Corrupt General Authorities and Their Huge Salaries

[volgadon]

Jesus was upper middle class and wore very expensive clothes.

Peter, James and John were upper middle class too, with their large fishing business in one of the wealthiest Jewish towns.

[SlackTime]

I know most of you are academics who are not into business.

That's fairly obvious on this thread.

The church itself does not have to pay the GA's anything. In many cases, they serve on boards of corporations owned by the church, and offer legitimate advice in areas of their own expertise, and collect legitimate salaries for doing so.

Some serve in salaried positions in church "mangement" positions related to their callings which would otherwise be occupied by non- GA administrators.

Hmmm... I seem to recall the Church pulling GAs off the "Corporate Board" system that was used for many years to support some GAs. I seem to recall this occurring during Pres. Kimball's ministry, though I can't point you specifically to a source. Just my faulty memory. I remember them indicating that the amount of work needing to be accomplished in the growing Church did not allow them the luxury of sitting on secular boards. Anyway just information.

- SlackTime

[phaedrus ut]

This is not exactly accurate. The accurate answer would be it depends.It would depend on whether the business expenses are 1) paid by the business,

Well there is no compensation to a individual when a business pays it's own expenses so that's obviously not it.

2) paid by the individual and reimbursed,

Reimbursed business expenses are not part of a individuals compensation and not listed as such for either the employee or the business.

3) paid by the individual and not reimbursed.

So apparently a person can pay for the expenses of their employer with out reimbursement and somehow that should factor into how the business reports their compensation? That makes no sense at all.

In which of those scenarios would the business expenses of a employee show up as part of their compensation? You can show it from the financial accounting side of the company or the reported income w2/1099 of the employee.

Phaedrus

[phaedrus ut]

Incorrect. The Church has publicly disclosed the source of the stipends. The amounts may be discrete, but the source is known.

I must have missed this announcement. When did they say this? Have a link?

Phaedrus

[ttribe]

Well there is no compensation to a individual when a business pays it's own expenses so that's obviously not it.

Reimbursed business expenses are not part of a individuals compensation and not listed as such for either the employee or the business.

So apparently a person can pay for the expenses of their employer with out reimbursement and somehow that should factor into how the business reports their compensation? That makes no sense at all.

In which of those scenarios would the business expenses of a employee show up as part of their compensation? You can show it from the financial accounting side of the company or the reported income w2/1099 of the employee.

Phaedrus

Careful...ERayR is a tax CPA...you might be wading into deeper water than you realize.

[phaedrus ut]

Careful...ERayR is a tax CPA...you might be wading into deeper water than you realize.

Good then he can tell on from a GAAP or IASB accounting basis when a reporting corporation is detailing the compensation of a individual if they are to include the reimbursed business expenses(eg. travel) as part of that individuals total compensation.

Phaedrus

[ttribe]

Good then he can tell on from a GAAP or IASB accounting basis when a reporting corporation is detailing the compensation of a individual if they are to include the reimbursed business expenses(eg. travel) as part of that individuals total compensation.

Phaedrus

Measurements of comp are different under IRS regs vs. GAAP or IFRS. What he was talking about was IRS Regs (and he was right on each of his three points). What gets rolled into comp for GAAP/IFRS is much more flexible. However, if your are a SEC Registrant, it seems you pretty much have to throw every possible source into comp disclosures these days (whether the comp is real or imagined).

[ERayR]

Well there is no compensation to a individual when a business pays it's own expenses so that's obviously not it.

Reimbursed business expenses are not part of a individuals compensation and not listed as such for either the employee or the business.

So apparently a person can pay for the expenses of their employer with out reimbursement and somehow that should factor into how the business reports their compensation? That makes no sense at all.

In which of those scenarios would the business expenses of a employee show up as part of their compensation? You can show it from the financial accounting side of the company or the reported income w2/1099 of the employee.

Phaedrus

Employee compensation is reported on a W-2. If an employee pays business expenses and is not reimbursed then the funds to pay the expenses have had to come from the wages of the employee. The wages are reported on the W-2 therefore the money used to pay the business expenses are part of the compensation. There is a way for the employee to deduct part of those unreimbursed business expenses but he/she has to be able to use the itemization process rather than the standard deduction. Even then the unreimbursed employee expense deduction is reduced by 2% of gross income.

