The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When my ward runs an auction of donated items, the money bid and paid for those items is not tax-deductible.  Still, the purpose of the fund-raiser (say girl's camp) is fulfilled through those donations, and the non-profit need not pay taxes on those donations.  Or am I wrong?

I think that is the way it is done here. Our county assessor was ant-Mormon and kept us under scrutiny more than other groups. We stopped all find raisers except Scouts for a while.  

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Tax policy as to religious groups?  No, I don't.

Nor do you.  Out of all the ways to find fault with the Church, you are going with this?

You are presenting your claims about "subsidies" in order to bolster your criticisms of the LDS Church about "transparency," and yet you refuse to explain why your reasoning doesn't apply to you.  Or me.  Or anyone except the LDS Church.

"Transparency for thee, but not for me," I suppose.  

-Smac

I do in fact professionally deal with finance and tax accounting issues, and the fact that tax breaks are a form of subsidy is uncontraversial. The only coherent way that they aren't a form of subsidy is to consider all taxes theft, and then claim something like "just because the government chooses not to rob me has no bearing on how much it chooses to rob you." But if one believes in things like popular sovereignty and the legitimacy of the government and its taxing authority, there is absolutely no way to coherently beleive that tax breaks are NOT a form of subsidy. I've said that over and over. Every tax break I receive is a subsidy. Of course.

I've now provided over a half dozen links from mainstream, superlatively respectable sources who all concur that all non-profits who receive tax-deductible contributions should be transparent. This is an extremely widely held view, and is something I picked up in my study of finance and corporate governance and is something I happen to believe regardless of whether or not the LDS Church complies with it. 

I have said this over and over. These are general principles that aren't controversial. You are being disingenuous to say I'm claiming this reasoning applies only to the LDS Church. Totally disingenuous.

So what do you want? Do you want me to qualify my thinking and say the following? "I believe all non-profits who receive tax-deductible contributions should be transparent. Except, of course, for the LDS Church, because the same standards don't apply to them because..." well, why? Why do you think the LDS Church should be exempt from the same standards I have for everybody else?

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Where else should they put it?  Under President Nelson's mattress?  In a money pit under the floor of the Tabernacle?  Or convert it to gold bars and keep it in the basement of the Alamo?

How about in the hands of the poor?  Soup kitchens, hospitals, and humanitarian aid sound like a good place to start.  

A church that has 32 billion in stocks, a massive real estate portfolio, including ownership of 2% of the state of Florida and at the same time hitting up poverty level African members for money are not facts that set well with a lot of people.  I think this is why the church shuns transparency. 

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matthew 6:21)


 

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you want to laud (the aptly-named) Creflo Dollar for his transparency while, at the same time, faulting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its alleged lack of transparency, I suppose you could always vote with your feet and show your appreciation for Good Ol' Creflo's transparency by joining The Church of the Almighty Dollar.

Best wishes!

You need to keep up with current events.  People are voting with their feet.  In a big way.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. If you charge my church a property tax, the Church has two choices: 1)pay the tax by cutting existing programs and employees, thus reducing the services and salaries it can offer, or 2) increase the fund raising appeals and monetary earning activities by increasing giving from the members to cover the new expense. If either of these steps fails, the Church will fail. Either way the members pay ....loss of either services or money or both. The church has no independent resources from which to draw, so the members are the ones that must pay. 

My argument is for transparency in reporting of finances, not for a removal of the exempt status.  I would also point out that the church already pays property taxes on all of its for profit properties and even on undeveloped property they own to my understanding.  

But if they did lose tax exempt status if the laws changed that wouldn’t necessarily spell doom for the LDS church or other churches.  I suspect the church is very well positioned financially right now.  

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I'm happy to admit that I don't spend much time talking about tax policy.  Does it mostly consist of doing a google search and just pasting all the links you can?  Or are you willing to identify some limiting principle to "transparency?"  Can you explain the reasoning informing your decision?  

