I remember the “Timothy Club” meeting at Harding when some financial expert came in to talk to all the young men (yes, we were all males at the time — no female Timothys) about retirement issues. Not exactly a front burner matter for guys that age, but important nevertheless.
He talked about how ministers can get out of social security. It’s important for you to get out of it, he said, because it’s such a bad financial deal. You can do much better by managing your own retirement through investments. But, he emphasized, you cannot claim that you’re doing it for financial reasons. You have to say it’s because of a theological reason having to do with separation of church and state. We would have to file an IRS form saying “I am conscientiously opposed to, or because of my religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for services I performed as a minister . . .) of any public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement, or that makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care.” It’s clear that the consciencious objection must be for religious reasons, and the objection isn’t to the payment of the tax but to the acceptance of benefits.
So opt out, he said, for financial reasons. But make sure you don’t say it’s for financial reasons.
When the session was over, I asked a couple friends if I’d heard correctly. Yes, they agreed. He’d just encouraged us to lie to the IRS for financial reasons.
(There may be some ministers out there who did take the exemption because they met the criteria. I have no problem with that. I just didn’t meet the criteria. After doing a bit more research on the exemption, I knew I didn’t qualify.)
So, we’ve paid into Social Security all these years. That’s why, like many of you, I find it frustrating when my statement of benefits comes each year with the words in bold: “Your estimated benfits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 74 percent of scheduled benfits.” That little paragraph didn’t used to be on there.
I think the translation is: this is what you have coming . . . but no promises. Now I think I have a religious objection!
- - - -
Two wins down; two to go. Here’s the Cardinals line-up for the World Series game I was at in 1968:
Lou Brock (lf)
Curt Flood (cf)
Roger Maris (rf)
Orlando Cepeda (1st)
Tim McCarver (c)
Mike Shannon (3rd)
Julian Javier (2nd)
Dal Maxwell (ss)
Ray Washburn (p)
It wasn’t a good night for the Cardinals, as Denny McLain, the last 30-game winner in major league baseball, pitched the whole game and the Tigers won, 13-1. It was, however, a great night for me, despite the loss — a night I’m still enjoying.
- - - -
Note to Highland members who have Blackberrys and will be checking the game while Jerry Taylor preaches: I’m going to Tivo the game and catch up quickly when I get home, so don’t tell me the score! (However, in the past, before tivo, I have appreciated a few times when a couple good brothers — no names mentioned — would check a score and flash it to me on the front row. Thanks, Grant and Joel.)
We had a similar guy say the same thing to our Timothy club at OVC in the early 1980’s. Maybe he was a financial planner trying to make a buck investing for Timothy Club members! He must be worth hundreds today.
I could not conscienciously opt out - but many of my fellow preaching students did.
Glad to hear that your boys won last night…
As a fifty-something who has paid into SS for my whole career, I have a different perspective. I doubt that there will be severe changes to SS at least during the baby boom retirement years. That is just too large a block of voters, especially when you add in their children. Taxes will go up if necessary. The retirement age might move back. But the SS benefits will be there.
I am glad I have paid into SS. When I retire SS will be a substantial part of my support. I don’t know how I would get by without it.
One more thing… The younger you are when you start, the better. You will never regret having a nest egg set aside. But you absolutely would eventually regret not having one.
commenting again to clarify… “The younger you are when you start’ saving for retirement….
Thanks, Alan. That’s an important statement. It goes along with the importance of not living over your head in debt. When you start early living within your means and putting away some part of your income for savings/retirement, it frees you up to be generous in sharing with people in need.
I don’t mean to complain about SS itself. I’m thankful for a plan that is there to help people in their retirement years. Yes, many of us would be fine without it. But what about others?
Thanks goodness for Jerry and Tivo!
You brought up a touchy subject for me. I carry a bit of resentment towards some guys I know who opted out. It was just as clear to me as it was to you. I never could understand how anyone could have gotten out for theological reasons. The sad thing is that almost all of the guys who opted out never invested the money. I guess the feeling I should have is one of compassion for what I am sure was a dumb mistake. These guys are going to be in big trouble soon. Hasn’t IRS given preachers a chance or two over the years to get in even if they had once signed the document?
I am a financial planner. When I meet with clients for retirement planning purposes, one of my first questions is, “Is your social security benefit part of the solution, or will it be a bonus on top of everything else?” I let the clients answer and move forward from there.
Most ministers I know are not in good savings shape. They are quick to tithe, quick to respond to every financial need in the church, quick to empty their wallet when a person in needs knocks on the door in the middle of the day … and slow to ask for a raise. I wish churches felt more of an obligation to financially take care of it’s ministers.
Grant would only flash me weather updates and traffic when I preached. Punk.
I opted out of SS but have often regreted it because of the many months that our retirement money was used in other ways. Financial discipline is often “Kryptonite” to pastors.
That and getting game updates during our sermons!
Cards in 5? Who would ‘a thunk it?
