ttribe Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 19 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Ah, but check this out......polio vaccine! We also have flying machines. Not jet packs though. Not yet.....we are working on it.......a lot.
rockpond Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 19 minutes ago, pogi said: It CAN'T be used for anything other than charity, so why do people care when it is used? By saving the way they have, they can do far more good than if they would have spent it all without investing. That money has a charitable purpose that has already been explained: Yes. Someday it will need to be used for charity. But when? At what point do we have a big enough invested reserve that we can stop or slow down on investing? Or do we just keep growing? Is half a trillion dollars enough? How about one trillion: $1,000,000,000,000.00. But here is why I think it is problematic from an IRS perspective: Say you create a non-profit organization. You collect donations for that non-profit and you are tax-exempt. You then take one-tenth of all your donations and put them into a reserve. You use that reserve to invest in for profit ventures that you also own. You build up a small empire of for profit businesses. Eventually, the for profit businesses are producing more income for you than all of the donations you receive. So that parent entity, the non-profit, now has more income coming from for-profit businesses than from charitable donations. And, the parent non-profit is using that income not for the primary mission of the non-profit but to continue to build the for-profit portfolio. As you said, ultimately, the assets can still only be used for the purposes of the non-profit but it is starting to look more like a for profit entity than a non-profit charity. It's already been pointed out that the IRS codes are nebulous. So I don't really imagine much coming of this "whistle blowing". 1
webbles Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: I have two main concerns with the issues raised. 1. The poorest among us are required (at least to reach heaven) to donate money to the Church and as it turns out the Church can operate in the exact same way it has without any more donations. It's grown into an enormous corporation off the backs of the poor and the poor or no one really has any knowledge of where that money goes and what its used for. This gives us some light--the money goes to make more money. I'd argue a little against the bolded. I think this shows that the church is almost to that point but not yet. According to the article, the church spends over $6 billion a year. Their investments, then, need to return $6B a year to prevent eating into capital. With $100B, that's a 6% rate which is pretty close to an average return from the stock market. So, if the church stopped building churches, temples, etc, then the church might be able to last on the savings without anymore donations. But since the church is still growing, its spending is going to go up and so it needs more investments. 2
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, ttribe said: I don't think this is a valid concern. Washington DC will clearly be involved with this. Yep.
pogi Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 50 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes. Someday it will need to be used for charity. But when? At what point do we have a big enough invested reserve that we can stop or slow down on investing? Or do we just keep growing? Is half a trillion dollars enough? How about one trillion: $1,000,000,000,000.00. Maybe they are saving up to pay off the national debt I guess it depends on what their goals are, and ultimately it depends on how the Lord directs them. There is no objective measure or line, but I don't see any reason to think that 100 B is too high or unreasonable. 50 minutes ago, rockpond said: But here is why I think it is problematic from an IRS perspective... ...It's already been pointed out that the IRS codes are nebulous. So I don't really imagine much coming of this "whistle blowing". I think you answered your own problem there. 50 minutes ago, rockpond said: As you said, ultimately, the assets can still only be used for the purposes of the non-profit but it is starting to look more like a for profit entity than a non-profit charity. To me it looks like a really efficient not-for-profit. Edited December 17, 2019 by pogi 1
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: It CAN'T be used for anything other than charity, so why do people care when it is used? Because if one helps a person now, they may not be in need later on (the principle behind the Perpetual Education Fund). Quote By saving the way they have, they can do far more good than if they would have spent it all without investing There are those who likely only want to see some spent now, not all of it. They see the nest egg as unnecessarily large. Spending some now helps people now, saving some for the future allows that help to continue. Edited December 17, 2019 by Calm
pogi Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Because if one helps a person now, they may not be in need later on (the principle behind the Perpetual Education Fund). I guess I was speaking in terms of how the IRS looks at it - as long as it is used for charity, should the IRS care if it is used now or then? Good point though. On the flip side, by investing instead of giving everything they bring in, they can help more overall. Also, if the church gives now, instead of invests, then the church might be in need later.