 

Rather than  typing an answer here that will be read with hostility and construed by the reader as an attack on Mormonism, I'll simply refer you to the standards that evangelicals hold themselves to:

http://www.ecfa.org/Content/Comment5

I think that does a good job of explaining what transparency is, why it is important, and what its limits are. Those are the standards evangelicals hold themselves to. If the leaders of the LDS Church want to hold themselves to a lower standard, that is their prerogative. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I do in fact professionally deal with finance and tax accounting issues, and the fact that tax breaks are a form of subsidy is uncontraversial. The only coherent way that they aren't a form of subsidy is to consider all taxes theft, and then claim something like "just because the government chooses not to rob me has no bearing on how much it chooses to rob you." But if one believes in things like popular sovereignty and the legitimacy of the government and its taxing authority, there is absolutely no way to coherently beleive that tax breaks are NOT a form of subsidy. I've said that over and over. Every tax break I receive is a subsidy. Of course.

I've now provided over a half dozen links from mainstream, superlatively respectable sources who all concur that all non-profits who receive tax-deductible contributions should be transparent. This is an extremely widely held view, and is something I picked up in my study of finance and corporate governance and is something I happen to believe regardless of whether or not the LDS Church complies with it. 

I have said this over and over. These are general principles that aren't controversial. You are being disingenuous to say I'm claiming this reasoning applies only to the LDS Church. Totally disingenuous.

So what do you want? Do you want me to qualify my thinking and say the following? "I believe all non-profits who receive tax-deductible contributions should be transparent. Except, of course, for the LDS Church, because the same standards don't apply to them because..." well, why? Why do you think the LDS Church should be exempt from the same standards I have for everybody else?

I don’t deal professionally with tax accounting or finance, but I have read up a bit on logical fallacies, and the above looks a great deal to me like the argumentum ad populum fallacy served up with a dash of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Marginal Gains]

As Bluebell pointed out earlier in the thread, we don’t (yet) have enough numbers.

We have:

$32 billion held in stocks

$40 million annual humanitarian expenditure (but this is cash+materials+plus volunteer time value)

£30-35 million in annual tithing receipts from the UK from circa 190,000 (c30,000 active) members. Extrapolating the UK rate of tithing income gives you a “guess” of total income receipts of £2.5 billion annually.

Then we have land values, commercial venture incomes, other invested funds.

And going back to Bluebells comment, we don’t yet know the costs. We have been told stipends aren’t a lot of money though, so what operational costs can there be that amount to $ billions?

Chapels cost $5 million, Temples might cost an average of $25 - 30 million. So not $billions there.

Where does it all go?

[Calm]

Quote

$40 million annual humanitarian expenditure (but this is cash+materials+plus volunteer time value)

I believe Bluebell was saying in addition to $40 million cash and not that they were included, there were these other resources shared which would raise the amount if included in.  She can correct me if I am wrong.

One friend made this calculation:

"For example, there is like 30,000 wards. If on average, each ward needs a new building every 30 years, and if each building plus property is on average 1 million, buying new buildings each year alone is on the order of a billion.  

 

Now add the costs to maintain the new buildings. Plus do welfare and a missionary program, and media, etc and that yearly billion can easily double to billions. 

 

Now factor in money can only grow each year on the order of 5% in the market which is a standard estimate, you need 20*2 = 40 billion to keep up with costs indefinitely."

Another:

"Let’s not forget all the fulltime and parttime church employees worldwide. Between salaries, benefits, and operating costs, they have a huge responsibility toward these people and their families. Do we know how many employees does the church have worldwide?"

These would include administrative and CES.  Probably around 18000 full and partime faculty and staff at BYU Provo.

In Utah alone, back in 2002:

"Figures show about 29,140 employees working directly for the church in Utah, as distinct from the more than 4,215 working at its for-profit businesses."

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/update-lds-church-state-s-largest-employer-cuts-jobs/article_8e2d9236-cc73-5af3-bf43-0c2a7e5d6fc6.html

Edited May 31, 2018 by Calm

[Marginal Gains]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe Bluebell was saying in addition to $40 million cash and not that they were included, there were these other resources shared which would raise the amount if included in.  She can correct me if I am wrong.

One friend made this calculation:

"For example, there is like 30,000 wards. If on average, each ward needs a new building every 30 years, and if each building plus property is on average 1 million, buying new buildings each year alone is on the order of a billion.  

 

Now add the costs to maintain the new buildings. Plus do welfare and a missionary program, and media, etc and that yearly billion can easily double to billions. 

 

Now factor in money can only grow each year on the order of 5% in the market which is a standard estimate, you need 20*2 = 40 billion to keep up with costs indefinitely."

