Hi Michael

I might undertand the way the media works a bit differently but I would of thought being singled out in a national newspaper may indicate some groundswell of opinion - if not create more.
Its like porn addicts and paedophiles - its a tiny percentage of the clergy who are exposed - but every time they are we take a hit. I take it that is why Paul exhorts the Corinthians to radical surgery!

Jon Guyers letter attempts to demonstrate that the percieved burden is minimal if not negligible - which in economic terms is absolutely correct.  Its a contructive counter though I don;t know if the average punter cares what ‘lucrative profession’ we may have give up to soak up tax dollars. It still doesn’t address the priciple issue - taking money withthe intent of non repayment. nb also he thinks its a loan - even if it may not be in strictess terms.

I can remember hearing tim Keller characteristically talk about being a blessing to the city - and asked the question -
if you and your church were to disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow - would anyone in the unbeleiving community around you notice you were gone.  And if they did even notice - would they say we are really glad they are gone or - gee we’re going to miss them.

a challenge is how we can convince the sceptic that trained clergy add value to our society.  Keller suggests our mission is hindered if we are not winning the PR war.

Thankyou Michael for clarifying the issue that government policy
is ‘aware’ and not ‘an ignorant anomaly’, this was my recollection
also but was afraid my contribution along these lines was just
going to be no better than hearsay.

Shane, It seems to me we are never going to win the “PR War”
the world is always going to hate us, even when we do good,
because it hated our Lord first. This doesn’t mean we give up on clarifying the truth and putting the truth out there for all to see but don’t confuse what the world perceives and what is reality.

It seems to me that we need to just get on with doing the right
thing, putting the truth out there with confidence that our consciences
are clear that we have not wronged anybody. Which it seems
to me those partaking in FEE_HELP can do.

David Palmer - 15 January 2008 05:21 PM

I do however think that if a person has been given by God the financial means to get themselves through bible college without government support, they should seriously consider doing so, even if that requires working in the secular workforce for a longer period of time than they might have otherwise.

Which was exactly the case for those of us who went through College in earlier times.

That’s not true, David. Even in olden days (pre-FEE-HELP, I guess), fees were kept down by many government subsidies: the clergy tax treatment which effects lecturers, exemption from council rates for church-owned property like colleges, etc.

And while some of these remain, other government charges are now imposed upon independent places of study (NB, not just theological study). For example, the administration of FEE-HELP is quite different from HECS. HECS was run centrally, but FEE-HELP is run by the institution. From memory - a very shaky authority - Moore College estimated these compliance costs to be in the order of $1m/year.

In other words, no one is free from government subsidy, now or past. And I am not convinced that one era or another was better/less burdensome.

There is more to this story…

In today’s Australian, Adrian McComb disputes some of the stats relied upon by the SMH FEE-HELP article.

Policy expert Andrew Norton explains why the SMH article is wrong on his blog.

Andrew Norton says:

It is a mistake to say that the costs of FEE-HELP are primarily incurred by private colleges and universities. Though the figures have to be pieced together from several sources, in 2006 full-fee students at public universities borrowed $309 million, and at private colleges and universities students borrowed $123 million. The average amounts borrowed per student were quite similar - $7949 at public universities, and $8633 at non-public colleges and universities

OK so there are large, macro policy disputes surrounding the thesis of the article and its use of stats.

That’s where the real public interest lies.

What about the specific allegation that interests this thread?

Graduate clergy presented a particular burden to the taxpayer, because their accommodation and living costs were subsidised by the churches and their low taxable income meant they took a long time to repay their debts.

Estimates of ministers’ likely FEE-HELP debts and average lifetime earnings from one church group indicated the taxpayer subsidy would be about 26 per cent.

The ‘26%’ figure is very dodgy. As the article itself admits this is an estimate based on one church.

Nevertheless, the journalist has relied on this stat to make the claim that clergy ‘are a particular burden’.

Given that this stat is not sustainable, and that the clergy example is a very minor tangent in much bigger debate about funding private tertiary institutions, I think the entire assumption of Shane’s original post collapses.

There is no evidence that Sydney clergy are a particular burden on taxpayers or that anyone much is taking the claim seriously.

(yes I’m still eating humble pie).

G’day Jeremy,

It may be a distraction to the main thread, but I want to comment on your earlier point:

Jeremy Halcrow - 15 January 2008 12:02 PM

The essence of the inequity is how the tax system treats clergy ‘perks’. For most lay people living in Sydney 33-50% of their after tax income will go to housing costs. Of course, clergy accommodation costs - and we are talking big $$ - are outside the tax system.  (You’d be lucky to rent a 4-5 bed house anywhere in Sydney for less than $300 pw ie $16,000 per year and most of the properties Sydney Anglican clergy actually live in would rent at between $600-$1200 pw).