PacMan Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) On 12/16/2019 at 11:21 PM, 10THAmendment said: Because the majority of tithe payers cant afford the basic necessities of life in places like Latin America, Africa, and a good portion here in the US. Requiring them to pay 10% just to use it to operate shopping malls is evil. You do realize that the US and Canada fund every other church operation, right? Whether Latin America or Africa, they are actually NOT paying for their own budgets? You also realize that after a poor member pays their nominal tithing, they can turn around and ask for even greater financial welfare help, right? Edited December 21, 2019 by PacMan 1
webbles Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 43 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes. Someday it will need to be used for charity. But when? At what point do we have a big enough invested reserve that we can stop or slow down on investing? Or do we just keep growing? Is half a trillion dollars enough? How about one trillion: $1,000,000,000,000.00. But here is why I think it is problematic from an IRS perspective: Say you create a non-profit organization. You collect donations for that non-profit and you are tax-exempt. You then take one-tenth of all your donations and put them into a reserve. You use that reserve to invest in for profit ventures that you also own. You build up a small empire of for profit businesses. Eventually, the for profit businesses are producing more income for you than all of the donations you receive. So that parent entity, the non-profit, now has more income coming from for-profit businesses than from charitable donations. And, the parent non-profit is using that income not for the primary mission of the non-profit but to continue to build the for-profit portfolio. As you said, ultimately, the assets can still only be used for the purposes of the non-profit but it is starting to look more like a for profit entity than a non-profit charity. It's already been pointed out that the IRS codes are nebulous. So I don't really imagine much coming of this "whistle blowing". If we compare the church's fund against the Harvard University endowment, it shows that the church needs more money to be equal to Harvard. In 2018, Harvard had $39.2B in its fund and spent $1.8B. That shows them spending 4.6% of their investment. The church is spending $6B and had $100B in investment. So the church is spending more than Harvard. To be equal, the church needs $130B in investment. And $130B probably isn't enough. According to Washington Post and CNBC, Harvard needs to achieve a 7% return on investment with their current spending rate and a 2% inflation. In the last decade, Harvard was only able to achieve an average of 4.5%. So both Harvard and the church need more money in their investments if they want the fund to last forever. 2
rockpond Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, webbles said: If we compare the church's fund against the Harvard University endowment, it shows that the church needs more money to be equal to Harvard. In 2018, Harvard had $39.2B in its fund and spent $1.8B. That shows them spending 4.6% of their investment. The church is spending $6B and had $100B in investment. So the church is spending more than Harvard. To be equal, the church needs $130B in investment. And $130B probably isn't enough. According to Washington Post and CNBC, Harvard needs to achieve a 7% return on investment with their current spending rate and a 2% inflation. In the last decade, Harvard was only able to achieve an average of 4.5%. So both Harvard and the church need more money in their investments if they want the fund to last forever. Where do you deduce that the church is spending $6B of the profit from its (alleged) $100B investment pool at EPA?
Scott Lloyd Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Insightful take in a Deseret News op-Ed column: https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2019/12/17/21026103/the-washington-post-mormon-church-whistleblower-says-billions-thank-goodness
Duncan Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Now if the Church and the IRS produced a joint statement saying there will be an investigation or the results of an investigation that would be interesting. As I see it the Church producing a statement now is just acknowledging that this is out there but people want to know more about it and I hope they get to the bottom of it and see what's what
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: And also, are the leaders expected to pay tithing on their stipends? The James Faust iirc paystub that was leaked showed his calculations for tithing and fast offerings in his own hand writing, so it seems likely. 3
Duncan Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 This could really be interesting in the future. I have heard of this happening , let's say you were asked to help a struggling family in the ward with food and stuff and you get whatever you have and trudge over there only to find out that other ward members got there first and so they don't really need it. You may get blessings from your service, but at the end of the day they didn't really need and maybe you feel misled as to their actual need. Would someone feel so inclined to pay tithing that they maybe can't afford to a church that has a 100 billion? yes, you'd get blessings but at the end of the day they don't need it, so why pay it? can you get blessed in other ways? certaintly. I just wonder how much tithing would come in now or other contributions 2
JAHS Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 29 minutes ago, pogi said: I guess I was speaking in terms of how the IRS looks at it - as long as it is used for charity, should the IRS care if it is used now or then? Good point though. On the flip side, by investing instead of giving everything they bring in, they can help more overall. Also, if the church gives now, instead of invests, then the church might be in need later. And the people that funds are being given to may become dependent on that giving and have no incentive to free themselves from it.
ksfisher Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 12 minutes ago, JAHS said: And the people that funds are being given to may become dependent on that giving and have no incentive to free themselves from it. This is true. Throwing money at a problem can fix things, but it will rarely fix people. It, as you say, fosters dependence and teaches it to the next generation.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 42 minutes ago, webbles said: If we compare the church's fund against the Harvard University endowment, it shows that the church needs more money to be equal to Harvard. In 2018, Harvard had $39.2B in its fund and spent $1.8B. That shows them spending 4.6% of their investment. The church is spending $6B and had $100B in investment. So the church is spending more than Harvard. To be equal, the church needs $130B in investment. And $130B probably isn't enough. According to Washington Post and CNBC, Harvard needs to achieve a 7% return on investment with their current spending rate and a 2% inflation. In the last decade, Harvard was only able to achieve an average of 4.5%. So both Harvard and the church need more money in their investments if they want the fund to last forever. You’ve got this wrong. Let’s say that Harvard took in 7 billion in tuition and donations. They spend 6 billion running the school and funnel the rest into their endowment which they never touch. That would be the proper analogy. So basically the current students instead of being helped by the current endowment are actually overpaying to help some theoretical future student. The church spends zero dollars of its endowment towards the mission of the church.