Another:

"Let’s not forget all the fulltime and parttime church employees worldwide. Between salaries, benefits, and operating costs, they have a huge responsibility toward these people and their families. Do we know how many employees does the church have worldwide?"

These would include administrative and CES.  Probably around 18000 full and partime faculty and staff at BYU Provo.

In Utah alone, back in 2002:

"Figures show about 29,140 employees working directly for the church in Utah, as distinct from the more than 4,215 working at its for-profit businesses."

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/update-lds-church-state-s-largest-employer-cuts-jobs/article_8e2d9236-cc73-5af3-bf43-0c2a7e5d6fc6.html

Every 30 years? I don’t think that’s correct. The local  Stake Centre has been standing for more than 50 years, as have most of the areas chapel buildings, and show no signs of either being replaced, or needing to be replaced.

[Calm]

No renovations?

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The local  Stake Centre has been standing for more than 50 years, as have most of the areas chapel buildings, and show no signs of either being replaced, or needing to be replaced.

I don't know how things are where you live, but I attend church in a chapel that just celebrated its 50th anniversary. I would estimate that it costs more than US$30,000 per annum just to heat and cool the poor thing in light of how out-of-date its energy efficiency is. There is zero insulation in either ceiling or walls. Outer doors lack door sweeps and have so much clearance that, in a windstorm, the building will be filled with fallen leaves. Old buildings must be renovated extensively or have enormous ongoing operating costs.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You need to keep up with current events.  People are voting with their feet.  In a big way.

I'm well aware of current events, and you needn't suppose, despite my tongue-in- cheek assertion that anyone who wishes to laud a televangelist for the transparency of his frank assertion that he needs tens of millions of dollars in donations from his followers for a (bigger, better) private jet (the Very Reverend Creflo Dollar is only one such example, and he isn't even the latest) while faulting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for an alleged lack of transparency is welcome to leave the latter and to join the former's organization, that I recommend such a course or that I would be happy over such a defection.

People do, however, have the agency to vote with their feet if they wish.  I've never been so provincial in my possession of truth that I would deny them that right, or that I would say that God gives me bread, fish, and fruit when I ask for them while giving my brothers and sisters of other faiths stones, serpents, thorns, and thistles when THEY ask for bread, fish, and fruit.

That said, I recognize the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the authority of its namesake to perform essential sacred ordinances as valid, and I believe the Church of Jesus Christ is the surest way to the most bounteous harvest of good fruit.  At least some of those who leave it may well find, much to their dismay that, in a bout of temporary spiritual hunger and thirst (something which all of us, even the most faithful Latter-day Saints, experience from time to time) they have traded the Bread of Life and the Living Water for a mess of pottage.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

As Bluebell pointed out earlier in the thread, we don’t (yet) have enough numbers.

We have: ...

$40 million annual humanitarian expenditure (but this is cash+materials+plus volunteer time value) ...

 

 Are we sure that the corresponding monetary value of volunteer time is included in the $40 MM annual figure?

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

No renovations?

Certainly renovations, refurbishment and maintenance. But that’s not a new replacement building every 30 years.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 Are we sure that the corresponding monetary value of volunteer time is included in the $40 MM annual figure?

I’m not certain, no. From memory it was made clearer on the LDS Welfare fact sheets when they used to publish monetary amounts. The Church stopped publishing monetary amounts on these fact sheet 9 or 10 years ago.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know how things are where you live, but I attend church in a chapel that just celebrated its 50th anniversary. I would estimate that it costs more than US$30,000 per annum just to heat and cool the poor thing in light of how out-of-date its energy efficiency is. There is zero insulation in either ceiling or walls. Outer doors lack door sweeps and have so much clearance that, in a windstorm, the building will be filled with fallen leaves. Old buildings must be renovated extensively or have enormous ongoing operating costs.

I cannot think of a single building anywhere in the UK that is in such a condition as you describe. Nor has there been one in that condition anywhere I’ve travelled and attended Church, either in Europe or the States. I’m not disputing what you say, but my anecdotal knowledge would suggest it’s likely an exception rather than the norm.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I could offer opinion pieces that say it is a subsidy, but that’s a distraction from the point.  The benefit that churches receive from tax exempt status is significant preferential treatment and churches realize this and will fight to keep this benefit.  All tax payers in the USA have an interest in tax policies like this that provide significant financial benefits to large institutions.  

