Is It Okay for Me to Opt Out of Social Security?
— Thursday, February 11th, 2010 —
Here is the latest question from a reader (or composite from several readers, with identifying marks extinguished). As always, I’ll throw it to you first. How would you advise this person? I’ll weigh in later.
Dear Dr. Moore,
I’m a young Baptist minister. As I was about to be ordained, I was told that I’d now be considered ‘”self-employed” for purposes of paying my Social Security payroll taxes. This means the church won’t pay the part an employer typically pays for social security, but I’d pay the whole thing on my own.
I was told though that there is a way ministers can “opt out” of the Social Security system altogether. It’s kind of a “conscientious objector” clause. What it means is that I don’t pay Social Security taxes now, and I won’t receive any Social Security at retirement, or in case of disability.
The reason I did this is because, frankly, I don’t think Social Security will be around for me when I retire anyway. I’m in my twenties and, given the entitlement mess our government is in, I don’t see any way the system is still around when I would need it.
Is it ethical for me to have opted out of Social Security?
Sincerely,Socially Secure
What do you think? How would you advise this young preacher? And, remember, to send me your ethical question for a future column to questions@russellmoore.com
Can you - without violation of conscience or without conviction - affirm the following statement from IRS form 4361?
I certify that I am conscientiously opposed to, or because of my religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for services I perform as a minister, member of religious order not under a vow of poverty, or a Christian Science practitioner) 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. (Public insurance includes insurance systems established by the Social Security Act.)…Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this application and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true and correct.
If you can, then yes - your opting out is legitimate. However, if your rationale to opt out is financial or political (i.e. “It won’t be there for me when I retire anyway”, or “I don’t want to support this government any more than I have to”) then opting out is illegitimate and unethical.
Did he lie and say that he “conscientiously objected” to the system simply because he didn’t think the system was going to help him when he is older? Or does he actually have a an ethical problem with Social Security. If he actually is a “conscientious objector,” then he might have a case, but that is clearly not the case. He’s opting out because he’s not going to get anything out of it, or, in his words, “frankly, I don’t think Social Security will be around for me when I retire anyway.” That’s pragmatism — not an ethical stance against the system. This is an integrity issue for the preacher.
Yes I would be glad to hear your thoughts on this! I have struggled with it much like this brother has, but I decided I couldn’t because I wasn’t sure if my objection to it was moral/ethical or because I didn’t want to burn my money away to the black hole of Social Security. I was ready to sign the papers until I saw the condition clause and the word perjury, and then I began to have a conflict of conscience. I’ve known lots of people on both sides, would be very curious to see what you have to say Dr Moore!
Read the form carefully and make sure you can sign it in good conscience. Consistency is the key word here.
The IRS rules concerning the opt out of Social Security are specifically for those who have a theological tradition that precludes them from accepting government insurance. From what the letter author writes, it is clearly not a theological issue, but rather a financial concern and a general lack of confidence in the financial solvency of the program.
Under these circumstances it would be unethical to opt out of Social Security since it is violating IRS rules. The classic response of “paying unto Caeser” and the example of Jesus paying the temple tax applies to this situation. If in fact a person does have a genuine theological concern, then opting out is ethical.
I considered taking this option myself, but could not in good conscience sit down and draft a biblical argument knowing that I was mostly concerned about the financial aspects of the IRS rule.
I think there are a couple of issues at work here. First, I think this young man can conscientiously object to the government’s supposed “public” insurance, and at the same time, see the incompetency and soon to be failure of this system while the government attempts to further the nanny state. This is an ethical issue as well because the government is presuming that a citizen cannot plan appropriately for his/her future and therefore removes 15% of our money so that they can protect us from ourselves. This is not how things “ought” to be, which is an ethical matter. If the government was taking a portion of our money to give to the helpless that would be a different issue (although an argument could be made that the church should be doing this rather than the government). Yet, millionaires and paupers both get “public” assistance from Social Security. I can therefore, without hesitation, based on the biblical mandate to work hard, take care of my family, be a good steward of my money, conscientiously object to the rationale behind “public” assistance.
