Jump to content

Tooele Temple Brouhaha


Bernard Gui

Recommended Posts

Knowing the background to your case, Tacenda, where expections were set up by parents....in that case I believe parents should follow through if they have influenced their children to make life altering choices based on promises.

And I think if someone has been a caregiver of their parents for an extended amount of time and it has impacted in a negative way how they have been able to care for themselves and/or their own family, I think there should be some form of compensation from the estate if the caregiver themselves is not in a position to afford extra help, etc on their own, either while they are helping or if there is worry about the estate lasting long enough to cover the parents' needs, after their death.  The idea that their money is solely their own fades in my view when family members are doing major work for free what would cost the parents substantially to hire someone to do.

Outside of those two cases...promises made in regard to the estate where children have followed through on their part and children making significant sacrifices that create hardships for them when there is an option that parents could pay others to cover their needs or when it is mutually decided to protect the estate in case it is needed by parents by children volunteering their own resources to support the estate (offering their time and efforts or even financial help for free)...the estate should  be up to the parents to spend, but I would hope if there were children or grandchildren with special needs that they were having a hard time meeting, parents would put those at a higher priority than the Church in their wills just as the Church encourages them to do when they are alive.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Arguably, at least, I'm one of those "children having a hard time," although I'm sure we all could come up with instances in which people are having (or will have) it harder than I do.  Everything is relative.  I've discussed with my parents what they might want to do if they leave me anything, in order to not necessarily affect adversely any benefits I might be getting now or in the future.  But "hard time" or no, what they choose to do with their money and their assets is completely up to them.  But if I got them one of those "We're Spending Our Children's Inheritance" bumper stickers as a joke, but, if, instead, it turned out that, actually, that's what they're doing, more power to them.  I hope they have an absolute blast and die completely broke, if that's what they want to do.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 8/19/2020 at 6:52 PM, Tacenda said:

I was answering why the church was intending to build a community to the OP's question. It is good business, the housing etc. I thought people on the board had no problem with the church making money. Now I'm wrong with saying it would be good business? But I believe they'll let this go for now, and when the community is on board they could go in and finish what they wanted to do.  

Not sure how accurate or if I'm reading wrong but this website said the church owns 8,625 businesses. https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.corporation_of_the_president_of_the_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter-day_saints.faa60c51dfa0d7969dfcb4fe747dc0a3.html?fbclid=IwAR18Qur5GcSUTnG9RI07ZMc1iGo3xAietl2aXQxDQwRQzZaFf8zaEZj8vFo

I think he thought you were being sarcastic. That's the downside of being perceived as almost always coming down on the negative side of a question (e.g. the Church). People begin to weigh one's words in the light of what has been said in the past, even if no such weight was actually given. A somewhat more descriptive response that conveyed one's feelings more fully might have prevented this.

And I see that I am getting to this rather late, and perhaps it has already been addressed. Sorry!

Link to post
On 11/18/2020 at 2:42 PM, Tacenda said:

This is going to sound really bad, and I've been good for awhile, haha! But I hope people don't donate their land for the temple building. I know recently I read of a couple that has and all I can think of is how their children feel. I mean what if their children, grandchildren etc. need funds for surgeries or health issues or help on missions, or schooling or even housing. Recently I saw an article that the church doesn't just have 100 billion, more likely it's nearing more than 400 billion.

I wish the church wouldn't accept donations like that. But to each your own if you disagree. 

Gosh, I hope the church has 400 billion!  And I hope that most of it is in non-monetary form, such as real estate and other forms that are non- or less-perishable. 

On 11/18/2020 at 3:46 PM, bluebell said:

My parents money and assets are their own and I certainly don't feel like I have a right to any of them.  They worked for them, I didn't.  And I'm a grown woman so they are under no obligation to provide for me.  I would probably view people who did think that their parents or grandparents had a responsibility to take care of them after they are grown as being entitled.  

Oh, while I agree that people have the perfect right to dispose of their property as they see fit, without worrying whether others disapprove of it, I still don't have a problem with, for example, Tacenda hoping that those people don't dispose of their property a certain way that she feels will cause what she sees as a negative outcome. That's a free speech right, I'm pretty certain.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Gosh, I hope the church has 400 billion!  And I hope that most of it is in non-monetary form, such as real estate and other forms that are non- or less-perishable. 

As do I.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, while I agree that people have the perfect right to dispose of their property as they see fit, without worrying whether others disapprove of it, I still don't have a problem with, for example, Tacenda hoping that those people don't dispose of their property a certain way that she feels will cause what she sees as a negative outcome. That's a free speech right, I'm pretty certain.

 

I don't have a problem with Tacenda expressing her opinion, either.  She is perfectly at liberty to do so.  And just as she is perfectly at liberty to express her opinion, likewise, I (and others) am perfectly free to disagree with it.  I don't think I have been uncivil or unfair to her.  If you disagree, you, too, are entitled to that opinion.  Having said that, Free Speech as enshrined in the First Amendment says that the government may not interfere with one's right to free expression.  It doesn't say anything about the conduct of third parties (except, at least implicitly, that they may not use the cudgel of government coercion to silence an opinion with which they disagree.)

