rongo Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: President Packer was a seminary teacher and administrator. Seminary teachers are typically paid the going rate for teachers in public schools, which never has been very high. Just a seminary teacher and administrator? No other business interests or investments? Have you seen his home (I believe it's worth more than $1 million)? Not bad, for a seminary teacher . . . of course, that might not have been possible until after receiving general authority salary.
rongo Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your rash assertion still doesn't work. Being upper-middle class -- or even upper class -- in no way equates to being independently wealthy. My point is that if one retires upper-middle/upper-class, I don't understand why one would receive a church salary of $120,000+ when one already has a pension/SS from their profession, is an empty nester, etc. 1
Danzo Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 An income of 50,000 qualifies a family with three children for the earned income tax credit in the US. Essentially a welfare payment. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, rongo said: What I don't get is why they need an annual income of $120,000+ when they're empty nesters and retirees in their 70s and 80s, and when they have their own pensions from their (almost exclusively lucrative) past professions, plus Social Security. The discussion of how much less $120,000 is than what heads of other churches get, or what they could get in the private sector if they weren't general authorities, is meaningless to me. Travel and accommodations when doing church work is a given, but the large level of pay is mind-boggling to me. I believe that they really do hold the keys of the priesthood, but I really don't care for the hyper-corporate culture of many of our church policies and processes. 12 minutes ago, sdc999 said: Everyone is stuck on the term independently wealthy. I think the correct term for those serving if this: Independently sustainable. A better question to ask also is the ages of those serving in their respective capacity. Are they of the age to receive Social Security. There are a lot of humble people that it does not take too much to live on. Also, at 60+ and I really think 50+, a responsible individual, barring any life catastrophes, should be somewhat in a good financial position. $120,000 is not a great deal these days when one is trying to help children get through college. And given what they do and have done in support of the of the Kindgom of God, I do believe our General Authorities are entitled to more than a subsistence-level income. I don't begrudge it for a moment.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, rongo said: Just a seminary teacher and administrator? No other business interests or investments? Have you seen his home (I believe it's worth more than $1 million)? Not bad, for a seminary teacher . . . of course, that might not have been possible until after receiving general authority salary. This again? We've been through this before. At the time he bought it, President Packer's home was modestly priced. It is in a section of the Salt Lake Valley that was largely rural when it was purchased. Like a lot of people (including many of those in the former farm community where I grew up, not far from President Packer's home) he benefited from the appreciation in real estate values as the area became more urbanized. And over the years, he wisely invested in improvements to the property, much of them from personal labor. Does that warrant your snarkiness regarding his personal affairs? Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3
HappyJackWagon Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't understand. What mistake did I make? You said... Quote Aren't you an accountant of some sort? I marvel that I should have to explain this to you. Stemelbow said... Quote I'm no accountant of any sort, no. Got me mixed up with someone else, I guess. You responded with... Quote That's obvious now, given your strained definition of "independently wealthy." 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, rongo said: My point is that if one retires upper-middle/upper-class, I don't understand why one would receive a church salary of $120,000+ when one already has a pension/SS from their profession, is an empty nester, etc. I think it has already been pointed out here that they don't necessarily take the stipend. Unless you are privy to their individual circumstances, I think your blanket contempt is misplaced.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: You said... Stemelbow said... You responded with... Did you miss the addition I made to my post?
rongo Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think it has already been pointed out here that they don't necessarily take the stipend. Unless you are privy to their individual circumstances, I think your blanket contempt is misplaced. You are terrible at putting words in people's mouths with the worst possible coloring. I don't have any contempt for the Brethren. Why do you think that me thinking the salary is too high equates to "contempt?" I would be thrilled to know that some/many of them don't take the stipend at all. What reason is there to think that some don't, other than wishful thinking? 2
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you had to submit yourself to a lifestyle of poverty just to sustain yourself on existing assets, I don't think any reasonable person would regard you as independently wealthy. That's obvious now, given your strained definition of "independently wealthy." I'd say then, defining independently wealthy as being able to get by without your income, doesn't seem to work as a definition.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'd say then, defining independently wealthy as being able to get by without your income, doesn't seem to work as a definition. We'll make it "get by comfortably," then. Easily resolved.
