The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[rpn]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For many that are opposed to the Church being financially transparent,

I don't think anyone is opposed to financial transparency, just not so quick to judge what the church does as harmful or that givers or non givers are entitled to it, or that things are somehow wrong without it.

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by rpn

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven’t heard anyone anywhere calling for Stake and Ward level financial transparency, where did you get that from?  

I’d start with looking at the financial disclosures required for churches in other countries like the UK or Canada.  

Here it is for the LDS church in Great Britain:

Data for financial year ending 31 December 2016

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or, we could make the effort to do that on our own as we have been instructed.

 

I have done that...which is why I was able to retire today...last day! Woot!  Went through the highs and lows of 2008 and rebuilt.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think I like that application of the parable of the talents. However, one difference would be that each person who was given a talent retained the value of that talent. I wonder what would have happened if the person who had been given 5 talents returned with 4 and blamed a bad investment.

 

Except the one who buried his talent because he knew his master was stingy and he was afraid of what would happen if he lost it.  That guy had his one talent taken away from him and given to someone else.   That seems to imply that it was wrong for the servant to fear losing the talent to the point where he wasn't wise with what he had been given.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Except every tax payer is subsidizing the churches through the tax exempt status that they have.  This makes every tax payer a stakeholder with an interest on this topic.  This has been part of the argument for transparency.  

Some other posters have already been having this argument.  I disagree that tax exempt status means that the church is being subsidized by the tax payers.

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, rpn said:

I don't think anyone is opposed to financial transparency, just not so quick to judge what the church does as harmful or that givers or non givers are entitled to it, or that things are somehow wrong without it.

Well since the lack of transparency policy has been in place for many years, I don’t think those critics of this practice are making any quick judgments.  

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some other posters have already been having this argument.  I disagree that tax exempt status means that the church is being subsidized by the tax payers.

You can disagree with changing the tax law, but it’s a fact that tax exempt status fits the definition of a subsidy.  And even if you balk at that definition, the churches tax exempt status is still a material benefit to select institutions, the church recognizes this and would lobby hard to maintain this status.  Whether you call it subsidy or not doesn’t really matter because the resulting benefits are still there.  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well since the lack of transparency policy has been in place for many years, I don’t think those critics of this practice are making any quick judgments.  

 Just because something has been around for awhile doesn't mean a critic of that something has studied the issue either for sometime or in depth.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

 Just because something has been around for awhile doesn't mean a critic of that something has studied the issue either for sometime or in depth.

It also doesn’t mean the supporter of the policy has studied anything in depth.  

[Calm]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

It also doesn’t mean the supporter of the policy has studied anything in depth.  

Of course.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You can disagree with changing the tax law, but it’s a fact that tax exempt status fits the definition of a subsidy.  

No, it's not a fact.

No, Tax Breaks are not Subsidies

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Some other posters have already been having this argument.  I disagree that tax exempt status means that the church is being subsidized by the tax payers.

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?

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’m not making an accusation, though I am suggesting added transparency wouldn’t hurt in that area.

Fallibility of the organization is much more open to critique, and there have been a number of valid questions in that regard raised on this thread. 

Do you think the accounting firm(s) employed by the Church are competent and trustworthy? What would happen if they and the Church leaders were in cahoots to defraud the members? Is there any indication at all that this is happening?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

If I were in charge, donations made to churches would not be tax deductible, and churches would have to pay property taxes at the same rates as everybody else. If churches were taxed this way, then other tax rates would go down so that it would be revenue neutral.

You’re not gonna get my vote. Schools, hospitals, nursing homes don’t pay property taxes in Washington. We pay sales taxes on construction and maintenance materials and personnel taxes on Church employees. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So it wouldn't bother you if a substantial $$$$ of consecrated tithing funds were lost in the stock market? I find that to be a very strange position.

The process of investing $$ so that they (and the interest) can be used at a later date reflects an opportunity cost. For example, the church doesn't build a temple or donate to a charity today, with the hope that it will be able to grow the dollars and build more temples and donate more to charity in the future. If those tithing funds are lost, then it would appear the opportunity cost was too high and it would have been better to build the temple and make the donation today.

Strange to invest money in the stock market and not expect fluctuations? How so? Such investments must be long term. Is that not the way of the economic world?

Perhaps the Church should invest in oud oil and old Italian violins. As far as I know they have never depreciated.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, it's not a fact.