I’d be the first to say amen if we really got serious about financial discipline with our younger adults. Dave Ramsey is a little extreme, but he’s preaching a good message daily. And, I have yet to met an older minister who opted out of SS say he was glad he did - all I know say they regret it.
Social Security and the Cardinals. One of my favorite topics!
My first two years of preaching salary insisted we choose between medicine for the kids or food….on more than one occasion. When the first tax season rolled around my country-boy accountant told me I didn’t have to pay ss if I didn’t want to…it was a preacher privilege. That was the explanation.
I opted for privilege.
Well into my third year of preaching I decided I’d begin to put my “retirement” in the plate on Sundays. I developed my giving muscles to vow to make certain more money went into the plate each month than did any house payment.
About six years ago Congress passed a law giving “opted-out-ministers” a window of reentry with no penalty. I got back in, still keeping my original vow to exceed my house payment. I feel that the reason all of the other ministers got such an unusual window of grace is because God was good to me and they simply rode in on my shirt tail.
I’ve yet to hear if Mrs. Buck is taking me to a WS game….but time surely is running thin.
Terry Carpenter Eckstein Rush
I opted out.
I am a generation xer who believe by the time the older boomer generation goes through retirement nothing will be left of social security for us. We are investing in high intrests accounts and investments so by the time we retire we will live very comfortably to say the least. It helps having a wife who is going to be a CPA.
What’s interesting Mike is that you decided not to lie to the IRS about your theological views on SS but in the end, the US Government has been less than honest with you about your SS benefits. How ironic. Has anyone done any theological work on the ethics of SS anyway?
I find it strange that Jesus has so much to say about money and financial management yet we say so little about it in the church. Our greed and debt as Christians is damaging our witness to the world. When will we wake up and do something to stop the bleeding?
Note: I’ve heard that an article about Terry Rush and his connection with the Cardinals is supposed to appear in the Wall Street Journal sometime this week. If anyone finds the link, please post it on my blog.
Terry, good story. That helps make a point I want to be clear: some who’ve taken the exemption did so because they truly meet the unusual belief requirements and others because they were given advice that they trusted. It doesn’t mean that they knowingly said, I’ll pretend to meet the exemption so I’m financially better off. I don’t believe that at all.
Brian - Thanks so much. I’m fortunate to be at a church that has thought through those issues for all its ministers, but know many are churches haven’t. Any more advice you might give to them?
My perspective on Social Security is that I paid all that money in to support my grandparents, who surely drew out many times what they put in. I’m OK with that, though I would have preferred to avoid the inefficiency of the government bureaucracy.
Tim McCarver behind the plate was much less obnoxious than Tim McCarver behind the mike. Give me Joe Morgan for commentary any day.
Go Cardinals! I have Cardinals wallpaper on my computer, and have been wearing my Cardinals cap everywhere, so I’m sure I’m personally responsible for their wins.
The advice I was given at Timothy Club was that I could opt out for reasons of stewardship. So I did. Fortunately, I was able to opt back in when the government gave us that window. It meant a 16% pay cut as I had to pay the self employment tax but just for the insurance we will get when I retire, it is worth it. We felt we couldn’t afford NOT to get back in.
About the Cardinals tonight, in St. Louis it is scriptural and acceptable to have a “fellowship night” when there is post-season play involving the Cardinals. Sometimes those teenagers will even pray for them! But don’t worry Mike, it is raining in St. Louis this morning and is suppose to continue throughout the day. GO CARDS!!
Yes Mike, a couple of other notes.
I would encourage a church to set up SIMPLE IRA plan for its entire paid staff. It shares similarities with a 401k. The primary difference is that there is no administrative third-party expense for the SIMPLE. Another difference is that the employer match is capped at 3 percent. So, Mr. Minister puts in 3 percent of his salary, and the church kicks in 3 percent. Mr. Minister does 10 percent, the church still only does three. I like this approach because it incents ministers to put their own money on the table, but the church contributes too. Why shouldn’t they? If our ministers were working for more traditional employers, they would likely receive matching retirement dollars.
Another thought … churches with parsonages should sell them or use them for ministry work, not “do the minister a favor” and house him. Ministers in parsonages never build home equity, and therefore don’t have a place to live (or money to buy a place) when they retire. Secondly, I think (personal opinion) that parsonages send the message, “We don’t expect you to stay too long, so we’ll put you up until you move to the next church.” What kind of message is that?
Finally, I would assume that church leadership would have a pretty good idea of what the income of its individual members is (could be estimated with some degree of accuracy). I’d add up the total household income of the church, average it out, and set ministers’ salaries accordingly. Pay the staff somewhere around the 50th percentile. Increase it if the minister’s wife is a stay-at-home mom, or if they are gearing up to send kids to college.
This is all pretty subjective, and everyone has their own ideas. But I’ll go back to my original point … most every minister I have ever known demonstrates sacrifical giving every day, and do not place a high financial value on themselves. They need the church to look out for them, because many will not ask for what they are worth.
Nice to see you have your Tivo system of checks and balances in place.
One Sunday, years ago, I taped a football game and successfully avoided knowing the score ALL DAY. After Sunday services I called for a pizza and set everything up to enjoy the game I’d been waiting all day to watch.