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: We'll make it "get by comfortably," then. Easily resolved. Well, comfortably could mean a ton of things. Ah well. I'm done with this. I don't care if they were or are considered independently wealthy. I have no stake in this. But again, as my previous was, they aren't just given a modest living expense, as has been told to us multiple times. It's a salary that no doubt puts them in the upper level of Church employment in terms of income. I personally have no issue with that, though. Pay them...just don't mislead us by saying they aren't paid but are given a modest living stipend. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, rongo said: You are terrible at putting words in people's mouths with the worst possible coloring. I don't have any contempt for the Brethren. Why do you think that me thinking the salary is too high equates to "contempt?" I would be thrilled to know that some/many of them don't take the stipend at all. What reason is there to think that some don't, other than wishful thinking? Reasonable assumption. If you were independently wealthy (and I hope you understand the meaning of that term by now) and you were earnest about building the Kingdom of God, would you consent to needlessly being a drain on its resources? I know I wouldn't, especially if I felt God had blessed me to the point that I never again would have to worry about earning money. Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Reasonable assumption. If you were independently wealthy (and I hope you understand the meaning of that term by now) and you were earnest about building the Kingdom of God, would you consent to needlessly being a drain on its resources? I know I wouldn't. You should be next called, I think. because as it is, I'd wager nearly all, if not all, of the GAs could get by comfortably without the 120 grand extra given to them each year. And my guess is, if any decline the money, it is very few. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well, comfortably could mean a ton of things. Ah well. I'm done with this. I don't care if they were or are considered independently wealthy. I have no stake in this. But again, as my previous was, they aren't just given a modest living expense, as has been told to us multiple times. It's a salary that no doubt puts them in the upper level of Church employment in terms of income. I personally have no issue with that, though. Pay them...just don't mislead us by saying they aren't paid but are given a modest living stipend. I think most of us understand what comfortable means without having to quibble over it. As for modest, now there's an ambiguous term, especially as it relates to monetary compensation. President Hinckley endeavored to make it more meaningful by drawing a comparison to typical corporate executives' salaries, and, by comparison, $120,000 is indeed modest. Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
rongo Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 One can also reasonably assume that none of them refuses to accept the salary. There is no evidence, either way, and so any opinion relies on assumptions. 3
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think most of us understand what comfortable means without having to quibble over it. As for modest, now there's an ambiguous term, especially as it relates to monetary compensation. Oh I agree with your last sentence about as much as I disagree with your first. Comfortably in this context carries, at least in my mind, just as much ambiguity as modest. But, I can't imagine anyone saying, at least not reasonably and honestly, a 120,000 dollar salary covers modest living expenses. If my wife and I were older and retired, with no kids nor a house payment to make, and we had 120,000 bucks a year we'd be able to live comfortably, sure, and the amount of money we'd get would be anything but modest. Now, you take care as I leave you to wallow in more attempted insults Edited January 13, 2017 by stemelbow
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, rongo said: One can also reasonably assume that none of them refuses to accept the salary. There is no evidence, either way, and so any opinion relies on assumptions. All things being equal, it is more reasonable to assume that one who had consecrated the rest of his life with all his talents and resources to the Church and Kingdom of God would not willingly draw any personal monetary enrichment from the Church's coffers if it were entirely unnecessary for him to do so. That's common sense 101, rongo. Would you do that? Besides, your or my not being aware of any evidence either way does not mean there is no evidence. There may well be evidence. I simply haven't looked into the matter. Have you? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Oh I agree with your last sentence about as much as I disagree with your first. Comfortably in this context carries, at least in my mind, just as much ambiguity as modest. But, I can't imagine anyone saying, at least not reasonably and honestly, a 120,000 dollar salary covers modest living expenses. If my wife and I were older and retired, with no kids nor a house payment to make, and we had 120,000 bucks a year we'd be able to live comfortably, sure, and the amount of money we'd get would be anything but modest. Now, you take care as I leave you to wallow in more attempted insults Saying an income is comparatively modest is not the same thing as saying it "covers modest living expenses." At this point a reference or two would be nice. Otherwise I will have to conclude you are going by fallible memory.