Secondly, I think that Southern and other Seminaries should have a class or classes on Finances for their students because most students don’t have a clue about these matters until it’s too late or they are forced to make a quick decision (seemingly like this young man). The seminary is adamant about not becoming beholding to the government (which is why students cannot get federal grants/student loans). I think that is a sound principle and I agree wholeheartedly with their thinking. What I find peculiar is why they would not want to teach students about the same principles concerning their finances, beginning with the issues surrounding Social Security.
I think the young man in question is looking for ethical advice (Is this ethical for me to opt out of Social Security?). Just because he hasn’t thought through all the issues, other than throwing away 15% of his income, does not mean that he shouldn’t opt out. Excellent question…
@Nathan,
Just an FYI but Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary offers a Personal Finance course in both the college and seminary. The course may actually be required in the college. It is offered both on campus and online in the seminary.
Russell
@Nathan,
Fine words, indeed. I have opted out. I believe it was 2002 and I had the two theological/traditional objections to the FICA program/tax, i.e. stewardship and the place of the church for Christan benevolence.
With one of the major Baptist distinctives being “soul compentancy”, we should inform new pastors this decision should be taken serious, inform them of their options, and leave the decision to them.
Jeff
I recognize that there are many aspects of Social Security with which Christians might be uncomfortable. The American concept of retirement might be a bit generous, (the Bible never talks about taking a vacation at the end of one’s life when they’re still able to work.) Social Security often provides benefits to some who are simply unwilling to work, while scripture tells us that a man who won’t work won’t eat. However, our biggest conscientious objection ought to be that the church should be meeting the legitimate needs in our society. The existence of the SS program illustrates a glaring failure of the church. It is to our shame that we have ignored this great opportunity to display the Gospel and relegated it to the state. Since SS is the largest vehicle in place for giving aid to orphans, widows, disabled, etc, let us pay into it while we are building up the mercy ministries of our local churches. Local churches should seek to put SS out of business, and then let us stop paying into it. In the meantime, let’s “have the same mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who….made Himself a servant.” After having wrestled with this exact question ourselves, my wife and I decided that as Christians, we ought not be so concerned about what’s in it for us, and instead use taxes as an opportunity to glorify God through joyful giving to help those made in His image.
I’d have to agree with most of the other commentators. If you truly conscientiously object then you can opt out. If you have other motives you shouldn’t. Many things we are called to do as believers are hard. But doing them is, in part, how we let our lights shine before the world so they may see them and glorify the Father.
Ditto the comments above about “conscientious objection.” Crown Financial actually has a page about this:
http://www.crown.org/library/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=690
which specifically clarifies:
“Neither ministers’ personal views of the soundness of the Social Security system nor their economic objections to having to pay the Social Security or self-employment tax have any relationship to the application for exemption. Objections based on religious grounds must be the only governing principle used in this decision.”
Given his statement:
“The reason I did this is because, frankly, I don’t think Social Security will be around for me when I retire anyway.”
I would say yes, it would be unethical for him to opt out, since signing the form would be a lie.
Granting that those who have previously posted are emphasizing a good point, I wonder if one could consider opting out an action of wise and shrewd stewardship.
The objection of a failed system is legitimate. The numbers are absolutely clear that the present path of social security has it completely bankrupt in the next 20 years. The proposals to keep that from happaning are all high-risk, incredibly high-volume investment proposals that could all turn sour.
Yes, the original exception clause was made for a group such as ‘Christian Science’ to object out of theological beliefs against government insurance.
However, is it possible to now fully be able to say that because of my religious principles in which Jesus tells me to be wiser and more shrewed than this generation with my Master’s resources, that I could object to paying money to a failed system.
(Of course, I would continue and say that I’d be opposed of one opting out of that system for the pure sake of self-seeking desires to have more money. I think I would support opting out if one can legitimately say that they are seeking to be wiser in managing their money for Kingdom purposes.)