mrmarklin Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 20 hours ago, Nofear said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/mormon-church-has-misled-members-on-100-billion-tax-exempt-investment-fund-whistleblower-alleges/2019/12/16/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html Prediction: Even after the Church is cleared of any illegalities, the nay-sayers will use this as fuel for complaint and criticism for a long time. edit: if you've reached your monthly limit of free post articles, clear your cookies for their sites and you should be good to go. I would change the unique identification url to be generic but haven't yet looked into their new technique. Stupid trackers. Yawn...………………………………………….Who comes up with this stuff?? And didn't we just have a thread on "Church hiding stuff"?
rpn Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Danzo said: One interesting thing(to me, anyway) is it appears from the article that this guy and their brother are representing themselves with the whistleblower action. This seems to me to indicate they don't have big hope of recovering money. With the amount of money at stake, you would think they would have legal counsel representing them. That they don't, seems to be an indication of how week their case is All whistleblower cases are filed by individuals. Their attorneys hope the government will step in and take the case. Often if they don't, the complainants don't have the money to do it themselves. In this case though, the whistleblower argues that he is due as much as 6Billion dollars, so maybe someone will do it on contingency. Sometimes the government steps in pretty soon, but often it doesn't until long into the case. I'll be really surprised if the government steps into this case. There is that whole freedom of religion thing. Edited December 18, 2019 by rpn
ERMD Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Thinking said: Is the only focus on what's legal? Everything else is opinion.
provoman Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, rpn said: All whistleblower cases are filed by individuals. Their attorneys hope the government will step in and take the case. Often if they don't, the complainants don't have the money to do it themselves. In this case though, the whistleblower argues that he is due as much as 6Billion dollars, so maybe someone will do it on contingency. Sometimes the government steps in pretty soon, but often it doesn't until long into the case. I'll be really surprised if the government steps into this case. There is that whole freedom of religion thing. I thought the same. Can the government force expenditures if the religious purpose is to save? Does the Government forcing expenditures unlawfully intertwine the Government in solely religious decisions. 2
rockpond Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 4 hours ago, JAHS said: Right. The point is that the Fast offerings are helping worldwide and not just locally in wards that are donating more into it. That's what we hope. We don't really know. Just suppose that it's happening.
The Nehor Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 25 minutes ago, rpn said: All whistleblower cases are filed by individuals. Their attorneys hope the government will step in and take the case. Often if they don't, the complainants don't have the money to do it themselves. In this case though, the whistleblower argues that he is due as much as 6Billion dollars, so maybe someone will do it on contingency. Sometimes the government steps in pretty soon, but often it doesn't until long into the case. I'll be really surprised if the government steps into this case. There is that whole freedom of religion thing. It is not a matter of if they have enough money. If the government decides not to prosecute the whistle blower cannot pursue a case unless they come up with a justification as to how they have standing in the matter. The IRS whistleblower rules almost certainly have rules that they have to decide to pursue the case of their own choice and win before he is owed whistleblower money. It is more he is arguing the government is owed billions. It is unlikely he would see anywhere near a billion. I have doubts the documents he provide even qualify. You need specific and credible information supporting claims of fraud. Most of the case is a matter of interpretation and in the rest (the claims of withdrawals for for profits) he knows almost nothing about. The IRS may not pursue this at all or they may spot check the organization’s submittal and call it a day. They also might investigate.
bsjkki Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said: This thread is amazing. I guess Trump really could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and folks would still support him. So, are you implying people giving the church the benefit of the doubt against unproven allegations about the use of Tithing dollars is the same as people supporting President Trump if he murdered someone in front of witnesses in the middle of a public street? I guess, if he was attacked, it could be justifiable self defense. But then, the word murder implies something less justifiable. I guess sketchy whistle-blowers with questionable motives are always supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt...at least this one is not anonymous. 1
stemelbow Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 1 hour ago, webbles said: I'd argue a little against the bolded. I think this shows that the church is almost to that point but not yet. According to the article, the church spends over $6 billion a year. Their investments, then, need to return $6B a year to prevent eating into capital. With $100B, that's a 6% rate which is pretty close to an average return from the stock market. So, if the church stopped building churches, temples, etc, then the church might be able to last on the savings without anymore donations. But since the church is still growing, its spending is going to go up and so it needs more investments. It's alleged by the Nielsen brothers that the return on the investment is more like 7B a year. That's covering the irrational cost and still needing 1 B a year. That's good money.
Recommended Posts