You may be right that in some instances clergy housing is big $$. However, you might consider a number of points. It’s virtually a requirement that ministers live somewhere in the parish which they serve. That is, there is little or no choice about where to live. It’s a condition of “employment” that they live in the parish, often in a church-provided property.

In addition, the parish house is used for ministry purposes - whether it be bible studies, meetings etc. My office is at home for good or ill.

Next, at least where I’m at, the diocese adds the housing component into the minister’s stipend. Although it is added to the non-taxable component (ie., FB’s), it is still added into the overall total.

Further, the minister’s stipend and housing is paid for by parishioners in the most part. It’s a great blessing of God that the ATO still allows such the church to be relatively tax-free on most things. Why? Because the cost of ministry would be significantly higher to all involved (lay and clergy) if it weren’t. It makes the dollars the church gives and the stipend the minister receives go further than they otherwise would.

A minister’s stipend - housing included - is fairly modest in comparison to the skill level required, responsibility, time spent, and training received.

Also, I would seriously question your claim that most properties of Syd Ang clergy would cost $600-$1200p/w to rent. In the inner-city and more affluent suburbs, sure, that might be the case. But Campbelltown, Penrith etc??

Finally, while 33-50% of your average wage-earner’s after-tax wage in the congregation goes to housing, what proportion is paid to mortgages and what proportion to rentals? It’s worth factoring this in for two reasons: i. clergy situations are more akin to rentals if anything, and because of i. we have ii. clergy, therefore, have no equity in the property which appears as part of their stipend. That is, at the end, the clergy don’t own the house.

Your average wage-earner has a choice of where to live, can choose the level of debt if they take on a mortgage, and can come out with some real estate at the end. If they rent, they can choose what price to pay and which suburb. 

Just some things to consider when you’re thinking the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence.

You may be right that in some instances clergy housing is big $$. However, you might consider a number of points. It’s virtually a requirement that ministers live somewhere in the parish which they serve. That is, there is little or no choice about where to live. It’s a condition of “employment” that they live in the parish, often in a church-provided property.

I’m not interested in debating this Jason. I said originally that I agree with this rationale and that the housing tax arrangement allows parish ministry to occur evenly across the city. It would be a massive problem for us if it was removed.

My concern was quite the reverse: I was worried that in questioning the FEE-HELP arrangement, the general public may end up seeking the removal of this special tax arrangement. However, the entire premise of what i was saying was based on a false assumption about the Government’s FEE-HELP arrangements and their awareness of clergy’s unique tax situation.

Small point of fact, it pretty hard to rent large family homes in middle income suburbs such as in most of the Hills and Sutherland Shire for less that $500pw. This is what you get for $530pw in Miranda - 5 bed fibro and $580pw in Castle Hill - 4 bed brick

I’m sure you guys could do better by looking harder. But its the number of bedrooms that is the problem, because of the requirement for an on-site office.

Jeremy Halcrow - 18 January 2008 11:46 AM

Small point of fact, it pretty hard to rent large family homes in middle income suburbs such as in most of the Hills and Sutherland Shire for less that $600pw. This is what you get for $530pw week in Miranda

But surely Jeremy congregants for a particular church are generally drawn from the same area so if they themselves can afford to live there then wouldn’t ‘generous giving’ from these higher earning people allow appropriate salaries for the ministers.

I have no doubt what I say is nonsense as I don’t understand the whole stipend thing.

And I’m sure people often don’t give generously either.

Of course. I’m not disputing any of this. Just saying I had checked the rental market before making my initial comments.

I dont really want to prolong a discussion started by an inaccurate beat up of a story by the SMH, but…

On the rental market, we rent a 5 bedroom brick house for our assistant for $310 per week in St Marys.

Jeff, your comments about giving are correct.
While there are exceptions, giving to ministry, mission and to support needs in other parts of the diocese
from ‘better off’ parts of Sydney appears to be appalling. But that should probably be another thread…

If clergy costs are a burden, it might be better to look elsewhere beyond initial training which is, as noted, solidly subsidized as is the case with almost all higher education programs in Australia.

Not so many years ago, a very senior priest in a capital city parish boasted that not only had he managed to send all his kids to a private school, he had managed never to pay any tax in his ministerial career including, of course, things such as rates, etc, that all his parishioners copped while subscribing to his housing and income. I did not comment at the time but my thoughts went to the issue of rendering unto God and Caesar. Thank heavens for the GST! I hope, and believe, that most clergy are socially and financially accountable as well as honourable.