This is a clear case of unethical behavior. You cannot opt out of social security for pragmatic reasons. What to do about it now if you opted out for the wrong reason? Man up and write the IRS and rescind your decision but you will probably be liable for the previous three years social security tax. Check with an accountant first about how to proceed. It is possible.
As to whether a minister can opt out according to the IRS guidelines, that is a bit more complicated but perhaps this question will clarify the issue: If the government never allowed for opting out of social security, would you still be opposed? If the government removed the opt out provision today and made it retroactive, would you still be opposed? I wonder if the fact that there is the possibility of opting out creates “conscientious objections.”
In addition, it seems to me that in the IRS statement on 4361, your theological objection has to be to the acceptance of benefits; not merely paying the tax. Another question: If you were forced to pay social security tax due to a change in the law this year, would you still accept the retirement benefit when you were eligible or would return it due to your theological objections?
@Russell Woodbridge,
As a younger minister (at the great encouragement of my CPA), I opted out , but then came to the realization (after my 4361 was filed), that I could not do so on “conscientious objections.” I called the IRS to see what was necessary to opt back in and was told that it was irrevocable. There have been times in the past that people have been able to opt back in, but this, I was told, was only for a season and was subject to congressional approval.
An interesting subject and interesting comments so far. This is something I particularly look forward to Dr. Moore answering, since I, too, will be in this situation if the Lord delays his return for many more years.
When I first read the question, I thought, “How noble of this person to have a desire to take responsibility for their finances, rather than delegate those responsibilities to the state.” The Bible commends personal responsibility and hard work. I also agree with the person who commented that the Bible doesn’t depict a “vacation” at the end of life. Particularly, I myself do not forsee myself “retiring” from the pastorate when I am aged. The Lord, of course, can lead me to anything even as I would age, but I personally do not see myself ever retiring once I enter the pastorate. Therefore, there really isn’t a need for social security. (My whole argument is that I think it would be biblical for me–and the original poster–to take full responsibility for one’s own finances, including the responsibility to “save” … but not too much, of course, for we are called to lay up treasure in heaven–not on earth!)
I also see where the “render unto Caesar” people are coming from, and agree that opting out of SS should not be an issue of pragmatism but an issue of “conscientious objection.” IF the original poster wants out of SS simply because it will not last, then he should not opt out. However, if he rather wants to opt out as a means of taking FULL responsibility for his finances rather than relying on the government (the Bible promotes industriousness, and managing finances is a rather industrious task), then I would say it is fine to opt out of SS.
It is a matter of the heart’s motivation, not “do this” or “do that.” It’s all about what is motivating this Christian to do this, since I believe this would fall under the umbrella of Christian liberty.
I think more people should opt out of social security, especially those people who are against a government healthcare option. It would be ethically consistent as opposed to ethnically inconsistent to criticize the public option and then take social security.
I agree with most of what everyone is saying. I think that this is a matter of budgeting as well. If one knows that they are going to have to pay out to Social Security every year then I think the appropriate thing to do is to add a line on your budget per month that accurately amounts to how much you will owe SS at the end of the fiscal year. Furthermore, since he did opt out he should be acting like he didn’t by setting aside a certain amount into savings so that when he does retire he can have sufficient money to live off of. Perhaps the best option is to save a little at a time, put into savings until it grows enough to put in CDs, thereafter taking some of the money and putting it in an IRA. He should make his money work for him.
Furthermore, one needs to ask whether or not this is a matter of conscience or simply out of convenience. If it is a matter of conscience then I quote Martin Luther, “To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”
I disagree with Josh. It is the church’s responsibility, not the government’s, in taking care of the elderly. And if not the church, it is still better that private citizens do that job. But, it wouldn’t matter if the church succeeded or not, the man responsible for S.S. (FDR) would have shoved it down our throats anyway.
I actually tried to opt out based on those religious convictions and got nowhere. Although I really do believe S.S. is a form of gov control and does next to nothing in adding incentive for young people to work hard to provide their own retirement and does nothing to encourage private citizens to take care of the elderly, it wasn’t enough for Big Brother Sam. They said, thanks for your opinion, but we’ll still take your money and your employer’s.