The pizza delivery guy saw what I was watching and told me who won.
The weather forecast for tonight’s game has changed a bit, but there is a very real chance that you will not miss a thing because of a rain-out.
Speaking of rainy days, I have never planned on Social Security being there for mine. The system is in horrible disrepair and a sure way to lose an election would be to actually fix it. So, obviously, it will never be fixed and I just consider the money I pay nto the system to be another tax paid with money I will never see again. I know of a few teachers at ACU who have claimed the exemption stating that what they do is a ministry and it has been accepted on the basis that they teach at a religious insitution (though not in the Bible Department if that matters).
Social Security was flawed from the get go. I wish I could opt out of it because as it stands right now, I won’t get what I put into it and I could be putting away that 7 % of my income in a money market account making 4 to 6 percent, get back what I put in and have a significant amount of money for benevolence.
I had a lady who brought her television to church and tucked it under the pew in front of her to watch the superbowl. Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about!
I preach using Powerpoint slides on a projector and have a large monitor down by the front pew so I can keep track of what is being shown. Now if I could just figure out how to get a game on that thing without anyone knowing. Naw, that pesky song-leader would rat on me I’m sure. Plus, our plexiglass lecturn reflects what is being shown on it to the church. Doh!
I love the Cardinals. Even now, living in Houston, I’ll go and cheer for them they are playing the Astros. My family is from Southern Illinois, and we grew up cheering for them–back in the day of Bruce Suitor (sp?), Vince Coleman, and my beloved Ozzie Smith. Carp was great last night! Yay Cards.
I work for a church (Southwest Central CoC), and my father was a minister. I don’t think he opted out of SS (althought I am not positive). Churches have a hard time coming up with solutions to some of these “social” programs, and I appreciate the advice I’ve found on here. Churches also have a hard time with retirement plans and insurance coverage–they seem to pay the most with the least amount of coverage. Ironically, so do physicians (unless they belong to a physicians network or group. We recently set up a retirement plan for my husband, who is a medical resident.).
Brian,
Small churches in small communities who can’t afford salaries like that of a bigger town or church so a parsonage isn’t a bad thing. It is helpful to the church and to minister’s families. It enables the those smaller churches and communities to have a ministers and for the ministers to be able to work in a small community where housing and economy lacks. Yes, I can’t wait to own my own home but God is giving me what I need and I am extremely grateful that I have a parsonage to live in so I can make a difference in the small community where God has sent me. Countless small communities and churches would suffer if they weren’t “doing the minister a favor”.
Mike -
FYI - there is video of your favorite cemetery on the front page of the NYT today…check out the video for:
Vermont Granite’s Global Competition
I did opt out when I was preaching before, and if God sees fit for me to preach in the future, I will continue on that path. It has nothing to do with financial planning. I am extremely opposed to receiving funds paid by other people for my stuff. If I could opt out in the job I have now, I would. I know not all people agree with me, and that is fine; but I do not think it is right for one group of people to be able to live on the taxes taken away from other people. Although I am not extremely conservative across the board, I am when it comes to the big government/small government debate. I think as long as the church exists and lives out its life as it should, we will be taking care of “widows and orphans in need.” While I do meet the criteria for conscientious opposition, I also wonder: was this whole system created because the church was failing in its mission?
If they play the game in the rain tonight and the pine tar starts running down the arm of the pitcher, will the umpires do anything?
“If they play the game in the rain tonight and the pine tar starts running down the arm of the pitcher, will the umpires do anything?”
Kenny Rogers isn’t supposed to pitch tonight, so it shouldn’t be a problem. That is, unless he’s been giving tips to the rest of the Tigers’ staff.
I’d like to send thankful blessings to those of you that are “supporting me” via paying into SS [which, btw, I paid into all my working life in the USofA]. My small retirement just about covers my medical insurance premiums and my equally small SS income does the rest, as best it can.
My dad was a CofC preacher who didn’t receive any salary from the small churches he ministered with, until late in his 63 years of preaching, nor did he ever receive a parsonage [ CofCs in his time didn't believe in them. Mostly because they carried the name 'parson' in the title. lol]. Of necessity, he worked elsewhere and in latter years had his own business. Fortunately, he DID pay into SS when he could.
btw of a P.S. to the above,
Whatever Kenny Rogers had on his hand - shame on him for casting a shadow over his brilliant pitching abilities and for putting the spotlight on himself rather than on his team’s efforts to win the WS. I really don’t think his win will have any impact on the outcome of the Series.
About preachers and houses, I go back and forth between differing thoughts and feelings. Here’s where I am today:
For reasons that Brian has mentioned above, a parsonage is a good deal for churches and a bad deal for preachers. If a church can afford a house, it can afford to pay a preacher well enough to rent or to buy. If a church can no longer afford a house, then it should sell any houses it owns and pay the preacher well enough to, again, either rent or buy. As a preacher, I’ve lived in both situations, always content to have a roof over my head. But coming to a church that did not have a preacher’s house was, financially, the best thing that ever happened to me.
