Time to get God out of taxes
by Linda Beale
Time to get God out of taxes
Chris Bergin over at Tax Analysts has a good point about the exclusion from income for the rental value of the minister’s residence–it makes no sense and has no place in the tax code. See Bergin, What we need is a Godless tax code, Tax Analysts (Aug. 29, 2013) [hat tip–Roberta Mann, Oregon]
His riff is based on recent stories in the Washington Post (here, and here) that the head of the Freedom from Religion Foundation has been given a housing allowance and is litigating over the fact that she cannot exclude the rental value like a “minister of the gospel” may do under section 107 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As Bergin notes, this isn’t really the kind of suit that the government likes to get involved in–it’s a lose-lose situation for the government.
- If the government argues to uphold the special exclusion available only to religious ministers, it seems to be arguing against a core principle of the Constitution–the idea that freedom of religion in the First Amendment ensures the separation of church and state and permits every American to choose to be free to be religious or free “from” religion: religion will not be imposed on us nor its support demanded of us.
- if the government argues to reject the special exclusion available only to religious ministers, which acts as a tax subsidy to religious institutions and individuals, the Christian right will ponce on this as further evidence of what it sees as a “war on Christianity” (sometimes cast as a war on religion itself). Anytime that a privileged group that has received a privilege over a long period of time faces the possibility that it will lose that privilege as societyh recognizes the basic unfairness of it, the privileged group will tend to claim that it is society which is attacking them, rather than that they have been ‘attacking’ society for decades due to the preference that they claimed that others were not entitled to.
[Aside: Supreme Court jurisprudence has, unfortunately, not understood the latter “freedom from” part of religious freedom very well, perhaps because so many on the Court are practicing members of traditional religions that lobby strongly for their traditional privileges. Such things asNativity Scenes on public property are allowed (so long as they are accompanied by Christmas trees, which the Justices somehow concluded were just holiday symbols and had nothing to do with, well, Christmas). And the Supreme Court recently extended its “ministerial exception” to discrimination laws to allow a broad category of positions to be hired and fired based on the religious institution’s “religious freedom” to enforce its institutional religious principles–clearly something far removed from, and in fact antithetical to, individual Americans’ freedom of religion. Some day the Supreme Court will see the light on this issue–as Americans’ affiliations with traditional religious institutions continue to wane and agnostics, atheists and those merely spiritually inclined but unaffiliated with any religious institution claim, with increasing ardor, their civil rights not to support religious institutions and not to have religious institutions discriminate against them.]
So, Bergin notes, the government did what probably seemed like a reasonable thing to avoid a lose-lose situation.
Now to the funny part. The government is arguing that the leader of an atheist group can qualify for a parsonage exemption. (I believe this is called the “please go away defense.”) It seems belief in a deity is not a requirement to be a minister. But the taxpayer’s point is that she doesn’t want the exemption, for her or anyone else. And it’s probably a pretty good guess that she is not interested in promoting the gospel. Id.
Of course, right-wing pundits went berserk (see “Insane” headline, below). But this question–can the leader of an atheist organization be a “minister” for purposes of this provision (or for other situations where we seem to favor religion over non-religion under our current rules)–is an important one. Because it makes us realize that defining something as religion is not obviously easy. That difficulty was what gave rise to the scientology dispute and the disputes over Santeria’s slaughter of animals. It is the reason that we seldom see IRS cases challenging a church exemption, even when churches defy the law to engage in overtly political campaigning. And of course, almost anyone can proclaim themselves to be following a “new” religion with beliefs quite contrary to mainstream religions. As the Justice Department points out in connection with the FFRF suit, Buddhism and other systems of philosophy are treated by the government as religions, even though they are non-theistic. The only alternatives seem to be (i) to recognize anything that has various aspects of religion (including perhaps most importantly a dedication to a philosophical perspective) as a religion eligible for the special tax provision OR (ii) to eliminate any special tax preferences for anything religious. Given that dilemma, Bergin’s conclusion that we should just take God out of tax is one that I can fully embrace.