And good luck getting a timely response from them as well. I NEVER got a letter or phone call or email. I had to continually bug my local tax office to check for updates on my status. After about the fifth visit, the highest ranking employee got on the phone with the S.S. federal office and after about a 2 hour hold got someone on the phone who could verify my status. It only took six months en toto.
The idea that the government forces you against your will to give THEM money to give to poor people is morally repugnant. But, unfortunately, it is law. So, like others here have already said, try not to think about all the wonderful things you can do with 7.5% more of your income (like fund the lottie moon christmas offering) and search your conscience.
And let me clarify my statement to Josh. In the movie, A Christmas Carol (the older color movie), Scrooge is approached by two charity organizers and asked for a donation. His response: I pay taxes to take care of the poor. Likewise, the recipients of S.S. will gladly take a handout over hardwork any day. So, the lure of S.S. is too great for power-hungry politicians, the uncaring rich, and the lazy masses to ignore. No matter how good of a job the church was doing.
Besides, one could argue, as Marvin Olasky has, that the church was actually doing a better job before FDR came along than they are now. So, I’m not so sure this as much of the church’s fault as some Christians think.
I just got my statement and it said social security will be bankrupt by 2037. I am 30 so basically I am paying into a system that will not help me at all. What a scam and a rip off. I object in every possible way to paying into SS. Because of my “religious views” I think thievery is wrong, therefore as a pastor I object. Done.
As a tax preparer, I met a minister who had opted out of SS but later regretted it on pragmatic grounds. Unfortunately, he compounded his earlier unethical opt-out by seeking our cooperation in shenanigans designed to transfer his wife’s contributions to his account. We refused of course, and doing such is impossible anyway.
I am a CPA Russell and I can tell you after working on a lot folks in ministry down here in Nashville (Sunday School Board, pastors, music ministers) I am saddened by the abuse of the IRS rules by “ministers.” Housing allowances for you Wednesday night music leader? Come on!!!
It’s a shame that churches are even getting “consulted” to tell them to make everyone they can a “Minister of the Gospel” to benefit from the favorable tax regulations.
I had a friend ask me this very question, actually his pastor in Cleveland, TN had told him that’s what you do, you opt out, he didn’t even think of the ethics. Now he was concerned because he hadn’t saved for retirement.
I petitioned the IRS to no avail, but good for him, he got a job at LifeWay where they take out Social Security.
I have little respect for most “ministers” as I see them cheat the tax code with little to no regret. I’m not too convinced we need the “Minister of the Gospel” stipulations any longer, they were intended to help out destitute preachers because they couldn’t afford the tax on the value of the parsonage the church would provide.
It’s just sickening.
Blessings,
I think that if you can sign the form according to the rules, than it’s not unethical.
However, I really do not understand churches that refuse to pay half the social security tax on behalf of their ministers. I think another question that should be asked is if it was ethical for the church that employs this young man to use the IRS rules to get out from under a burden they have to pay for any other staff not considered pastors. Just because the IRS says that ministers are technically self-employed, in reality, are they really? It’s just as unethical to use the rules to skirt responsibilities as it is to skirt the rules because the rules are stupid.
@JC, This is not just an issue from the church’s standpoint. I’ve seen lengthy arguments between pastors on whether they should be paid via W-2 or 1099 or whether it really makes any difference. Those who are independent contractors (1099) are considered self employed. No taxes of any kind are withheld, whether one is a minister or not.
The argument for the pastor being paid via 1099 as an independent contractor is that he shouldn’t be considered an employee of the church, an arrangement in which the negative implications should appear to be pretty clear, it seems to me.
I know some Southern Baptist pastors who would not accept a call to a church that insisted on treating them as a W-2 employee.
@JC,
Churches are not allowed by the IRS to pay the 7.65% SS tax (half of the tax) for ordained ministers. Churches, however, can opt to give ministers addition salary to help offset having to pay the entire tax themselves. But this additional salary is also subject to SS tax. This may help the minister to pay his overall tax liability. But because of the law, the church cannot pay the entire half of a minister’s liability.