That's the point though.  Reasonable people disagree, so saying that it's a 'fact' isn't accurate.

But yes, of course the church will fight to keep it's benefits.  We all fight when there is a proposed change in the tax code that will hurt us financially.  That doesn't mean we are being subsidized by the government.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Doesn’t that assume any money gained by the Church and its members actually belongs to the government which determines how much it will let them keep? Thus  by holding some of it back, the Church and its members are stealing from the government?

Yes, it does seem to assume that the church is stealing money by being exempt from taxes.  Of course, a large part of the church's money comes from members who have already been taxed, so that would seem to add a wrinkle into the argument too.

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t deal professionally with tax accounting or finance, but I have read up a bit on logical fallacies, and the above looks a great deal to me like the argumentum ad populum fallacy served up with a dash of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). 

You are forgetting the argument from fallacy as well that says that just because an argument might have fallacious elements, it doesn't mean the argument is necessarily a bad one. One must still engage the argument. So why should the church be treated differently as analytics posits?

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

A church that has 32 billion in stocks, a massive real estate portfolio, including ownership of 2% of the state of Florida and at the same time hitting up poverty level African members for money are not facts that set well with a lot of people.  I think this is why the church shuns transparency. 

What, exactly, do you mean by "hitting up poverty level African members for money"? Are you talking about teaching them to obey the law of tithing just like everybody else who has covenanted to obey the commandments? Or are you talking about something else? Maybe there is some specific voter initiative that the church has been asking them to donate to which I'm not aware of. If so, please share.

And let's be honest: does anyone think that the church is really a net taker, and not a net spender, when it comes to very poor wards and branches like those you are referring to? 

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am well familiar with all those talks to which you refer, and I pay a full tithe first.  However, I am not poverty-stricken, in which case I  might very well not pay any tithing at all.  At least not until I got back on my feet.  I don't know about you, but I live in the real world, and I think that your portrayal of the LDS Church projects officious cruelty and oppression.  I have stated this several times, and you have yet to respond with specific proof of your contention.

I did not make that claim.  You did.  You claimed that the LDS Church is cruel and oppressive, and you have not yet supported that contention -- except with comments about generic Conference addresses we have all heard.  I have yet to meet these imaginary members who are being ground down by the LDS hierarchy with demands for money they don't have.  I have yet to find such a Mormon Church, and I have been around for 77 years.  Perhaps you could show me evidence of that horrible Mormon Church which you have concocted.

I just went back through my posts that you replied to and I have called the church cruel and oppressive.  My point about tithing is that the church's message to members everywhere is that you should pay tithing first.  It makes no exception for people in poverty, quite to the contrary the church still strongly encourages these people to pay their tithing first, sometimes even before worrying about paying bills and prioritizing food to eat for their family.  This is problematic from my perspective.  

You have implied that the church has a different policy for people in poverty, when you make these statements: 

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to cajoling the abject poor to pay tithing, when that would leave them suffering malnutrition or worse, is that really what the Mormon Church sponsors in poverty-stricken regions?

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I have a very hard time believing is the suggestion you are making that LDS people who have virtually nothing in a third world country are being told stridently that they should pay their tithing first.  Is that a fact, or mere speculation? 

The evidence that the church sends the message to pay tithing first, to pay tithing even when you don't have money to pay your bills is clear.  Now I actually did a little searching and found an even more strident article from the Ensign in 2005 that actually goes further than I had even imagined the church went with its rhetoric about paying tithing.  It actually sounds a lot like the language that you are accusing me of using.  Here are a couple quotes from the article:

Quote

Among those who do not sacrifice there are two extremes: one is the rich, gluttonous man who won’t and the other is the poor, destitute man who believes he can’t. But how can you ask someone who is starving to eat less? Is there a level of poverty so low that sacrifice should not be expected or a family so destitute that paying tithing should cease to be required?

Quote

In October of 1998 Hurricane Mitch devastated many parts of Central America. President Gordon B. Hinckley was very concerned for the victims of this disaster, many of whom lost everything—food, clothing, and household goods. He visited the Saints in the cities of San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa, Honduras; and Managua, Nicaragua. And like the words of the loving prophet Elijah to a starving widow, this modern prophet’s message in each city was similar—to sacrifice and be obedient to the law of tithing.