To be blunt, clergy are not and have never been, totally engaged in preaching, nurturing, church leadership and evangelism, which, while a vital role in the church, is only a small part of the contribution clergy of all denominations make to society as a whole. If parish and diocesan clergy were to disappear, as one correspondent asked, the hole in society would be enormous. Australian taxpayers contribute nearly $30 billion annually to the churches for work in health, education, social welfare, etc and clergy play a leadership and management level in these socially important activities.

Ian Welch, Canberra

G’day Ian,

Strictly speaking, nor was that minister required by law to pay tax, given the status and benefits the church enjoyed in previous years. That minister was in fact rendering to Caesar what was Caesar’s - it’s just Caesar asked for nothing in that minister’s case.

But to alleviate some of the concerns about a situation like that, some Dioceses have made their clergy package a certain percentage of their stipend as taxable income. Now, again, this isn’t required by the taxation department, as far as I’m aware. But to avoid being seen to take advantage of the laws, some Dioceses package the stipend in the way I described.

Hi Jason,
Without going in to detail I suggest you talk to your accountant.. Since colonial times and after State Income Taxes yielded to a Federal Income Tax, I think during WW2, all citizens are obliged to pay tax and clergy were never exempt nor can they avoid tax on taxable income other than by the conventional methods allowed by the Tax Act.

The exemptions granted to churches are in a different context and even these have been more and more restricted over time as churches have implemented more and more profit-making operations, such as the Seventh Day Adventist ‘Sanitarium’ enterprise.

The major dispute down the years has been centred on whether or not clergy are employees but that is another matter. The only exemptions for clergy are those applicable in general, such as work-related expenses, etc. However, the key point is not about tax per se, but the absolute right, not privilege, of Christian citizens enjoying the same access to higher education benefits as all other taxpayers. The suggestion that education fees for Christian service should somehow be sourced totally outside is to deprive Christians of rights of citizenship.

Ian Welch

Dear friends and colleagues

I am not a regular user of this blogsite, but I was alerted by a friend to the discussion on the ethical merits of FEE HELP.

When the scheme was first proposed I spoke with the then Education Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, who informed me that it was not the intention of the Government to recoup all the fees paid to citizens enrolled in higher education in the private sector. In fact the plan had working mothers in mind, whose return to the workforce the Government wanted to encourage.  The fact that they would most likely (in partime employment) never repay their FEE HELP debt (which expires at death, unlike Capital Gains Tax!) was in the opinion of the Government worth the $300m investment for a better educated Australia!

I raised the matter of ministers and their remuneration package where the housing benefit was not a cash benefit and therefore would not be included in any caluclations of income, thus enabling them habitually to fall beneath the threshold for repayment (unless there was other income, such as investment income, which could bring the clergy income over the threshold for repayment).  He said this was completely legitimate and while not specifically targeted by the Government, was consistent with their policy of supporting the higher education of Australians generally!

To summarise, if the Government is prepared to support the education of Ministers of Religion, or anyone who undertakes higher education, there is no ethical dilemma for the consumer.  There may be a political dilemma for those who think the policy is flawed, but the makers of the policy implemented it, with the provision of a threshold, knowing that one outcome of such a policy would be the non-repayment of the debt by some.

I trust this helps those who may have been strugglling with the ethics of taking advantage of FEE HELP.

GND

Hi Glenn,

Welcome* to these forums and thank you for your clarification on this topic, which is relevant to other Christian groups also.

Grace & peace,
Terry (one of the non-conformist inhabitants here)

* on behalf of the SydAng residents of these forums, who may currently be having their post-lunch naps....8-)

The issues raised in this thread may be worthy of further thought.

One important consideration when thinking about the ethics of any issue is legality.  And discussion of FEE-HELP on this thread has rightly focussed on this.  And non-repayment of FEE-HELP debts may well be in-line with the legal and regulatory intent of the scheme.

However, there may be wider ethical concerns, beyond mere legality.  We make this distinction in other areas (e.g. bioethics).  Certain medical acts may be entirely in-line with the legal intent of laws and regulations, but still be open to ethical questioning.

In the case of FEE-HELP, it may be worth asking if this distinction opens the issue up a little more.  For example, if FEE-HELP is a loan program (rather than a grant program), then it involves (explicitly or implicitly) an exchange of promises between the borrower (student) and the lender (the community), to borrow and repay.  We can ask is it ethically desirable to enter into such an exchange of promises with no, or weak, intent to repay?  Such entry may be legal, but is it more broadly ethically desirable?

Personally, I don’t have a settled view on the question, but it’s at least worth thinking about.

then it involves (explicitly or implicitly) an exchange of promises between the borrower (student) and the lender (the community), to borrow and repay.

No, it is a *conditional* promise - to repay if, and only if, income exceeds a certain threshold. If income never exceeds that threshold, no repayment is required.