By the way 1099's are used to report non-employee compensation not employee compensation.

[WalkerW]

You mean like in the OP?

If you find Dr. Peterson's post to be a straw man, call him out on it. Even if it is a straw man, that doesn't change or justify the fact that Mighty Curelom's post is.

I haven't read the Recovery board, so I wouldn't know. Dr. Peterson provided quotes. If you have a problem, explain why.

[Nofear]

I must have missed this announcement. When did they say this? Have a link?

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

(Ensign 1985)

I'm sure you could dig up some other references.

[ERayR]

Good then he can tell on from a GAAP or IASB accounting basis when a reporting corporation is detailing the compensation of a individual if they are to include the reimbursed business expenses(eg. travel) as part of that individuals total compensation.

Phaedrus

It is all in the tax code and again the answer is it depends. Is it an 1)accountable plan or not.

[Jaybear]

Never mind the audit reports...the internal controls...the lack of substantive evidence of financial abuse.

I didn't say or imply that your GA's were stealing money. Only that the amount of their compensation is not a matter of public disclosure. The existence of internal audit reports and internal controls is simply not relevant to that question.

O Brother: Modest living stipends aren't classified. Nobody but Church accountants know who makes what and I don't think the non-disclosure policy will change anytime soon. The system is set up to offer some form of monetary compensation.

If salary ... err stipend information is not made available to the public or even to tithe payers, how can you say that information is not "classified?"

I also have to wonder, if the total compensation package paid to your GA's was truly modest, wouldn't it be in the best interest of your Church to provide such a disclosure? Afterall people here seem to feel quite good about the fact that Pres. Monson lived in a modest home.

No Fear: Incorrect. The Church has publicly disclosed the source of the stipends. The amounts may be discrete, but the source is known.

Incorrect.

I must have missed that announcement. But does it really matter to you if the money is pulled from the left pocket or the right pocket?

[mfbukowski]

Ressentiment

Precisely

[mfbukowski]

Would it upset you to find that wealthy GAs are still drawing a salary even though they don't "need" it.

Why would it? I am willing to live the law of consecration if called to do so.

And who are you to judge the needs of others?

[Nofear]

This was an interesting comment from a blog. Does anybody have any supporting evidence for the emphasized section?

Money for living allowances comes from the income produced by businesses in which the Mormon Church has an ownership interest. To this point, at least, tithing has not been used for this purpose. The amount of mission presidents

[Ceeboo]

Geeeeez, this thread makes me happy we Catholics never have had to deal with any $$$$$$$ issues

Good to be back, missed y'all a ton !!!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Doug the Hutt]

Over on the oddly-named "Recovery" board, which is far more bizarre, even, than my Malevolent Stalker's lair, some of the inmates are pooling their ignorance and hostility in a discussion of the "ginormous salaries and spend[ing?] accounts" that "guarantee and ensure" that General Authorities don't leave the Church like these self-styled heroic geniuses have: "If they were paid less, you'd probably see them leaving more often."

A principal exhibit in support of their case is "the reality behind the Boyd K. Packer estate." As one poster emits, "Seminary teachers/principals aren't paid jack, and this guy spent his whole 'career' in CES. Yet look at his estate. It's monstrous. I've seen it. You can't tell me he isn't paid for his apostleship."

I don't know what this particular Einstein may have seen, but I've been in President Packer's home, which sits at the end of a cul-de-sac in a reasonably average suburban neighborhood southward in the Salt Lake Valley. The home is nice enough, but not new, and anything but lavish. Relatively modest, I would say. Many of the homes in my own neighborhood are much larger.

I wonder where President Packer's "monstrous estate" might be? I lean toward the Planet Zarkon. I think the "Recovery" poster must have seen it during one of his abductions by aliens.

Okay folks, I went through (4) pages of this thread and not a single person even provided proof either for or against Dr. Peterson's personal testimoney of President Packer's ~~quaint-little-average-suburban-home-in-teh-valley~~.

http://www.assessor....uery/query2.cfm (enter 1850, packer)

So, at his 1850 address there are two listed for him -- one for a 2009 market value of $482,300 (which is far more than my house is worth....lol) and one for $1,606,790. What? 1.6 million dollars is now considered "a reasonably average suburban neighborhood southward in Salt Lake Valley.

edit:

http://extras.sltrib.com/HomePrices/

BULL FLIPPIN CRAP. DCP, you either posted it in this way to prove to us how rich & well-off you are personally (because "many of the homes in (your) own neighborhood are MUCH LARGER"), or lied to us outright.

