Religion
Related: About this forumJesus paid taxes.
Matthew 17:24-27New King James Version (NKJV)
Peter and His Master Pay Their Taxes
24 When they had come to Capernaum,[a] those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?
25 He said, Yes.
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?
26 Peter said to Him, From strangers.
Jesus said to him, Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you
FakeNoose
(32,356 posts)... it was actually the fish that paid the tax.
Just sayin'
PdxSean
(574 posts)MFM008
(19,782 posts)HIS tax refund money back..........
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)PdxSean
(574 posts). . . the Very Reverand Father Minister Deacon Doctor Holy Man pay taxes on the money they get from fish and/or sheep or whatever flock that follows?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)PdxSean
(574 posts)Regardless, there should be scrutiny of "religious" organization just as with any self-described charity. I too have given free turkeys around Thanksgiving, but that one-off shouldn't exempt me from income taxation, i.e. paying a fair share for roads, public safety, education, etc.
Frankly, if self-described "Christians" even tried to live Christ-like lives, this would be a non-issue.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There's a couple things from that timeperiod, like the Knights of Columbus vandalizing our money, and church exemption from taxes, that I would like to re-visit.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)proselytize and advocate for political positions with money that is taxed (NRA-ILA), and do untaxed monies for charitable works like free safety training, gun locks, etc.
That's why it's a 501C4 not a C3. Churches could be classed the same, so monies related to non-charity operations and political proselytizing non-charity, are taxed.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But most churches are small so it would not be worth it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)they wouldn't be engaged in those activities.
LBJ encouraged that transition because it would effectively politically silence the churches, and they took the poison pill and ran with it, for the extra tax free money.
Turns out, they were immune to the pill though, and the situation has degraded, with churches politically proselytizing all over the place. And when the IRS does get involved there's a big hue and cry about political payback, etc.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Tax exemption for churches goes back quite a bit earlier than I was aware.
PdxSean
(574 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Any entity, churches included, should have its tax exemption based on actual "charitable" work as defined by the tax code. The "I'm with Jesus" tax exemption is, in my opinion, bogus. Churches should file tax returns just like any other entity should, and they should be scrutinized just as - not more and not less - than any other "non-profit, charitable organization." And yes, ministers and other like gurus and oracles of any deity should be taxed on their income just as any CEO, teacher, or sanitation worker gets taxed.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Igel
(35,197 posts)Churches pay no taxes, like any other non-profit, on benefits for members. In many ways, they're collectives of citizens that self-organize. That's been the rule since pre-Revolution.
The rules from 1909 and 1894 seem to be what they were before for religious organizations: The profits aren't taxable assuming they're not for "private inurement", i.e., no individual profits from them. You have employees (and their wages are tax deductible), you have expenses, but churches may put up buildings and pay people--as does nearly any other organization.
Clergy get a few exemptions others don't get. Before the '60s they could exempt out of FICA. Of course, in so doing they also waived any retirement or disability for themselves, their spouses, their dependents.
They get a parsonage allotment. This is a mixed bag, as well. You make $20k as a priest and get your accommodations paid for, it's not taxable. But if you get $35 as a minister and you spend $15k on accommodations it's the same as having a home office that is at your employer's discretion. It's tax deductible. It's assumed that even new religions have the same kind of structure as older religions. Now, they don't, but to treat them as we probably should would be to punish those in older denominations. It used to be standard we'd let the guilty walk in order to not punish the innocent; that's switched in the last 20 years, now we're all into zero-tolerance and terrified of somebody guilty walking free. Unless we empathize with the guilty, then they're forgiven.
At least in the 1980s they got a vehicle deduction. Not just for actual mileage. But also for maintenance of the car, since ministers very often run around in the service of their parishioners.
Many view them as corrupt money-grubbing businesses; then again, a lot view a lot of non-religious non-profits the same way.
Note that unions aren't non-profit. They were given especially blessed status, since they're collections of citizens that organize for their own self-interest and representation. Apart from the fact that unions have very often explicitly been about money, I view them as the same sort of civic organizations that self-organize (and live or die by their membership) for some collective good.
They file income and expense forms with the IRS.