The tax code’s job should be to collect revenue, not to provide tax breaks for religions, non-religions, or libertarians, who seem to think of themselves sort of in the middle there. Years ago, there was basically a war fought over whether Scientology was a religion. Frankly, I don’t care whether Scientology is or isn’t a religion. I respect anyone’s right to believe in it. But why should the tax law care?
It would appear to be a good move to get rid of section 107 altogether–simplifying the tax code, removing an unnecessary tax expenditure that gives religious ministers a preference unavailable to anyone else, getting rid of an anomaly of tax code support for religion over non-religion that conflicts directly with the Constitutional religious freedom right for individuals, and saving the government from having to figure out whether some set of personal beliefs is or is not a religion.
Funny that a leader of a group of atheist would be considered a minister. Kind of a government sanctioned oxymoron? Would it then not lead to a CEO of a nonprofit being able to make the same claim as a leader of a group?
An entire treates written to avoid the very issue of “privilage”, intentionally written as such and yet the privilage have still found a way to institutionalize their privilage pushing to the point were everyone is privilaged in the same way such that you have no social unity.
This is item #10,000 on my list of things to worry about.
this could lead to a slipperly slope…next thing you know, they’ll deny rights to pastafarians..
from which we learn
that “freedom from religion” is a religion.
that some “liberals” will do anything to alienate exactly that part of the electorate they claim to be so concerned about: “see, poor people, if you just abandon god and worship money like the rest of us, we can get you a government subsidy, but we won’t call it welfare.”
now, being as i am, convinced that no logic, especially in the law, is so perfect that “justice” does not require the law to avert its eyes from time to time to apparent logical contradictions. however the law prefers to avert its eyes from justice if it can torture logic to require it to torture human beings.
i don’t know what the founders were thinking any more than Scalia does, but I imagine it went something like .. .having seen the power of the State used to torture human beings whose religion was different from that of the state, they tried to protect those human beings’ right to “worship” as they pleased. they did not anticipate, perhaps, some individuals and groups claiming to be religions for the tax advantages.
there may come a time when atheism is the dominant religion of americans, and they will have little tolerance for those who think differently, but i think LInda, and others, have found a good hook: let us promote atheism by appealing to people’s love of money… especially the taxes of others… or tax benefits.
meanwhile if you discover you have a religion that demands human sacrifice, don’t ask me for tax exemptions. i’m funny that way.
“but i think LInda, and others, have found a good hook: let us promote atheism by appealing to people’s love of money… especially the taxes of others… or tax benefits. – See more at: http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2013/09/time-to-get-god-out-of-taxes.html#comments”
Gee, I did not get that from the article at all.
DB
an ordinary person, even a judge, would have no trouble telling a real religion from a tax dodge. (by the way, Bhuddism is a real religion to those who practice it, not “a system of philosophy.”} There might be some hard cases, but judges sort out hard cases all the time. Those who believe in some “non standard” religion would just have to take their chances and bide their time.
But Linda can’t accept that. She sees a chance (slim) to get rid of the laws that let real religions get away from paying some taxes. A law that was once at least considered a real protection of human beings from the power of the state. A state that used torture to extract confessions or denials from “believers” in a time when people had religious consciences.
Why not. Save the judges from all that mental work. And save Linda a big bundle on her taxes by not forcing her, denying her religious freedom to have no religion, to subsidize all those ministers of the gospel getting a free ride. I have to wonder just how much that bundle will be.
Or at least I assume that Linda’s real motive is to promote atheism. Surely it can’t be the purity of the tax code that she finds so compelling.
coberly, i agree wtih DB that you’ve misread, or rather read something into linda’s piece that wasnt there…perhaps the titile set you off. i dont know…
to argue in favor of the elimiation of tax breaks for religion in no way promotes atheism, no more than arguing against the mortgage interest deduction promotes homelessness..
Re: “an ordinary person, even a judge, would have no trouble telling a real religion from a tax dodge”
I sure can’t (maybe I’m not ordinary enough). As I understand it, religion has one and only one requirement: belief. As long as one person believes it, it’s a religion. People died for David Koresh. People went out in the streets and begged for money to give to “Reverend Moon”. Should those religions get tax breaks?