[phaedrus ut]

Employee compensation is reported on a W-2. If an employee pays business expenses and is not reimbursed then the funds to pay the expenses have had to come from the wages of the employee. The wages are reported on the W-2 therefore the money used to pay the business expenses are part of the compensation. There is a way for the employee to deduct part of those unreimbursed business expenses but he/she has to be able to use the itemization process rather than the standard deduction. Even then the unreimbursed employee expense deduction is reduced by 2% of gross income.

By the way 1099's are used to report non-employee compensation not employee compensation.

Ok I can see how that is going to affect an employee on a IRS level. If you read my original post I was speaking of my observation of reported compensation on the corporate financial statements. I went back and checked and what we're specifically talking about is UK GAAP and I was responding to cal's question if that would include travel expenses, etc. I said no and I still say that is accurate. Are you saying I'm wrong?

Phaedrus

[mfbukowski]

Personally, I assume that its not the salary that draws LDS men to become GAs, but the power, influence and social benefits that flow from the position.

Huh?

Gosh, can I apply? I want all that!

Unbelievable

Do you even know anything about how GA's are called? Have you ever met a GA and felt his spirit?

Good grief.

[gmormon]

Geeeeez, this thread makes me happy we Catholics never have had to deal with any $$$$$$$ issues

Good to be back, missed y'all a ton !!!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

Been missing ya Boo ! Where ya been? Been to any good BBQs lately ?

[ERayR]

I didn't say or imply that your GA's were stealing money. Only that the amount of their compensation is not a matter of public disclosure. The existence of internal audit reports and internal controls is simply not relevant to that question.

Good.

If salary ... err stipend information is not made available to the public or even to tithe payers, how can you say that information is not "classified?"

Probably can't.

I also have to wonder, if the total compensation package paid to your GA's was truly modest, wouldn't it be in the best interest of your Church to provide such a disclosure? Afterall people here seem to feel quite good about the fact that Pres. Monson lived in a modest home.

Not really. If it were made public it wouldn't matter what the compensation was the argument would then be what is modest and what is not, and the compensationed would be analyzed and objections for whatever reason and for no reason. There would be a lot more noise to detract from the message of the church.

In a nutshell the detractors would just have some additional information to complain about.

Incorrect.

I must have missed that announcement. But does it really matter to you if the money is pulled from the left pocket or the right pocket?

To some maybe, but not really. It is the same principle as above, just more information to make noise about.

[Jaybear]

Not really. If it were made public it wouldn't matter what the compensation was the argument would then be what is modest and what is not, and the compensationed would be analyzed and objections for whatever reason and for no reason. There would be a lot more noise to detract from the message of the church.

Probably true. Also what is modest by US standards, may not be true for other countries.

[gmormon]

Okay folks, I went through (4) pages of this thread and not a single person even provided proof either for or against Dr. Peterson's personal testimoney of President Packer's ~~quaint-little-average-suburban-home-in-teh-valley~~.

http://www.assessor....uery/query2.cfm (enter 1850, packer)

So, at his 1850 address there are two listed for him -- one for a 2009 market value of $482,300 (which is far more than my house is worth....lol) and one for $1,606,790. What? 1.6 million dollars is now considered "a reasonably average suburban neighborhood southward in Salt Lake Valley.

edit:

http://extras.sltrib.com/HomePrices/

BULL FLIPPIN CRAP. DCP, you either posted it in this way to prove to us how rich & well-off you are personally (because "many of the homes in (your) own neighborhood are MUCH LARGER"), or lied to us outright.

But what where they worth when he originally got them, and have you taken into account the over inflated pricing of homes on the Wasatch Front since that time?

[ERayR]

Geeeeez, this thread makes me happy we Catholics never have had to deal with any $$$$$$$ issues

Good to be back, missed y'all a ton !!!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

Friend Ceeboo it is not us (LDS) who has trouble dealing with it. For the most part it is ex-LDS and anti-mormons who have the most trouble with it.

[mfbukowski]

deleted