But how can you ask someone so destitute to sacrifice? President Hinckley knew that the food and clothing shipments they received would help them survive the crisis, but his concern and love for them went far beyond that. As important as humanitarian aid is, he knew that the most important assistance comes from God, not from man. The prophet wanted to help them unlock the windows of heaven as promised by the Lord in the book of Malachi (see Mal. 3:10; Mosiah 2:24).

President Hinckley taught them that if they would pay their tithing, they would always have food on their tables, they would always have clothing on their backs, and they would always have a roof over their heads.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/tithing-a-commandment-even-for-the-destitute?lang=eng

Now, I have more than supported my earlier assertion that the church's message to everyone around the world, including poverty stricken people is to pay tithing first.  However, your implications that the church has a different standard for people in certain circumstances is what I see no supporting evidence for, and that is what I'm calling a CFR on.  If you can't provide evidence to support this assertion, then please clarify or withdraw your earlier statements.  

[Marginal Gains]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

What, exactly, do you mean by "hitting up poverty level African members for money"? Are you talking about teaching them to obey the law of tithing just like everybody else who has covenanted to obey the commandments? Or are you talking about something else? Maybe there is some specific voter initiative that the church has been asking them to donate to which I'm not aware of. If so, please share.

And let's be honest: does anyone think that the church is really a net taker, and not a net spender, when it comes to very poor wards and branches like those you are referring to? 

It’s clearly a net taker globally. $32 billion in stock and 2% of the State Of Florida should clear that up once and for all.

The comment in relation to Africa was when President Nelson told the African people that the way to escape poverty was to pay tithing. That sounded odd at the time and coming from someone we now know is sat on $32 billion of stock options paid for by people trying to get out of poverty by paying ten percent of their income to the Church, it seems even odder.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[CV75]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

How about in the hands of the poor?  Soup kitchens, hospitals, and humanitarian aid sound like a good place to start.  

A church that has 32 billion in stocks, a massive real estate portfolio, including ownership of 2% of the state of Florida and at the same time hitting up poverty level African members for money are not facts that set well with a lot of people.  I think this is why the church shuns transparency. 

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matthew 6:21)

Jumping in very late in the discussion, but when it comes to the Church leaders' management of money (including fiscal transparency), the Old Testament allows at least two precedents in appropriate management of sacred funds:

2 Kings 12:11, 15, "And they gave the money, being told, into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the Lord: and they laid it out ...Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: for they dealt faithfully." -- Under King Joash.

2 Kings 22: 4-7, "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: And let them deliver it into the hand of [them] that have the oversight of the house of the Lord: and let them[administer it]... Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully." -- Under King Josiah.

Edited May 31, 2018 by CV75

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

I do in fact professionally deal with finance and tax accounting issues, and the fact that tax breaks are a form of subsidy is uncontraversial. The only coherent way that they aren't a form of subsidy is to consider all taxes theft, and then claim something like "just because the government chooses not to rob me has no bearing on how much it chooses to rob you." But if one believes in things like popular sovereignty and the legitimacy of the government and its taxing authority, there is absolutely no way to coherently beleive that tax breaks are NOT a form of subsidy. I've said that over and over. Every tax break I receive is a subsidy. Of course.

I've now provided over a half dozen links from mainstream, superlatively respectable sources who all concur that all non-profits who receive tax-deductible contributions should be transparent. This is an extremely widely held view, and is something I picked up in my study of finance and corporate governance and is something I happen to believe regardless of whether or not the LDS Church complies with it. 

I have said this over and over. These are general principles that aren't controversial. You are being disingenuous to say I'm claiming this reasoning applies only to the LDS Church. Totally disingenuous.

So what do you want? Do you want me to qualify my thinking and say the following? "I believe all non-profits who receive tax-deductible contributions should be transparent. Except, of course, for the LDS Church, because the same standards don't apply to them because..." well, why? Why do you think the LDS Church should be exempt from the same standards I have for everybody else?

Okay, I'm willing to listen here.  How do you differentiate subsidies-for-non-profits-means-they-have-an-obligation-to-show-us-their-financials argument from any other situation where a person or group is subsidized by others because of their use of the tax code to reduce their tax obligations (such as the one you enjoy when by your itemizing tax deductions)?

Thanks,

-Smac