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Danzo said: An income of 50,000 qualifies a family with three children for the earned income tax credit in the US. Essentially a welfare payment. And yet, in rongo's esteem, it marks the point of demarcation above which he would consider someone independently wealthy. Sheesh.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: All things being equal, it is more reasonable to assume that one who had consecrated the rest of his life with all his talents and resources to the Church and Kingdom of God would not willingly draw any personal monetary enrichment from the Church's coffers if it were entirely unnecessary for him to do so. That's common sense 101, rongo. Would you do that? Besides, your or my not being aware of any evidence either way does not mean there is no evidence. There may well be evidence. I simply haven't looked into the matter. Have you? No. IMO it's more reasonable to think that someone would accept payment that is offered. The church budgets for it and it has been approved by the FP so why should anyone who is offered think there is anything wrong with accepting payment? 1
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Saying an income is comparatively modest is not the same thing as saying it "covers modest living expenses." At this point a reference or two would be nice. Otherwise I will have to conclude you are going by fallible memory. I haven't seen anyone use the term "comparatively modest" in this thread or elsewhere as it relates to this. A reference for what? Here's one I already gave that tells us the money given to GAs is a "modest living allowance--enough for them to support themselves and their families". Yeah it's enough, more than enough. And it's not really a modest living allowance. It's an above average salary, of course. Quote Doctrine and Covenants 70:5–18 teaches that the men entrusted to be stewards over the revelations and commandments were to make the printing and distribution of Church publications their employment. In our day, General Authorities of the Church give up their livelihoods to serve full-time, so they receive a modest living allowance—enough for them to support themselves and their families. https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students-2014/section-03/unit-15-day-4-doctrine-and-covenants-69-71?lang=eng Edited January 13, 2017 by stemelbow
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: All things being equal, it is more reasonable to assume that one who had consecrated the rest of his life with all his talents and resources to the Church and Kingdom of God would not willingly draw any personal monetary enrichment from the Church's coffers if it were entirely unnecessary for him to do so. That's common sense 101, rongo. Would you do that? Besides, your or my not being aware of any evidence either way does not mean there is no evidence. There may well be evidence. I simply haven't looked into the matter. Have you? I'd wager every single one of the GAs do not need any of the 120,000 annual income to live comfortably at all. If that be the case, then, obviously no, to your question. Your reasonable assumption would actually be rather unreasonable in light of at least some GAs do take the money and don't need it.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: A reference for what? Here's one I already gave that tells us the money given to GAs is a "modest living allowance--enough for them to support themselves and their families". Yeah it's enough, more than enough. And it's not really a modest living allowance. It's an above average salary, of course. This website lists percentages for the top wage earners in the USA. When extrapolated to the world, the income becomes even more elite. So the GA's earn a stipend that puts them (not considering their other income sources) in the top 5-10% of earners in America. An annual income of only $34,000 puts you in the top 1% worldwide. Quote What The Top 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, and 50% Make In America Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010-2014 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make: Top 1%: $380,354 Top 5%: $159,619 Top 10%: $113,799 http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/#sthash.NAzxcC3U.dpbs 3
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: This website lists percentages for the top wage earners in the USA. When extrapolated to the world, the income becomes even more elite. So the GA's earn a stipend that puts them (not considering their other income sources) in the top 5-10% of earners in America. An annual income of only $34,000 puts you in the top 1% worldwide. http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/#sthash.NAzxcC3U.dpbs Thanks for the info. I'm fine with their pay and amount. I'm just concerned that we've been misled for so long about it. A wage that put them in the top 10% in America is not modest, even if Scott disagrees by playing off the ambiguity of the term modest.
Recommended Posts