I also agree that buying a house sends a signal to both the house-buying preacher and to the congregation. It feels like (and usually is) a more permanent situation. Any number of studies indicate that, in the current context, most preachers don’t hit their strides and have their most significant times until well after the two-or-three year maximum of days gone by. And, there is a significant correlation between a preacher’s length of tenure and (can we still say this?) church growth.
I was in Bible class one time and we were discussing stealing. Someone said that stealing was taking or using something of someone else’s without there permission. I jokingly said, “You mean like social security” refering to how they use that money for all sorts of things except why they say they are taking it from your paycheck. The visitor sitting next to me replied by saying, “I work for social security…” It got deathly quiet. I was a little embarassed. He and I talked afterward and here is what he said about the issue of opting out. He said it is purposely worded vaguely to allow more wiggle room for people to opt out. He said if you want to opt out, do it and if you don’t don’t. He told me it didn’t have to be for moral/religious reasons.
Here is some of the documentation he sent me:
RS 01802.064 Who is Eligible for Exemption — Operating Policy
A minister is eligible to file an application for exemption (Form 4361) only if he is opposed for reasons of conscience or religious principles to the acceptance (with respect to his services in the exercise of the ministry) of any public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act).
His explanation was that the “conscience or religious principles” part was purposely worded vaguely to allow for the exemption for more reasons than specific religious objections.
I know there are a lot of opinions on this and there will be some people who disagree strongly with this post. I am just passing on with the Social Security employee told me.
My husband pays in to Social Security and I did as well until I went to work for a public school that does not. When I retire, as I understand it, I am one of those US Citizens who must choose between my retirement and full Social Security benefits. I am not even entitled to my husband’s should he die first.
I am not particularly worried, as it has pushed us to set aside a good portion each month toward retirement. But it hardly seems fair that when most wives can draw their spouse’s social security into widowhood, whether they work or not, that a significant number of teachers and govt employees cannot.
Since Diane is a public school teacher who works for AISD, a district that does not pay social security, I wonder how she feels about this law.
Ken Neller sponsors Alpha Chi Malachi (A transformed, gender inclusive Timothy Club) at Harding now. He also teaches a course on Christian ministry. In both settings he speaks to the SS issue as well as responsible retirement plans.
In both he is quick to show this “Opt-out” clause. But he is just as quick to show that it could be a matter of integrity and character. I am indebted to his insight on the subject and am grateful for the lesson in ethics.
Sorry your experience was so terrible!
Oh, I so wanted to opt out of SS. But like you we knew we weren’t taking any vows of poverty.
On the bright side, we get awesome housing exemptions, so I guess paying in the SS balances it all out. {Since I don’t expect to see much SS money actually coming our way after all you Boomers use it up!}
What sucks is that SS was never supposed to be a welfare program, but it turned into that. And they’ll likely raise the cap on what is taxable (right now its everything up to 90,000 a year). When someone who makes 150,000 a year is all the sudden getting a 7 percent pay cut which is really a 14 percent pay cut (cause the business you work for doesn’t really pay that extra 7 percent, that is money they would be able to pay you if there were no SS) do you think that will cut down contributions to church and charitable donations? You betcha. Should it, probably not, but its a reality that we have to deal with.
So THAT’S why you’ve been looking at the monitors all these years, eh!?
Thanks for putting this discussion up it prepped me for a discussion on Social Security today in my Political Science class.
Is it wrong to not save? So what if I give a little extra money to the church, or a missionary, or some other cause. Won’t God watch out for me when I reach “retirement age?” Will God stop providing?
I think we are more likely to sin by saving than we are by spending. Despite the parables about planning for the future, shouldn’t we put our trust in God, not in money. (even though ironically our money has the words “in God we trust.”)
This is not to say that saving is a sin, but I believe it certainly can lead us down the wrong path where our 401k becomes an idol. just a thought.
Val wrote: “I know of a few teachers at ACU who have claimed the exemption stating that what they do is a ministry and it has been accepted on the basis that they teach at a religious institution (though not in the Bible Department if that matters).”
I’m surprised that no one else has commented about this. I used to work (and also got my BA from) at another CofC school - Harding - and was told that several of the male instructors were able to take advantage of this exemption and others (something to do with buying a house?) but female instructors were not allowed to. No, I never asked the “Powers That Be” if this were true. Does anyone else know? I remember when I left HU to move closer to family, another unmarried female instructor half-jokingly asked me if I would please sue them before leaving. Her logic: then they would be forced to let all instructors - male or female - have access to the same exemption(s) - and what did I have to lose?!
Sorry my first post is such a cynical one. I remember “Mike Cope Church” (I know, I know - we shouldn’t have called it that, but we did) at HU when I attended - really enjoyed those Wednesday nights.
Mike,
I wanted to write and say I had the same experience at Harding. I almost made the mistake, but did some research independent of anyone at Harding. I actually went to a business teacher at Harding after hearing a Bible teacher talk about it to ask his advice and he told me most teachers at Harding actually take the exemption as a minister. I have always wondered how men could make this decision and be ethically honest.