Whether this is right or wrong, it is the law by which churches must abide.
Look here for more info:
http://www.crown.org/LIBRARY/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=693
@Jody,
You made my point for me. However, I should of pointed out that a church can’t make the payments directly to the IRS (via withholding). And your right, the math doesn’t work out to half, but it’s pretty close.
Let’s say this young guys salary is $50,000. SSA tax on this amount would be $7,650 (15.3%). The right thing for a church to do is give him the 7.65% in a salary increase. The increase in salary would only increase his overall SSA tax burden by $585.23, netting him about $3,200 to pay towards the SSA taxes (making the it about a 60/40 split on bearing the burden of the tax).
Like I said before, skirting a responsibility by hiding behind the law, and a man-made one at that, seems to fly in the face of biblical submission to authority. We elevate the law of the land above our ethical responsibilities to take care of the men God has entrusted with our care and the care of the gospel. If the IRS all the sudden says you can’t pay ministers at all, are we just going to say, “aw shucks…the IRS said so”. I really hope not. I’m not advocating not paying the tax. I’m just advocating the church help bear the burden.
My dad is a pastor and he’s been in churches who have REFUSED to increase his salary to cover the extra taxes and it makes it difficult on a family. So I guess I can get a little fired up when it comes to this issue. Forgive me if I come across harsh. That is not my intent at all. I’m just a little passionate.
I could not in good conscience sign that statement. Most ministers I know who have opted out did so to save some dollars. I may be paying more, but I have not violated my convictions. Consider this carefully and fully.
I am no expert and certainly will defer to the more learned of this group, however, I have serious concerns anytime government is involved at any level(with the church corporately or with the pastor individually) with the local body of believers. I personally believe that if opting out can be done without legal ramifications, by all means, the young minister should do so. I offer this one caveat. Both socially secure and brian(#17) are walking pretty thin ethical grounds by stating that their objections are based upon the belief that SS will not be available. A perceived event is not the same as an independently verifiable event.
Should the opt out be followed through with, the individual knows that he will not be receiving benefits through the SSA. I personally believe that a minister and his post-ministry life should be a private matter and one that is privately resolved through either an arrangement such as Guidestone(the old Annuity Board) or through personal retirement investment.
I too have a very very strong dislike for social security, although when we reviewed this option for my husband several years ago, we realized he didnt meet the IRS criteria for opting out based on conscience. If anyone tried to opt out for reasons other than the IRS guidelines, then they would not be responding truthfully when they would be required to declare via signature, their intent for opting out.
There are also many other guidelines for opting out - I recall that you have to have contributed for a certain number of years, and opt out before a maximum number of years as well, so its not easy to opt out on several fronts.
Also - most ordained ministers get ministers housing allowance, something that the general public doesn’t get, so for many christians, we have benefits provided by the IRS that others don’t have as well, and we get those benefits now, not when we turn 65.
Further, many young seminary students are employed by the seminary, did you know that if you are employed by the school you are a student at, you don’t pay social security (FICA) taxes if you are part time? Alot of seminary students are contributing less to social security than they think.
One thing that I don’t think anyone here brought up yet (maybe since it appears most of the responses here are from men) is what you would do if you died, and your spouse and children were offered SS benefits as a result of your death. I know many people that think they’d like to opt out - but then they would also want those death benefits for their family. I don’t think that relying on social security is the way to provide for your family should one pass away, but if you are not against your family taking that money upon your death, then you probably don’t meet the guidelines for opting out.
This is another opportunity for me to remind young pastors that they should be getting a MINIMUM of $10k term life insurance or whatever Guidestone offers (or your church or another oranization) in life insurance on themselves to at least cover burial costs and other expenses that are necessary when they die. It will cost you very little to do this, and the longer you wait, the greater chance you have of getting diagnosed with an illness and not being able to get life insurance at all. I also think the church should be the one to help in these situations, but, the church is not perfect and its wise to plan for these things. That was a tangent, I know.
