tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post8993966877726863442..comments2024-03-24T05:22:27.179-04:00Comments on Orthonomics: Parsonage for Women: A Money Saving IdeaOrthonomicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07892074485262548496noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-27172098630915206762020-04-28T08:50:26.194-04:002020-04-28T08:50:26.194-04:00I came across this link on general insurance, hope...I came across this link on general insurance, hope can provide more insights.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.prudential.com.sg/" rel="nofollow">general insurance</a><br />Priya Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13866620063573505712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-67714744441129639972011-09-16T11:28:25.856-04:002011-09-16T11:28:25.856-04:00If these teachers are considered clergy, they may ...If these teachers are considered clergy, they may find themselves without any protection under employment laws.<br /><br />See http://onionsoupmix.livejournal.com/2011/06/27/Law momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01859590966207623757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-80091138720852372092011-09-15T14:16:13.816-04:002011-09-15T14:16:13.816-04:00Mark,
I think the AMT is an attempt to do just th...Mark,<br /><br />I think the AMT is an attempt to do just that! :)JSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-65276840236158830152011-09-15T14:08:18.062-04:002011-09-15T14:08:18.062-04:00AztecQueen, I am well aware of how business works....AztecQueen, I am well aware of how business works. I am also aware that I always forget to qualify my above statement to refer to individual wage earners.<br /><br />I do <b>not</b> mean that gross income should be taxed without deductions for business expenses.<br /><br />I <b>do</b> mean that there should be no personal deductions. Basically there should be no schedule A and no personal exemptions.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-16143709370536484502011-09-15T11:57:29.267-04:002011-09-15T11:57:29.267-04:00Mark--You don't have a small business, do you?...Mark--You don't have a small business, do you? A small business owner can gross (based solely on bank deposits) $300,000 in a given year. Once he's paid his workers, purchased materials, and purchased necessary insurances for his company, that $300,000 is down to $50,000. Should he be taxed at the same rate as an employee who makes $300,000 and only has to spend it on his own personal and family expenses.AztecQueen2000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-72326037874899240792011-09-15T00:10:07.831-04:002011-09-15T00:10:07.831-04:00IMO, ALL tax exemptions and deductions should be e...IMO, <b>ALL</b> tax exemptions and deductions should be eliminated. There is no reason whatsoever that person A earning $X should pay one cent different amount of taxes than person B earning $X.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-19544605229890683522011-09-15T00:07:49.859-04:002011-09-15T00:07:49.859-04:00ProfK - Fact: not all those who are "rabbis&q...ProfK - <i>Fact: not all those who are "rabbis" teaching in yeshivas are entitled to that name--they don't have smicha, the "ordination" that the IRS requires.</i><br /><br />You'll have to trust me, but any Cheder Rebbe that requires ordination for a tax benefit has it. There are a number of places (quite a few actually) that will give ordination rather easily (with a fee, of course).<br /><br /><i>Frankly, at least in my experience, shuls are charitable institutions in the full definition of the word.</i><br /><br />It depends where. In most places OOT this is true. But in places like Boro Park, every 4'th or 5'th house contains a "shul" (as part of someones home). And parts of Flatbush are similar or getting that way.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-45229746171327945032011-09-15T00:04:19.726-04:002011-09-15T00:04:19.726-04:00Regarding whether the position that R Broyde is ad...Regarding whether the position that R Broyde is advocating is abusive, the IRS has said that they will not issue advance rulings on who qualifies for the parsonage exemption. Thus, the only way to test R Broyde's position, which having read his article, the rebuttal, and relevant caselaw is at least arguable, is to take that position, let the IRS challenge it, and litigate it.Izzynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-23121348987683179212011-09-14T18:07:40.847-04:002011-09-14T18:07:40.847-04:00"The Jewish legal tradition lacks almost any ..."The Jewish legal tradition lacks almost any ecclesiastical function that can be performed by ordained rabbis only and recognizes that lay leadership can rise to the level of clergy in functionality, form, title and duties…."