I for one am very thankful for SS and I do not mind paying in even though I won’t see all my money return. I have back up plans. Having grown up in rural Arkansas and seen the good it has done in the lives of elderly people (particularly women who worked in the home and farm), I do not mind paying.
Well… debt can just as easily become an idol Philip. When you’ve got an 8000 dollar credit card debt because something huge happened and you hadn’t put money away for it… you are enslaved to that minimum payment, which makes it much harder to give when you know that the result of giving is bankrupcy.
Giving is important, but being responsible to those who depend on you is important as well.
The SS opt-out provision was established for the Amish and Mennonites (and other religious groups) that refuse to purchase insurance, and as a matter of faith, refuse to accept insurance benefits, even when entitled to them. The opt-out clause provides that people who would refuse to accept the benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to should not be required to pay the premiums for those benefits. I could not sign the opt-out form because I did not have a conscience problem with “receiving” insurance benefits. (I am aware that there were some in the Stone-Campbell movement that believed that buying insurance was sinful–it was viewed as a form of gambling and a lack of faith in God’s gracious provision; so within our heritage there could be those who could have opted out on conscientious religious convictions).
I don’t know if it was the same guy or not, but I seem to remember a fellow from Kentucky who visited some churches in the Carolinas during the late seventies (maybe early eighties) advising preachers to opt-out of SS on the basis of good stewardship, thus making it matter of faith. (I’m not sure, but I think that fellow ended up spending some time in jail.)
Another, observation. I remember when my dad had to make the decision to either begin paying SS or to sign the opt-out form. That was in the mid-sixties. I believe that before that time preachers (clergy) could simply be automatically exempt from SS. I remember because the church decided to pay half of my dad’s SS, since other employers had to match the amount of SS they collected from their employees. The problem with that turned out to be that the IRS considered the amount paid to be income (upon which he had to pay income tax and additional SS). So while he benefitted from the additional money, it didn’t really match 50% of the SS he had to pay. There were some preachers who got poor counsel during this period and who, like my dad, received payments of 50% of their SS and who simply treated that amount as an unreportable benefit. That works until you’re audited, and you discover that you are liable for taxes and SS and penalties on everything that wasn’t properly reported.
It helps to understand SS if one recognizes that it is, in fact, a form of insurance–it is not a savings account. Like all insurance companies, the government is counting on people paying in more than they take out in benefits. Iin this regard, the gov’t is gambling on people paying into the system for 45 years and then dying quickly so that they will not collect benefits for very long. It’s the way insurance works.
Justin, paying your debts and saving are two separate issues. You probably shouldn’t be saving simply to pay debts. That seems a little counterintuitive. And when debts do occur, I believe God always provides an answer. As you mentioned, responsibility certainly is important. However I’m not sure responsibility includes working on creating a “nest egg” that exceeds the GDP of a small African country (an exaggeration of course).
I’m just shooting the breeze here, but doesn’t our money-hoarding society tend to give us a jaundiced view of what defines a good steward? Futhermore, doesn’t the Bible command us to do something useful with our hands? Although spending your retirement years sailing the seven seas with your wife may sound romantic, it doesn’t seem to be helpful to the Kingdom.
I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t have some reserve cash for emergencies, I’m simply posing the idea that saving can become a sin.
You are right, Mike. The SS option for ministers is a strict CO statement. Heck, I’m a CA–as in accepter! It is a good plan, in danger only from conservatives who have never really seen the benefit of collective action. SS will be there if we stand together. But then, unions would still be strong if that were the case! I’ve always been in and I am glad. It was never a choice for me.
TWD said “I’m OK with that, though I would have preferred to avoid the inefficiency of the government bureaucracy.” I think this is a huge, though common misconception. While you might lose money due to demographic shifts, it won’t be because of inefficiency. Social Security’s administrative costs are about 1% of its revenue (http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=227&p_created=956256635&p_sid=Gd6SD1li&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjAmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTEuMTgmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1). I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any private organization (say, a non-profit or a church) that meets those standards of efficiency.
Here’s that link again: Social Security administrative costs
The game is called on account of the weather in St. Louis. You did not need the Tivo after all Mike. Cardinal baseball on Friday night now!
I remember that Timothy Club meeting. It was confusing to me also, however, that wasn’t unsual for me. Timothy Club reminded me of the Young Men’s Training class that I attended on Wednesday nights when I was in Jr. High, except the guys in Timothy Club shaved.
Social Security -
Let me try this again.
When I talked to Social Security about it, they said as a minister I could opt out for whatever reason I wanted, regardless of the language of what the SS documentation says. Just thought I would make that clear.
Larry, as one of those conservatives you mentioned, I am also happy that labor unions are weaker. In fact, I turned down a job opportunity solely based on the fact I would have had to join a union. As it is, I know have the authority to ask people to leave the premises when they come in and hand out union-based material.