Are Christians above government? Doesn’t the Bible say to give to God what we are to give to God and to give to Caesar what we are to give to Caesar? My husband is in an ethics class at NOBTS and is currently doing a book review on Richard Land’s The Divided States of America: What Liberals and Conservatives are missing in the God and Country Shouting match. From what I hear from quotes that he reads to me, it is very interesting and very informative. I can’t wait to read it when he is done. If social security is against theology in the Bible, then opt out, but if it is not, then how can one opt out ethically?
I opted out of Soc Sec over 25 years ago in good conscience as conscientious objector to my religious principles of separation of church and state. I have been consistent in this principle throughout my life. For example, I opt out of patriotic celebrations during a worship service and I will not pledge my allegiance to anyone (or anything) but Jesus. However, a flag flies in front of my home and just today I thanked a WWII veteran for his service.
I am ineligible for the Soc Sec disability coverage unless I am currently paying into the system but will be eligible for Soc Sec upon retirement. I have had enough secular employment over the years that I am vested in the system and will have the option at retirement to take my own benefit or the spousal benefit through my wife’s account. I’ll likely take the latter, which should be more.
Opting out is something that you must do within the first two years of ministry. There have been 2-3 windows over the years where those who regretted opting out (or ‘perjured’ themselves when signing the statement) could re-enter the system without penalty. It is clearly unethical to opt out of Soc Sec for economic or political reasons.
I’m a little surprised by how many people are arguing that opting out is against Romans 13 by claiming that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Technically speaking, that would only be true if we lied about our income and didn’t report it accurately on our tax forms. Caesar is giving ministers an option, if they conscientiously object. If the government gave all citizens this option, Social Security would die instantly. This is not an issue about withholding from Caesar. It is an issue of whether one believes that the government should stay out of their ministry. If you think the government should, then opt out. If not, then give your money to Caesar.
I think most ground has been covered on this issue, except that I would like to add one thing. The issue is not just whether you can find an ethical objection to Social Security; it’s that your ethical objection must be specifically because you are a minister. In other words, your objection must be because you believe that because you are a minister, it is ethically wrong for you to receive benefits from the government. Most of the arguments that I’ve read for opting out from these posts could be claimed by anyone if the IRS only gave them the opportunity. That is why I personally have chosen not to opt out even though I think SS is a scam, and I’ll never see my money again.
I personally know of a CMA pastor who opted out of SSI as a young Pastor. I’m sure for he had legit personal convictions and sincere “intentions” at the time. However over the years he was the Pastor of many small churches, with many hard working poor congregants. Those churches could not afford to fund a reasonable pension. I would say most of the congregants had no decent pensions.
So he found himself mid 50’s with nothing.
A few years ago the Government allowed an exception that allowed Pastors who opted out back in the system. So at the Eleventh hour he opted back in and will receive benefits like many people who have paid their entire working life. This of course appears questionable and I know of congregants who were upset by this.
I am sympathetic but I think it serves as a warning that this type of occurrence can be a “stumbling” block.
Are you willing to make this decision and stick with it even if it doesn’t pan out the way you expect.
If not then I think it was never really a true conviction.
I’m a little more curious to know why the pastor plans to retire in the first place. Personally, I believe God’s calling on our lives as pastor doesn’t end at a certain retirement age. Just my two cents.
From what I understand, ministers were disallowed from being in SS at the inception of the program. It was not until about 1955 that ministers were allowed to be in SS.
I find this fact very interesting. Was the government’s refusal of ministers into SS because, at least originally, the government itself saw that government or public assistance of ministers to be the responsibility of the church and not the government. Did the government itself originally find the public assistance of ministers something to which they conscientiously objected?
So why did the policy change and the prohibition of ministers to pay into and receive SS cease?
I cannot answer those questions, but I think those facts may suggest that the government itself shifted its reasoning from a principled argument (the church, not the state, should take care of its ministers) to a practical argument (we need more people paying into the system).
Maybe somebody knows more about the history of this matter.