<br /><br />But <i>Kohanim</i> have duties which cannot be performed by Israelites or women.Mr. Cohenhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/DerechEmet/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-7056692259393053222011-09-14T15:54:23.010-04:002011-09-14T15:54:23.010-04:00I guess I just don't take as cynical a view as...I guess I just don't take as cynical a view as you do. I suppose you would respond that I've got rose-colored glasses on or am overly naive. There are national organizations that protect people against these kinds of abuses. You don't have to be a wealthy corporation that pays thousands an hour to Big Law firms in order to get justice. If you read through most cases relating to these types of abuses, they happen to small groups or individuals that cannot afford legal counsel, let alone expensive lawyers. Believe it or not, in addition to organizations like the ACLU there are LOTS of lawyers and big firms out there looking to make a name for themselves and are willing to take on cases like this pro bono. It's really no different than in the criminal law context when people run to defend people like Casey Anthony. It's even more prevalent in areas like this where there are important legal principles involved - there are many organizations and lawyers out there that have a strong interest in having the law changed or in fighting certain abuses. They are looking for test cases where an individual has standing so they can take their case up the chain of courts to the Supreme Court. So, I'm not overly concerned about issues like this being neglected. Yes, the abuse is terrible, but these people have more recourse than you think. Again, look through cases like this, the plaintiffs were usually represented by the ACLU or other big lawyers or firms.<br /><br />Again though, I don't think abuses are a reason to continue a bad policy. It's like saying we should ban the police from engaging in stop and frisk procedures because some officers (or even some police departments) conduct their stop and frisks based on racial and/or national original instead of the constitutional standard of reasonable suspicion.JSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-22969282187973306912011-09-14T15:36:27.343-04:002011-09-14T15:36:27.343-04:00JS,
Because those of us that aren't big city ...JS,<br /><br />Because those of us that aren't big city lawyers know that you can't actually fight city hall, and put protections in. You call it paranoia, out here in the boonies we call it liberty.<br /><br />Sure, in a metro area in the 10s of millions, when you persecute the Muslim group that was acting within their rights but in bad taste, wealthy muslims in the area can fund their religious freedom fight.<br /><br />When you aren't on the seaboard, if someone turns the city/state's lawyers on you or harasses you, there is no defense. The small religious group that can't afford the CPA certainly can't afford to fight an unfair assessment.<br /><br />In the "real world," these legal issues are quickly resolved in favor of the party that either:<br /><br />A) has tax payers fund their side of the legal tab<br />B) has the ability to run up the legal tab of the losing side<br /><br />They are never resolved on their merits.Miami Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977503720972852329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-44115128963632057292011-09-14T15:13:02.267-04:002011-09-14T15:13:02.267-04:00Dave,
Yes, there are horrible abuses taking place...Dave,<br /><br />Yes, there are horrible abuses taking place by xenophobic, bigoted, and racist people. These issues will hopefully be resolved quickly in favor of the wronged party. However, I don't think it's a reason to continue an unconstitutional tax exemption for all religious institutions. Better to provide additional protections for those subject to abuses than that.JSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-73238740311524534102011-09-14T14:49:35.182-04:002011-09-14T14:49:35.182-04:00Look at the attempts (across the country) where Mu...Look at the attempts (across the country) where Muslim building plans are being fought in blatantly unconstitutional ways, and yet are still causing extensive delays.<br /><br />Now assume slightly more clever opponents, and you can easily manipulate a tax code or zoning code in ways that will discriminate against unpopular religions but still would have a shot at getting by the courts.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04391023891253673160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-18047763989823041182011-09-14T14:35:49.796-04:002011-09-14T14:35:49.796-04:00Abba,
That wasn't meant as an indictment of t...Abba,<br /><br />That wasn't meant as an indictment of the entire tax code, but as an indictment of those who seek to manipulate the tax code (or the representatives who legislate/regulate it) for their own benefit. It was also mostly a jab at those who decry government handouts in other areas such as welfare but demand it in other contexts such as female yeshiva teachers. Also, my argument here is constitutional and related to religious exemptions exclusively. My battle isn't with the tax code as a whole or other deductions.<br /><br />In general though I think there are far too many deductions and that the tax code would be far simpler and the overall tax rate lower if we just eliminated them.<br /><br />Al,<br /><br />It's hard to respond since your worry seems more paranoid than based in fact. I assume you're getting at the original barter concept - namely, bartering for a service or good is considered income. So, if we don't have parsonage (just to be clear, one of the several religious tax benefits I'm arguing against), then we need to assess the value of the housing allowance given to the "minister of the gospel" so we can calculate what his true income is.