Again, my CO stems solely from the fact that my family (biological and spiritual) will be there to provide for me. I am saddened by all the people who desperately need government assistance. I am glad they are able to receive at least some of the help they need; I just wish it was the Church doing its job by stepping in and doing the providing.
In my masters program, my history of social welfare teacher referred to Social Security as an intergenerational tax.
It was not designed to be my retirement plan. The social security act has several “titles” that also cover things like unemployment, foster care etc…
FDR when he sumbitted it to congress was seeking “some safeguards against misfortunes which cannot be wholly eliminated in the man made world of ours” and to ” provide at once security against several of the great disturbing factors of life” (message to congress 6/8/1934)
One of the factors not accounted for was population shift. I trust that adjustments will be made. But I am aware adjustments made will impact my children/ grandchildren since the system is an intergenerational tax.
Intergenerational tax means each sucessive generation pays for the former, correct? And so middle aged workers in the 30s ended up getting the best deal (pay in for 10 years, and then reap way more than you put in)
I wouldn’t have nearly as much issue with social security if it were a forced savings plan. But its not. Its just redistribution of wealth. People that are making 90,000 a year are going to get the same amount of money as someone who made 20,000 a year but they are going to pay a lot more than they get back. Its a negative investment.
I found it intriguing that they specify that your objection has to be to the “receving of funds”, as if these funds were some sort of gift to you, the minister. I cannot separate the two. There would be no funds to receive if I didn’t put them in to begin with, and social security is no more of a good investment that the man who buried his talents in the sand.
Stewardship plays a role in the decision whether the IRS wants to put the word on its form or not.
Justin,
What we’re really talking about here is the notion of “commonwealth”–that those of us who have more are willing to give some of that away in order to provide for the common good. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Social Security, equating it with some sort of private, personal, individual plan that would benefit you; it was never intended to be that sort of thing. But following the Great Depression, a number of people realized that when horrible things happen, they affect all of us–and thus when we’re managing okay (working, getting paid regularly, etc.), we should also realize that we’re connected and store up not just for ourselves, but also for others. That’s why Social Security is intergenerational–it’s not about me. It’s about me helping my children–and yours. And you helping your children–and mine. It’s the notion of community, that we share something as Americans and that we’re thus bound together and responsible to help each other. That’s also why we pay to support schools we won’t attend, museums we might only go to once in a while, parks we may never play at… We do this because it’s a right and civilized thing to do–our gift to the others in our community as a way of saying thank you for all those things we enjoyed that we didn’t pay for–and as a way of making sure that the blessings and benefits of our civilization continue for future generations, each one beholden to the one before it, each connected to the ones that come after.
And all of this meshes quite well with Christianity it seems to me–supporting the widows and orphans and aliens among us, recognizing that we enjoy groves and vineyards we didn’t plant, realizing that the old divisions of Jew & Gentile, slave & free, male & female no longer exist. Celebrating the fact that what we have is not ours, but God’s and at the same time rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…
The notion of commonwealth has virtually disappeared in America, leaving only materialism and individualism. But the notion of commonwealth has a long history in Western civilization (and Eastern, too, for that matter)–indeed, many would see it is the primary marker of civilization itself. We band together because we realize that the community is stronger, richer, more resilient, more protected than the individual ever could be. Many European cities still have communal pastureland surrounding them even today, and many cities and villages in New England still have the communal woodland around them where the whole village once collected firewood for the winter… This is the original notion of parkland–a place we share and are equally responsible for whether we’re rich or poor. A place where we come together.
So Social Security isn’t really about personal benefit nor individual justice, Justin, nor is it about maximizing your investment so you can enjoy your wealth yourself. In its original design (at least before all the loopholes for the rich), it was about creating a just society, a community where we realized and acted upon our connectedness. Such a vision of commonwealth is not just a liberal value; it’s a Christian value as well.
It would be a shame to lose it; one more blow to the communal in favor of the individual; one more privileging of the wealthy over the needy; one more fracturing of relationship in favor of isolation. That’s a place I certainly don’t want to live. So I’ll pay my Social Security taxes for your children; I’ll redistribute my wealth for the children and grandchildren of the others who’ve posted here. And I’ll be grateful for the sacrifice their parents–and yours–made for me and my retirement. And I’ll be vigilant in reminding those around me that one of the primary functions of government is to protect the commonwealth–”to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves AND our posterity…”
My daughter is a CoC minister and opted out of SS in order to receive some other tax breaks that are tied directly to that action that makes a low income more viable. Women receive a lower salary than the equivalent men in the same position so any tax break becomes extremly important to be able to remain in ministry. The main sitcking point for the IRS that she ran into was that the elders had to sign a letter stating that she had the authority to perform weddings, funerals, give sacriments, and something else but I can’t remember what it was now. There also has to be a form on record by the church claiming SS exemption. However, it was that letter that was the key for the IRS in Dallas and they would not give her the exemption until the elders had signed it and it was submitted.
The tax breaks and the exemption from the SS system made it possible for her and her husband to live during the time she worked for that particular church based on the very low salary she received in her first ministry job.
