nov 2013 #46

Backwards TroglodyteScholar Nov 2013 #54

Good. Vashta Nerada Nov 2013 #56

Time for churches to pay tax on those tithes people give. go west young man Nov 2013 #57

So awesome & I can't believe this came out of Wisconsin!!! hue Nov 2013 #59

It's A Start... WillyT Nov 2013 #61

And please... nikto Nov 2013 #67

I bet Pope Francis would pay his taxes without making a sound. Drahthaardogs Nov 2013 #68

Hoo boy. Supreme Court, here we come. progressoid Nov 2013 #70

How about consecrated religious? TexasProgresive Nov 2013 #71

I'm betting this exemption is most enjoyed by Protestants (as in, my late brother-in-law minister, WinkyDink Nov 2013 #74

Most Catholic and Orthodox parishes have rectories. TexasProgresive Nov 2013 #75

And thanks, StarrGazerr, for using the excerpt feature on the quote. TexasProgresive Nov 2013 #72

Fantastic start. nt Demo_Chris Nov 2013 #76

Just curious. Could this Guaguacoa Nov 2013 #79