<br /><br />First of all, this type of assessment already occurs. There are numerous tax court cases related to "fair rental value" and other such housing allowance issues where a "minster of the gospel" claims a HUGE allowance and the IRS performs an audit to figure out what the real value is. If the IRS abuses its power (and I have seen no indication that it does) the recourse for such abuses (should they occur) is in the courts. Same with assessing value for property tax purposes.<br /><br />Your argument assumes an abuse of power. Yet, you bring no real proof that such an abuse would occur. Why should anyone pay property taxes, for example, if I'm a rabble-rouser or a member of a politically unpopular group the local assessor will assess my house at $10M, my taxes will go through the roof, and I'll be forced to leave town. Yet, we all pay property taxes despite that (paranoid) concern and there are remedies should such an abuse occur.<br /><br />I don't find the argument convincing. Look at the coverage NYC got when it tried to claim historical landmark protection near ground zero to prevent the mosque from being built. There are protections against this kind of abuse.JSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-52460858292520432932011-09-14T14:30:42.883-04:002011-09-14T14:30:42.883-04:00Miami Al: Singling out a church/synagogue for dif...Miami Al: Singling out a church/synagogue for differential tax treatment like in scenario would be unconstitutional. Just because hypothetically that could happen, doesn't mean we just shouldn't tax churches at all like all other landowners. For example, suppose a town didn't like a bookstore because people didn't like the books being sold it could over tax it. That would be unconstitutional. Just because the town could abuse its powers and violate the first amendment doesn't mean we should say lets not tax retail stores. Your argument is like saying because police can abuse their powers to arrest people, don't let the police arrest anyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-81881333359710495662011-09-14T14:20:01.443-04:002011-09-14T14:20:01.443-04:00JS:
"Everyone's just looking for a gover...JS:<br /><br />"Everyone's just looking for a government handout."<br /><br />so then i take it that you forgo all the deductions you qualify for when filing taxes?<br /><br />i understand the objection to a tax benefit based on a religious qualifier. but to object to tax benefits in general (in this context "Everyone's just looking for a government handout") is to object to the fundamental nature of our tax code.Abba's Rantingsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-23095637007203794962011-09-14T14:18:16.390-04:002011-09-14T14:18:16.390-04:00JS,
Right, no special taxes for religious groups....JS,<br /><br />Right, no special taxes for religious groups...<br /><br />However, you have no problems with the IRS "assessing" the value of in-kind services for religious groups OR local assessment authorities assigning property value assessments, particularly if they can assess it for "best usage" instead of current usage.<br /><br />Small Mosque not desired, well, if that half acre building had a 40 story apartment complex on it, it would owe $1M in property taxes, there you go, sorry, can't pay, get out of town.<br /><br />What, this Church does obnoxious things like protest causes we don't like, and the pastor lives in the Church? How about we assign $1M in value to that housing? Can't afford it, we'll see you in tax court.<br /><br />That's why the "lesser evil" is to leave religious groups ENTIRELY alone and just deal with the abuses.Miami Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977503720972852329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-66261964344940092782011-09-14T14:10:32.240-04:002011-09-14T14:10:32.240-04:00Dave,
"But the flip side is that it is also ...Dave,<br /><br />"But the flip side is that it is also easy for taxation to be used to crush religious groups, especially unpopular religious groups."<br /><br />To be clear, I'm not proposing additional taxes on religious groups (popular or unpopular). Just that they not be given exemptions. In other words, treat them like every other group. Imposing a "religious tax" that only targets religious persons or organizations would certainly be unconstitutional.JSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-69195151449369463382011-09-14T13:59:33.562-04:002011-09-14T13:59:33.562-04:00This is one of those issues in which I'm torn....This is one of those issues in which I'm torn.<br /><br />On the one hand, the blanket exemptions from property taxes and other tax benefits given to religious organizations <b>purely</b> because they are religious bothers me. That shifts the burden across everyone else, and it can be especially burdensome in small communities with a large block of exempt properties.<br /><br />And the abuse of the tax exemptions (the people who stick a shteebl or church in their basement, based purely on the tax benefit it gives them, the "nonprofits" which pay exorbitant salaries or funnel "charitable" spending to businesses or goals which benefit the donors or officers) angers me greatly.<br /><br />But the flip side is that it is also easy for taxation to be used to crush religious groups, especially unpopular religious groups. <br /><br />So much as I dislike it, and much as I want to see the abuses curtailed, I think the cure of removing the blanket tax protections is worse than the disease. <br /><br />(That being said, I'd kill the Charitable Giving Tax Deduction in a heartbeat.)Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04391023891253673160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-74813081443255548902011-09-14T13:34:33.689-04:002011-09-14T13:34:33.689-04:00ProfK: The argument was not a logic error, just a...ProfK: The argument was not a logic error, just a mistake in word choice. We all understood what JS meant. I trust that as an English Professor, you understand that picking on minor word choice foibles is not particularly effective advocacy for a position as it signals that the nitpicker does not have a substantive argument, or if she does, it distracts greatly from whatever the substantive points might be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-84648290786425841742011-09-14T13:25:50.785-04:002011-09-14T13:25:50.785-04:00Sorry JS, but if you'll remember I'm an En...Sorry JS, but if you'll remember I'm an English professor and errors irk me. Sigh, that wasn't a syntax error either but was a logic error that invalidated the argument by making it contradictory. Syntax specifically refers to the pattern of formation of sentences.ProfKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17954446826821665314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-79249648426979581292011-09-14T13:12:19.517-04:002011-09-14T13:12:19.517-04:00Al: Its silly to accuse JS of not liking the peop...Al: Its silly to accuse JS of not liking the people who go to small churches or synagogues. And, I doubt that the parsonage exemption originated fo is primarilly used by or for the rural country minister. When one thinks of parsonage, one thinks of catholic priests and nuns who truly live in a house on church property that they share with others. I suspect that the parsonage exemption had a lot to do with the Catholic church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-34733346513777285082011-09-14T13:11:50.779-04:002011-09-14T13:11:50.779-04:00JS
I would comment that the more rightwing you ge...JS<br /><br />I would comment that the more rightwing you get on the Jewish spectrum, the more "minyan" factory like a shul will be. Certainly, the number of people involved in social action in any reform synagogue is probably 10 times the number who actually participate in a religious service. In conservative synagogues, there is a wider range, but social action still probably equals, if not exceeds, ritual participation on any day other than Erev Yom Kippur (and even then, many conservative synagogues in my area collect thousands of pounds of food for the poor on Erev Yom Kippur).<br />Only when you reach modern orthodoxy and especially chareidi orthodoxy, do you see religion predominate over social action.<br /><br />So you criteria might not affect reform synagogues much at all, would probably impact conservative synagogues a bit, and would significantly impact the orthodox movement. But I do respect your integrity in suggesting a plan which more dramatically affects orthodoxy.conservative scifinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-73684088256455470332011-09-14T13:09:48.698-04:002011-09-14T13:09:48.698-04:00Al,
You misunderstand me. This isn't politic...Al,<br /><br />You misunderstand me. This isn't political to me and it has nothing to do with political allies. If anything, the position I'm taking here would hurt me financially if enacted as many of my contributions would not be eligible for an itemized deduction. Further, I have no desire to hurt small churches or synagogues or prevent them from forming and thriving. This is purely an ideological issue.<br /><br />Like Madison and Jefferson I don't believe the government should sponsor or financially aid religion. It's bad for government and it's bad for religion. I don't want my government pushing religious ideas or dogmas, that is a matter of personal choice. I don't want my religion bending to meet government regulations. Both are "purer" when they don't involve themselves with the other.<br /><br />The fact that religion or small churches or whatever is part of our heritage is irrelevant. The First Amendment is also part of our heritage. Those religious institutions will continue to form and thrive without a tax break. The government doesn't need to and shouldn't incentivize the formation of churches. Communities that desire religious instruction and spiritual guidance can put their money where their souls are (so to speak) and pay up just like everyone else.JSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976303.post-10303021624020386442011-09-14T13:05:34.181-04:002011-09-14T13:05:34.181-04:00ProfK: Yes, many shuls and churches do do a lot o...ProfK: Yes, many shuls and churches do do a lot of charitable work, but by far the primary function and majority of the expenditures, including clergy salaries and benefits and the buildings themselves, are for indoctinating the congregation in the religion and conducting services and rituals. Only contributions that are used for the charitable purposes should be deductible - i.e. have separate funds. The book-keeping really isn't that complicated. For example, I do volunteer work for a non-profit. They get some federal grants that requires them to allocate and segregate expenses to make sure the grant moeny is only used for designated purposes and not to subsidize the organization's other functions. ItAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com