I’m with Ms. Beale. Let’s have everybody who is an adult citizen and benefits from government services pay their share of taxes, and trust in their gods to support their religions.
rjs and also jim v
that is because, if i may , you are, like Ms Beale, atheists.
I have no problem with that. But the fact is you can’t see the importance of religion to the people who believe in that, or why the laws exempting religious institutions from certain taxes were enacted in the first place, and may still play a role in protecting real human beings, if not most of us, from the arrogance of the state… which will rapidly change from the arrogance of “most people,” who do not value what the minority values and therefore don’t see any point in it, to the arrogance of a few people who will run the state according to their own enlightened views.
as for religion having “one and only one requirement” I am pretty sure I can tell a real religion from a tax dodge. and i am pretty sure that i am not going to count what are undoubtedly some “real” religions for purposes of tax exemption. it’s just my intolerant nature… but a nature upon which the law is firmly based: prevailing community standards. not really a difficult decision in most times… becomes harder when half the country believes in lynching colored persons to preserve their sacred way of life, not to mention proppity… and the other half regards that as a sin. of course this goes hard on those minority believers who may in fact have the one true religion, but theirs has always been a hard path, and if tax evasion eludes them, at least they are not being burnt for their truth.
now me, i might go with you toward “simplifying the tax code.” but i think you should start with some of your own favorite deductions. meanwhile i have to suspect that your main objection to the “religious deduction” is that you are anti religious (again, i have no problem with that, but you ought to recognize your own motivations). the fact that you invoke your own tremendous tax savings by requiring “ministers of the gospel” to pay their fair share is, i hope, only sick reasoning, and not a genuine belief that saving one nickel… one imaginary nickel.. for yourself justifies any manner of hardship or potential hardship to others. that would make you sound like the insane Right.
just to be clear
people did not “die for David Koresh”. they died because the State can’t think of any way to deal with “problems” other than with guns.
this may actually have some bearing on why some people trust in their religion more than they trust in the state.
and it may be why people like Linda scare the hell out of at least a large minority of Americans. there is a proper place for the state in our affairs, but Linda and friends are fanatics who are willing to trust the state to solve everyone’s problems whether they like it or not. This makes it easier for people like Rush to convince otherwise decent people to vote against perfectly reasonable and necessary levels of state actions in the economy. Of course those decent people are also convinced the will save a bundle in taxes.
dale, you’ve made a leap in your thinking that is illogical; just because i have no personal need for religion doesn’t mean i’m “promoting atheism”
i dont consider myself belonging to atheism any “ism” or religion…if you want to believe in something, fine, i don’t need to, but that doesn’t mean i’d advocate against your belief, any more than my reluctance to eat sushi means i’d try to stop you from eating the same…
I’ve got a better idea: How about we just eliminate the personal income tax altogether and go back to having the govt raise its funding the way it used to do before, through corporate and excise taxes and import/export duties. It’s not as if the US was in any worse shape from a debt standpoint then as now, and in fact was better off. You can argue that those types of taxes might just raise retail prices, and of course they will, but at least I’ll have a choice as to whether I want to pay the tax or not by simply avoiding those products and service I don’t like the price of.
Does that sound too libertarian for you? OK, so I’ll give you my “liberal” POV on how to answer that inevitable question progressives will have about how to we fund all of the govt functions we do need (or want; take your pick on keeping your favorite, I’m not against all that many actually despite my libertarian leanings) and also to maintain the safety net for those that are in need, either temporarily or permanently. The solution to keep the money flowing – Tax the Corporatocracy as heavily as the IRS does currently on the individual, and enforce those tax codes. Tax breaks for religious organizations might be someone’s pet peeve, and rightfully so in my not so humble opinion, but why not go after the real tax cheats. Religious exemptions are peanuts compared to the mega multi-nationals who pay practically nothing, and in some cases actually receive money back after making billions in bottom line profit.
rjs
it’s you doing the leaping. i didn’t argue that you were promoting atheism, but that Linda is. What I said about you is that because you know nothing about believers you don’t care about their concerns.