No, Tax Breaks are not Subsidies

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.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

The more affluent seemed to be called to positions. Of course affording to be able to serve as a bishop or mission president, etc is important to know. Also, one of the G.A.'s in my ward, who was our home teacher at the time, related to us how he went down to TX to make a special appeal to a wealthy member there. He obviously had an idea of what the guy could afford.

Anecdotes are great! Like my friend the dental technician who was called to the stake presidency. He’s rolling in dough.

People in callings that require certain competencies have my thanks for obtaining the education and experience needed to be able to play in the high stakes games we have to play in this world. I would not be a good choice for those, but I’m a heck of a ward clerk and organist.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This televangelist is asking his followers to pay $54 million for a new jet so that he can do God's work. It sounds like an obscene amount of money for a luxury item but he's being transparent about how he plans to spend the $54 million. This gives his followers the ability to choose whether or not they believe it is really God's will to buy this jet, and then make their donations based on full information.

Transparency is a good thing. Knowing that the church is going to spend $xxxx on a temple, or a jet, or invest in the market, is a good thing.

Temples, buildings, investments are announced, but I have big problems with the rumor that each General Authority has his own Lamborghini Aventador limo. I would never had approved of that!

[tulip]

with all this money, can we hire some janitors!  

[Benjamin Seeker]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you think the accounting firm(s) employed by the Church are competent and trustworthy? What would happen if they and the Church leaders were in cahoots to defraud the members? Is there any indication at all that this is happening?

No. The valid concerns I’ve seen raised are questions about the priority of expenses. Why this and not that, etc. Dishonesty isn’t my concern, though transparency wouldn’t hurt in that arena.

For example, a year or so ago a fellow missionary I met on my mission, who was from Brazil contacted me asking for financial assistance. I asked about church assistance, and he explained that because of the economic crisis in his area, the church wasn’t offering financial assistance. He had gleaned this information by 1. being aware that many in need in his ward were not being helped including widows and 2. He had met with the stake president who had told him that the directive had come down from a higher authority than the stake level. My friend had also been in the ward bishopric, which helped me gauge the validity of his info.

I was concerned enough about the issue to talk to a visiting 70 about it, but when I checked in with my friend later on there had been no change.

I know the above isn’t documented and it will be rightfully doubted by board members, but it is the type of issue that increased transparency would improve.

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, provoman said:

 

How about a group vote to block your posting on this board? I normally would never suggest such a thing, but for you I am willing to suggest it. 

I suggest it because you do not engage in dialogue or discussion. Your posts are only to drive traffic to your website. If your contributions were more than drive posting to drive traffic to your website, my thoughts would be different.

Huh.   I've never been to FearlessFixxxxxx ...  How many x-es is it supposed to have, again? ... FearlessFixxer's Web site.  It never occurred to me to visit, and I'm disinclined to do so anyway.  I really don't care how much click bait he dangles here.  

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I have done that...which is why I was able to retire today...last day! Woot!  Went through the highs and lows of 2008 and rebuilt.

Congratulations! I'm happy for you!   (My retirement plan is, "Die young." )

Edited May 31, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

No. The valid concerns I’ve seen raised are questions about the priority of expenses. Why this and not that, etc. Dishonesty isn’t my concern, though transparency wouldn’t hurt in that arena.

For example, a year or so ago a fellow missionary I met on my mission, who was from Brazil contacted me asking for financial assistance. I asked about church assistance, and he explained that because of the economic crisis in his area, the church wasn’t offering financial assistance. He had gleaned this information by 1. being aware that many in need in his ward were not being helped including widows and 2. He had met with the stake president who had told him that the directive had come down from a higher authority than the stake level. My friend had also been in the ward bishopric, which helped me gauge the validity of his info.

I was concerned enough about the issue to talk to a visiting 70 about it, but when I checked in with my friend later on there had been no change.

I know the above isn’t documented and it will be rightfully doubted by board members, but it is the type of issue that increased transparency would improve.

Yeah, I would have to verify that story. It’s definitely not transparent enough for me. In any ward I have been in, the members would gladly respond to a request from the bishop or stake president to pitch in some assistance.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Congratulations! I'm happy for you!   (My retirement plan is, "Die young." )

I gave you a rep...but please don't die young!!☺️ Thank you.

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I gave you a rep...but please don't die young!!☺️ Thank you.

OK, I might not care so much if anyone else had said that, but for you ... ?