General Discussion

westerebus

(2,978 posts)

25. Where are they getting $2.3 billion in lost income tax from?

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:30 AM

Nov 2013

Even over five years that seems a might high.

The work around, the one used by corporations, is to rent the residences at a very low cost to the religious ministers, as corporations do for their executives.

The cost of operating one US Navy carrier is about $25 Billion a year. We have ten of them.

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