Prior to accepting my first pastorate I taught World History at the high school level. Consequently, when it came time for me to consider opting out of Social Security for my pastoral income, it was a fairly easy decision. What I constantly saw in history was the tension and fighting between the church and the state. Whichever one was in power at any given time tended to abuse the other and try to take advantage of the other. As a result, I firmly believe that it is best to keep the two separate. Therefore, I opted out of Social Security on my pastoral income because that would mean that when it came time to collect, the government would be paying me for work that I did as a pastor. Of course I will be very willing to accept any Social Security that I will receive as a result of having paid into the system while working other jobs.
As is obvious from most of he comments above, it is not a conscience issue for a Christian but probably a pragmatic decision. Anti-taxation is simply not a doctrinal stance of any baptist of other evangelical church I know of. What has been left out of the comments I have read so far is that conscientious objection to government support is not a singular issue related to social security tax (certainly not a pragmatic decision to keep your money out of a system that will likely be insolvent upon your retirement) it is a comprehensive moral objection to ALL government service and support. Are you can say you are truly morally opposed and are part of a church that teaches as doctrine that its people should reject all public assistance, government subsidies, benefits, public service, military service etc then sign it. and live it and preach it. my guess is you don’t, and you won’t.
As I read form 4361, it seems that the phrase in parenthesis is key:
“(for services I perform as a minister, member of religious order not under a vow of poverty, or a Christian Science practitioner)”
The social security exemption is not about opposition to taxation, or social security in themselves (though a person might be), but about opposition to receiving government benefits for work done specifically as a minister.
Thus, the issue involves the respective roles of church and state. The question is whether the state has the right to pay out benefits for labors performed in the gospel ministry. Does this violate the distinct roles of church and state?
If it truly goes against your conscience to pay social security (self employment taxes) as a minister, would you refuse to pay even if the IRS ruled that you must pay. My guess is most ministers would pay. So we must ask ourselves how strong a matter of conscience is it. Just a thought and probably not a valid one.
As a Pastor’s wife for many years, my husband and I looked at opting out of social security years ago, and found that we truly had no religious or scriptural basis for doing so. We also believe the bible does not advocate retirement, but it is clear that the objection is to taking government aide not just to retirement. What is frustrating is that most of our colleagues have opted out, and get to keep that money when their paycheck comes. Many churches we have worked for base salaries on the fact that a minister has opted out with a kind of “too bad for you” attitude. Most do not compensate ministers for the employer portion of that tax because it costs them less to not pay it as well, which leaves some paying 15.3% of their salary to social security (which I believe will not be there by the time we need it) and others keeping 15.3% to use for supporting their family. My frustration also comes in when seeing these same “objectors” have no problem taking financial aide, government health programs, and government kickbacks. Most that have had other jobs outside of ministry plan on accepting social security from that retirement, so where is the religious objection? Either you have a religious conviction, or you do not. You can’t play both sides. What are you going to do if the government ever really looks at this and says “you opted out-you’re out of everything”?
Dr. Moore, as a pastor and a CPA let me add some clarity.
The option to exempt out of social security MUST be based on religious convictions for his work as a minister. However, many protestant evangelical pastors 1) believe that we are in or approaching the last days, 2) based on the Matthew 24 and revelation it is quite clear that in the last days the government will be persecuting Christians, and 3) this raises serious question as to if the government will be passing out checks to those it is persecuting. If the pastor subscribes to the above points, he clearly meets the criteria for opting out of social security.
The pastor does not have to give up social securtiy for non-ministerial work and must pay social security taxes for those services. He may therefore still qualify for receiving social security for non-ministerial work based on the non-ministeral wages.
The objection to receiving social security is limited to the governments envolvement in the payroll package for the pastor (aka retirement and social service benefits). It is not an objection to these programs in whole (for the general population), but only as an intrusion into the church finances, aka the pastoral pay package.
If a pastor does opt out of social security (which I did), the wise pastor STILL needs to save up for retirement just as the ant saves up (see proverbs, etc.)