This is normal human psychology. But it is bad politics.
The trivial cost, if any, of subsidizing religion through the tax code, if that ‘s what you want to call the “religion exemption,” is too small to justify making enemies of the people who have traditionally understood that that exemption is part of what guarantees their freedom of religion. You have no idea how important that is to them because you have no knowledge of the history of persecution by governments of people for their religious beliefs.
You think that religion is superstition at best so there is no reason to have any concern for the feelings of those to whom it is important.
aren’t there a few hundred other tax exemptions that the government grants for purposes it considers promote the general welfare. whether you agree with them or not. I can’t see any reason to get hysterical about the “minister of the gospel” exemption other than the fact that you (or at least Linda) has an emotional case against “religion.”
Chmee
a libertarian after my own heart.
i have advocated a “corporations only” tax policy for years, not from any animosity towards corporations, but simply because that would be the easiest way to collect the taxes. the corps can all afford accountants, and they know what the money is used for… something the average voter does not. As you point out the corps will “pass through” the tax resulting in higher prices, but as you also point out i can choose to pay the higher prices or not according to how i value the product. And since I won’t be paying any taxes, i’ll have the money to do it.
In my fevered imagination this works out as a wash, financially, for both the corporation and the consumer.
There are, however, sound political and psychological reasons for not doing it. The people need to see some connection between what they demand from government and what it costs. Not that they do now, but it won’t help to remove the last link in the relationship between what you buy and what you pay.
rjs
btw i know i am speculating about your beliefs and feelings. i think the speculations are a reasonable guess, but i am aware of the difference between what you think and what i think you think.
coberly, i was raised Catholic and my whole family is still Catholic, so you cant say i know nothing about believers…i also have friends who belong to several other religions, and i wouldnt characterize any of them as superstitious (ie, most in my family are scientists)
and i cant think of one – in my family or of my friends – who would consider it a personal issue were tax breaks for religious institutions be eliminated….most secular American Catholics tend to think the church should stay our of politics, and vice-versa…and i’ll bet i can find priests who think the same…
Rjs
since i can’t imagine what a “secular Catholic” is, I guess I can’t imagine why being raised one would give you any insight into what religious people are thinking when some perfectly rational secularist demands that Christmas scenes be removed from public spaces because they violate his god given right not to have to pay taxes to support religion.
which, i guess, makes your point: i have no idea what your thinking is like, but if it is like Linda’s last paragraph, i’d have to say it reminds me of that other tea party… the one at the Mad Hatter’s.
and i would have no basis to be surprised if you felt the same way about mine.
let me try again, modestly
when you “attack” religion, you are attacking something that is at the core of some people’s.. many people’s… “being” their basic sense of everything that is important to them. life, love, family, truth, decency..
and your sense that it is all superstitious nonsense is not based on “reason” whatever you think… it is most likely based on the same sort of “teaching” that … i imagine, not being one of them… created the religious ideas that people attach to that “basic sense of everything important”.
it is ultimately the basis for ALL politics. and it is a fact of politics that your “religion”… the one you call “no religion”… is at odds with theirs and gives you a cause for fighting. political fighting, so far, in a democracy… real war in most of the rest of the world and time.
the founders of our democracy knew this… at least they were closer in time to having seen the real … bloody and terrible … results of religous war. including war between the religious and the (secular) state. so they attempted to create a system that would, uh, keep the parties separate.
the “religious exemption” grew out of that. i cannot say myself that i think it is important. i can say that i think attacks on it are important, as they are founded on an intolerant… “religious”… view, however supported by a completely absurd appeal to “tax fairness.”
there are man tax exemptions in the law. when i see you volunteer to get rid of the ones that favor you, i will take more seriously your willingness to get rid of those that favor “ministers of the gospel.”
meanwhile, look at Linda’s essay from the point of view of a logician from Mars… one with no attachment to either religion or the anti-religion religion… and see if you can even pretend it makes sense on any other basis than “i hate religion and i want to hurt it.”
which, as i keep saying, is just another religion, albeit one a good deal less tolerant than “mainstream” religions have learned to be in America.