My dad, a preaching minsiter, began putting into SS many years ago. Six years after his death, my mom reaps the benefits of his good stewardship. All of us in the family are grateful for his diligence and faithfulness.
Google is the best search engine
77,
I completely disagree that socialism, welfare and social security are a Christian approach to the problem of poverty, etc.
Let me start by picking a phrase you used. “It’s not about me. It’s about me helping my children.” You have it exactly backwards. Social Security does NOT benefit children, it *indebts* them to us– it demands that they sacrifice their financial well-being for our sake. It leaves a *worse* legacy for future generations.
So you may say that by mistake you got it backwards. “It’s about me helping my parents.” That may be, but it is very short-sighted, and does not change the fact that it hurts future generations. In fact, by establishing this program, older generations unwittingly set up a system that would either eventually bankrupt the entire country, or (if benefits are severely reduced) take much from future generations that would never be returned to them in full, while at the same time putting a huge burden on the economy through ever-increasing taxes.
Another evil outcome of Social Security and other welfare programs is that they replace the family support structure with government. The end result is that families do not rely on each other as they used to. Such government programs contribute to the decline of the family in today’s society. Our culture’s reduced sense of responsibility and *personal* duty to others is also reduced. “The government will take care of them.” I would argue, contrary to what you have said, that our materialistic, self-centered culture is more due to such government programs than due to any growth in people trying to provide for themselves and their loved ones.
During the debate about changing the Social Security program a couple of years ago, the most vociferous opponents were, curiously, the eldest among us. Why is that? Is it because they wanted to “help the children”? No, they were acting selfishly! They were afraid that any changes would threaten their benefits. Their fear was so irrational that it blinded them from realizing that the proposed changes would not only not affect them, but it would actually make Social Security a reality for their children. If they really cared about the children and the future of this country, instead of just for themselves, they would have been ALL FOR the changes!
And next, to the demographic havoc that Social Security and similar programs have wreaked. In large part because of programs like Social Security, birthrates have fallen below replacement levels in many European countries and in the U.S. In Rome, for example, I have heard it is often lamented that there are no more young people. (In the U.S. this is offset by immigration and the high birthrates of immigrants.) Now that people don’t rely on their children in their old age, they don’t want to have as many… in some cases, none at all. If you want to look at it in crass economic terms, if you tax something, it will decrease; if you subsidize it, it will increase. Young people are taxed more, and old people are subsidized. So we see the population tilting beyond stabilization into actual decline, and the consequent imbalance of young and old people. This means yet further taxes on the fewer young to support the greater number of old. This trend can only accelerate until it results in catastrophe or the long, slow atrophy of our civilization, as we are now seeing.
From a less economic and more societal point of view, I believe it is much better when *people* take care of people directly, when we rely on and build *personal* relationships. I live in an apartment complex that is home to many older people. Many of them are very lonely and live far away from their children. We try to visit them and help them out as much as we can, and they are so happy to see us and talk to us. I would much rather have my parents live with me, and support them directly, than to have them indirectly live off me through the government’s redirection of wealth. My children could benefit from their wisdom by seeing and talking to them everyday, and our communities would be much healthier with families and friends supporting each other and living together like this. Instead, with older retired people having their much-vaunted “independence,” they end up being very lonely and isolated, and the younger generation no longer feels a sense of duty, obligation or even caring for them. The government has taken over the support role, though it obviously cannot ever replace the personal care. The result is an increase in loneliness, isolation and a *decrease* in relationships– quite the opposite of what you suggested. You cannot have a “relationship” with others that consists primarily of a FICA deduction on one end and a Social Security benefits check on the other.
As to welfare programs in general, we see similar effects. In many poorer communities, the government has largely replaced fathers, which is a huge tragedy for those communities and their health and futures. We are seeing a fatherless generation grow up, and that is at least partly due to government welfare programs.
I know these programs are seen by many as a form of “compassion” from the greater society to those in need. The missing part of it is the personal connection, the personal relationship. Yes, we do have an obligation to the poor and to the widow. We, I mean *me*, *personally*. *I* should be the one going to help them, visit them, and so on. One could say that the government has taken over that role because the church, and people like you and I, had failed in our job to do this. Yet one could also argue that the government stepping in has only compounded the lack of *personal* compassion and involvement. The result has been a reduction in personal compassion, the loss of the individual sense of duty to the common good and to others, and an actual *increase* in the amount of need and poverty and family brokenness.
These are some of the reasons why I conscientiously object to Social Security and similar programs.
Mark,
If your father had put the same amount of money into a savings account that bore a mere 4% interest (and there are more and more of these every day), your mother would have far more than she would get from Social Security. I would have called that *better* stewardship. Investing in the stock market for the long run would have been even better.
At least, on average. There is one aspect of Social Security that would not be covered by that… and that is if your father died early without having time to put much into the savings account. However, that is what life insurance is for.
77,
I completely disagree that social programs, welfare and Social Security are a Christian approach to the problem of poverty, etc.