And if they have unrelated income, it's taxable. If the income is related to the services the parishioners expect and receive, then it's tax free.
BTW, the Associated Students of UCLA, at least in the 1990s, was an unincorporated non-profit. It was not a 501(c) anything because it existed before the relevant tax code and it was non-profit when it was founded in 1919. It was a kind of student co-op that was set up to serve students.
When you'd go to get a cup of coffee they had to ask if you were a student. If the answer was "yes", then you weren't going to pay sales tax. If you weren't, you paid sales tax. There were other benefits lurking in the price structure that few students ever saw. Again, it was a co-op, and the members "owned" the co-op and consequently benefited from having their own stuff given to them at cost.
Similarly, a high-school student club that I know decided to get club t-shirts. They paid ahead of time for their shirts, and they were sales-tax free. There were extra. If they sell them now that they've been made and delivered, they have to charge sales tax. The vagaries of tax law.
(Ministers also pay all the same taxes, with a few extra deductions, that you and I pay. Sorry, was bookkeeper for a small church back in the mid-late 1980s. We also had to enforce the same immigration-related work-eligibility laws. And when one of the ministers in Europe wanted to explore the possibility of moving to the US, you don't want to know the nightmare it would have been to get him a work visa. At the same time, though, one of his parishioners, 17 and from France, visited on a tourist visa and got an Oregon state driver's license with no notice that he was here on a tourist visa; he was also able to enroll in community college as a resident. You want sense from the over all tax code, you're in the wrong dimension.)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Going out on a limb, I'm pretty sure he didn't pay taxes.
Igel
(35,197 posts)The first was paid to Rome, and it was a tax levied on a district. Publicans were sort of tax-farmers. They were responsible for assessing taxes, collecting them, turning them into the local authorities, but got a cut of the tax.
The second was a Temple tax, paid to the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem and levied on all Jews in the Empire, whether in Rome, Cappadocia, or in Bethlehem.
There was no question as to payment to Rome. The Sicarii and other Zealots, probably the Essenes and many of the Sadducees would have rejected this. They were more nationalist than the Pharisees in most ways. Note that the gospels have Jesus telling the tax collectors not to abuse their charge, which is the same advice given to Roman occupation--and a common failing that led to repeated reforms of the tax collection system.
But given the theological claims reflected in the gospels, Jesus and the disciples should have been Temple-tax free. Why? Because Levites and priests didn't pay it--they were "sons of the Temple", and one theme in the NT is that Jesus' followers are to be a "nation" of priests. This is language that echoes an OT passage, is common the later NT, and found in Qumran (so there's no need to think that it's only a late idea). There's a quibble extant since the passage doesn't say "temple tax," but the amount paid is precisely the temple tax amount for two males and there were two males involved in the dispute with the tax collector. The way the argument's phrased says as much; quibblers gotta quibble.
The Temple tax was a poll tax. The Roman taxes on the population weren't a poll tax, but we have no similar sort of idea and the distribution of tax liability often made it into a poll tax (when done equally; "equitably" is a value judgment). The tax farming system, while it could lead to abuses, could also let the collectors extract more from those they had leverage over or who had more. Still, the poor also paid taxes.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The amount one owed -- whether artificially inflated by the publicans or not -- was still based on one's wealth. 200% of 0 dinars is... 0 dinars.
You can't collect money from someone who has no money.
Gore1FL
(21,035 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)not to a civil government.
You sure you want to go there?
PdxSean
(574 posts)I think I get your point, that the Temple isn't a government. But when Christ asks What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?," the rhetorical question isn't limited to payments to the Temple because the "kings of the earth" were not priests in the Temple.
I'm no biblical scholar, but I've read several versions of the Bible several times and I've read much on the history of the Bible and how those many translated versions of translated versions came to be.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The Romans taxed their provinces heavily, a fact which would have been painfully well known to Jesus' audience. (See the "show me a denarius" episode.) There's also the disdainful attitude of the Jerusalem urban culture toward Galillee, whose inhabitants were frequently regarded as something like half-breed hillbillies.
In both cases, therefore, Jesus and Peter would have been "strangers" to the authorities demanding the taxes. Modern English translation: "The 1% is screwing us again, folks."