Link to post
On 11/21/2020 at 1:47 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Free Speech as enshrined in the First Amendment says that the government may not interfere with one's right to free expression.  It doesn't say anything about the conduct of third parties (except, at least implicitly, that they may not use the cudgel of government coercion to silence an opinion with which they disagree.)

That is so. 

Your right to speak freely may not infringe upon my right to not listen to you. Although getting some people (not you) to shut up and not bother you can be problematic sometimes. I have greatly reduced my attendance on Facebook, for example, so I don't have to see people I disagree with pontificating upon things they don't have a clue about. I like that silence, but it also restricts my ability to see what my more sensible friends and relatives are doing and saying.

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That is so. 

Your right to speak freely may not infringe upon my right to not listen to you. Although getting some people (not you) to shut up and not bother you can be problematic sometimes. I have greatly reduced my attendance on Facebook, for example, so I don't have to see people I disagree with pontificating upon things they don't have a clue about. I like that silence, but it also restricts my ability to see what my more sensible friends and relatives are doing and saying.

 

Yeah, I agree.  This is a worthwhile forum, but (while others' mileage may vary), personally, I find that, sometimes, it can be hard to sift through the noise even here.  And I certainly agree with you about Facebook.  Certainly, I would visit more than once in a blue moon if the issue you mention were less of a problem.  And ignorance (in the sense of being uneducated) is only part of the problem.  An even bigger problem is that if someone disagrees with you, one cannot simply agree to disagree with one's interlocutors: Those with whom one disagrees must be dismissed as morally deficient, mentally deficient, lacking in character, bad, evil, and on and on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Posted in wrong thread.

Dang. :(  And here I was waiting, all aquiver, with 'bated breath, on the edge of my seat in anticipation, for one of your uniquely cogent, coherent, penetrating insights. :huh: :unsure: :unknw:

Link to post
  • 1 month later...
On 11/18/2020 at 7:42 AM, Tacenda said:

This is going to sound really bad, and I've been good for awhile, haha! But I hope people don't donate their land for the temple building. I know recently I read of a couple that has and all I can think of is how their children feel. I mean what if their children, grandchildren etc. need funds for surgeries or health issues or help on missions, or schooling or even housing. Recently I saw an article that the church doesn't just have 100 billion, more likely it's nearing more than 400 billion.

I wish the church wouldn't accept donations like that. But to each your own if you disagree. 

You're too late.  Pete and Maxine Grimm did exactly that! :P

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/18/2020 at 6:42 AM, Tacenda said:

This is going to sound really bad, and I've been good for awhile, haha! But I hope people don't donate their land for the temple building. I know recently I read of a couple that has and all I can think of is how their children feel. I mean what if their children, grandchildren etc. need funds for surgeries or health issues or help on missions, or schooling or even housing. Recently I saw an article that the church doesn't just have 100 billion, more likely it's nearing more than 400 billion.

I wish the church wouldn't accept donations like that. But to each your own if you disagree. 

I know this is an old post but I recall discussing inheritance tax with you before, and good tax planning may have dictated this as the best course of action.

I know many very well qualified tax specialists who might well have suggested this strategy.

You don't know the situation that the parents are in- how much they are leaving to their kids.  Today in California for example, two or three properties could easily put you above the $5million dollar mark for your estate.   The parents could have bought these 5 properties with perhaps an investment of 20 k per property if they were bought in the 1950's, and each be worth 1 mil now. 

Suppose they sold the properties before they passed on.  WHOPPING capital gains taxes- which can be avoided by a good tax planner- but absent planning Federal and taxes could be HUGE

But suppose they keep their assets and donate them to the church instead, and the church sells them- or keeps the properties for their use, as in building temples etc.

The highest tax rate for the kids paying inheritance in the USA is now 40%.

Suppose the parents lived in Nebraska where the inheritance tax is as much as 18%   That makes the tax going to the dear old and venerable IRS perhaps up to 60% of the total estate.   (58%)  I picked Nebraska to make the point- I think it has the highest tax rate.

Instead, suppose with good tax planning the parents set up an insurance trust containing insurance policies totaling the pre-determined amount of inheritance taxes calculated by their tax pro, with their kids as the beneficiaries.

They donate the $ 5 Million  in property to the church- church receives 5 million AND/OR the land they need for the temple anyway.

Because they planned well, the insurance policy pays the amount of tax, and the kids get the insurance money TAX FREE.

So the kids are re-imbursed, and the church gets the estate and the needed property!

 Values in the area go up, and a nice neighborhood will grow where the temple is.

Temple attendance rises in the area, and families are blessed. and the kids receive what they should have gotten anyway.

Win win win, unless you love the government so much you want to give THEM 60% and more - due to other taxes- for them to wisely spend in your behalf, as they always do, with THAT 60% NOT going to the kids.

In THAT scenario, because the parents did NOT give the property away to the church, he kids definitely would have something to cry about.  ;)

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...