Let me start by picking a phrase you used. “It’s not about me. It’s about me helping my children.” You have it exactly backwards. Social Security does not go into some “trust fund” to benefit us and our children later. Instead, the taxes you pay today go to benefit older people who paid their taxes yesterday. Social Security does NOT benefit children, it *indebts* them to us– it demands that they sacrifice their financial well-being for our sake. It leaves a *worse* legacy for future generations. Rather than leaving them more money, it leaves them with a debt, an obligation to support us.
So you may say that by mistake you got it backwards. “It’s about me helping my parents.” That may be, but it is very short-sighted, and does not change the fact that it hurts future generations. In fact, by establishing this program, older generations unwittingly set up a system that would either eventually bankrupt the entire country, or (if benefits are severely reduced) take much from future generations that would never be returned to them in full, while at the same time putting a huge burden on the economy through ever-increasing taxes.
Another evil outcome of Social Security and other welfare programs is that they replace the family support structure with government. The end result is that families do not rely on each other as they used to. Such government programs contribute to the decline of the family in today’s society. Our culture’s reduced sense of responsibility and *personal* duty to others is also reduced. “The government will take care of them.” I would argue, contrary to what you have said, that our materialistic, self-centered culture is more due to such government programs than due to any growth in people trying to provide for themselves and their loved ones.
During the debate about changing the Social Security program a couple of years ago, the most vociferous opponents were, curiously, the eldest among us. Why is that? Is it because they wanted to “help the children”? No, they were acting selfishly! They were afraid that any changes would threaten their benefits. Their fear was so irrational that it blinded them from realizing that the proposed changes would not only not affect them, but it would actually make Social Security a reality for their children. If they really cared about the children and the future of this country, instead of just for themselves, they would have been ALL FOR the changes!
And next, to the demographic havoc that Social Security and similar programs have wreaked. In large part because of programs like Social Security, birthrates have fallen below replacement levels in many European countries and in the U.S. In Rome, for example, I have heard it is often lamented that there are no more young people. (In the U.S. this is offset by immigration and the high birthrates of immigrants.) Now that people don’t rely on their children in their old age, they don’t want to have as many… in some cases, none at all. If you want to look at it in crass economic terms, if you tax something, it will decrease; if you subsidize it, it will increase. Young people are taxed more, and old people are subsidized. So we see the population tilting beyond stabilization into actual decline, and the consequent imbalance of young and old people. This means yet further taxes on the fewer young to support the greater number of old. This trend can only accelerate until it results in catastrophe or the long, slow atrophy of our civilization, as we are now seeing.
From a less economic and more societal point of view, I believe it is much better when *people* take care of people directly, when we rely on and build *personal* relationships. I live in an apartment complex that is home to many older people. Many of them are very lonely and live far away from their children. We try to visit them and help them out as much as we can, and they are so happy to see us and talk to us. I would much rather have my parents live with me, and support them directly, than to have them indirectly live off me through the government’s redirection of wealth. My children could benefit from their wisdom by seeing and talking to them everyday, and our communities would be much healthier with families and friends supporting each other and living together like this. Instead, with older retired people having their much-vaunted “independence,” they end up being very lonely and isolated, and the younger generation no longer feels a sense of duty, obligation or even caring for them. The government has taken over the support role, though it obviously cannot ever replace the personal care. The result is an increase in loneliness, isolation and a *decrease* in relationships– quite the opposite of what you suggested. You cannot have a “relationship” with others that consists primarily of a FICA deduction on one end and a Social Security benefits check on the other.
As to welfare programs in general, we see similar effects. In many poorer communities, the government has largely replaced fathers, which is a huge tragedy for those communities and their health and futures. We are seeing a fatherless generation grow up, and that is at least partly due to government welfare programs.
I know these programs are seen by many as a form of “compassion” from the greater society to those in need. The missing part of it is the personal connection, the personal relationship. Yes, we do have an obligation to the poor and to the widow. We, I mean *me*, *personally*. *I* should be the one going to help them, visit them, and so on. One could say that the government has taken over that role because the church, and people like you and I, had failed in our job to do this. Yet one could also argue that the government stepping in has only compounded the lack of *personal* compassion and involvement. The result has been a reduction in personal compassion, the loss of the individual sense of duty to the common good and to others, and an actual *increase* in the amount of need and poverty and family brokenness.
These are some of the reasons why I conscientiously object to Social Security and similar programs.
Great post, Allen. Thanks for your insight.
I’m a youngster, 24 years old and just starting my life as a worship pastor. I find myself caught in this dilemma (I have until next April to file for SS exemption). I can certainly give many reasons why I dislike SS and hate to take part in it, but I’m having to divide my practical, financial concerns and analyze this theologically. Can I honestly exempt myself purely for reasons of belief? I don’t know… Rest assured I’ll be doing a good bit of praying and soul searching over the next few months.
Incidentally, I found this article from 1957 (republished in ‘80) written by a pastor when SS was fairly young. I don’t know how much I agree with his application of Scripture, but it was a good, informative read:
ftp://entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/north/8001.pdf
Thanks to everyone who posted here. Your insights and opinions have been a big help to me in my own decision making process.