100 billion dollar rant

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

we could also establish a reputation for providing or assisting existing low income medical needs similar to what we used to do with the Primary Children's Hospital

We still do major fundraising for PCH every year through Activity Days. 

[2BizE]

On 3/7/2021 at 3:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Who says they don't do that already?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - Clean Water

Not to mention other activities, like this:

Latter-day Saint Charities Commits US$20 Million in Support of UNICEF’s Global COVID-19 Response

 

You may be confusing Latter Day Saint Charities with the Church corporation.  LDS Charities is funded by money members pay in addition to their tithing as well as from philanthropists.  Some people may assume the church is reaching into its own bank funds for these contributions...

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

You may be confusing Latter Day Saint Charities with the Church corporation.  LDS Charities is funded by money members pay in addition to their tithing as well as from philanthropists.  Some people may assume the church is reaching into its own bank funds for these contributions...

Sister Eubank who was in charge of LDS Charities at the time gave a talk once where she described getting money to pay for a crisis in Turkey iirc. She was talking to Church leaders to get it, so I would advise care in assuming no money from the Church is given in these cases. 
 

Quote

And I belong to a council, because I am the director of LDS Charities. I have a board of directors. And that board of directors is the three bishops in the presiding bishopric and the general Relief Society presidency. Those three and three make up the board of LDS Charities. 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2014/womans-church

https://www.latterdaysaintcharities.org/blog/10-facts-about-latter-day-saint-charities?lang=eng

In addition, even if the Church uses donations to the Humanitarian arm of the Church to fund purchases, overhead such as transportation and employees salaries are paid by the Church so that the full amount of donations can go to those in need. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

https://news-bz.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/humanitarian-aid-welfare-services-breakdown-donations-costs-resources
 

Quote

While the Church’s humanitarian aid efforts and its significant financial donations may be known to some, few realize that they represent only a fraction of the costs and resources involved with carrying out these initiatives. Furthermore, it may not be well known that the Church sponsors many other relief programs, including extensive welfare, vocational, rehabilitative, counseling and other services. These services include millions of hours donated by Latter-day Saint doctors, nurses and other Church members each year. Thousands of professionals and volunteers give freely of their time and means to those in need, with no expectation of praise, publicity or reward.

 

Quote

While 100 percent of fast offerings and humanitarian donations go directly to those in need, the overhead and administrative costs associated with these programs — in addition to the resources needed to build storage facilities, house and deliver humanitarian aid supplies around the world, train volunteers and so on — are privately fronted by the Church. Today, thanks to a robust infrastructure, the Church continues to relieve the hunger, thirst, suffering and poverty of millions of people around the world and to empower individuals and communities to become more self-sustaining.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Clearly there would be locations where accommodations should/could be made to better help the community and who is "worrying about the look"? It was a short suggestion with lots of details left out. I think besides being known for building temples we could also establish a reputation for providing or assisting existing low income medical needs similar to what we used to do with the Primary Children's Hospital. We could establish facilities throughout the world and call them "Latter-day Saints Clinics". When I was on my mission in Chile the church ran a private elementary school in Santiago in my area. It was a great help in proselytizing because we had a good reputation in the area because of that school. 

I think that is a grand idea. I know the church owns a lot of land and they lease it for hunting preserves. I don't know if that is as needed as much as what you are suggesting. 

[webbles]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

ETA: Things like this object lesson doesn't help my attitude much. https://mormonbillions.com

I personally think that type of object lesson to be disingenuous.  100 billion is hard to grasp, so it would be better to convert it into numbers that are closer to day to day life.

Here's how I would explain the 100 billion fund in a way that makes sense.  According to the whistleblower and others (like Michael Quinn), the church spends 6 billion annually for its operating costs.  That's a lot of money.  Let's take 5 zeroes off of it and turn it into $60,000.  That is an amount closer to how much the average American makes (I think the median is around $40,000 so it is higher but closer).  If you worked from age 18 to 65 making that salary, you would make a total of $2,820,000.  Now, lets convert the 100 billion in the same way.  Take off 5 zeroes and it is now $1,000,000.  That is less than half of what you would make after working all 47 working years.

Another thing, if you read about early retirement plans, they talk about the 4% rule.  That means you should have enough money in your investments where you can live on 4% of that money.  So if you want to retire with a retirement income of $50,000, you need $1,250,000 in investments.  Some people even encourage a lower number (3.5% or 3%) just to be safe.  Using the 4% and 3% rule, lets compare that to the church and its "retirement" fund.  4% of 100 billion is 4 billion and 3% of 100 billion is 3%.  So if the church wanted to be able to "retire" and no longer ask its members for money because it could live on its "retirement" fund for the rest of eternity, it needs more than 100 billion.  In fact, it would need 150 billion to make the 4% rule or 200 billion to make the 3% rule.

The 100 billion is big but when you compare it to their operating expense, it really isn't that big.  The church spends a lot of money (6 billion!) and so having 100 billion in savings is actually not that much.

[webbles]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think that is a grand idea. I know the church owns a lot of land and they lease it for hunting preserves. I don't know if that is as needed as much as what you are suggesting. 

I hope you realize that most of that land would be useless to put a hospital or a school.  It is either rugged land that can't really be built on or it is far away from any population center.

[webbles]

14 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Clearly there would be locations where accommodations should/could be made to better help the community and who is "worrying about the look"? It was a short suggestion with lots of details left out. I think besides being known for building temples we could also establish a reputation for providing or assisting existing low income medical needs similar to what we used to do with the Primary Children's Hospital. We could establish facilities throughout the world and call them "Latter-day Saints Clinics". When I was on my mission in Chile the church ran a private elementary school in Santiago in my area. It was a great help in proselytizing because we had a good reputation in the area because of that school. 

I think it would better to donate to the existing hospitals, schools, organizations, etc that are already in place.  As mentioned earlier, the Catholic church has lots of hospitals.  The SDA has lots of hospitals and schools as well.  The church should donate to them instead of creating "competing" hospitals or schools.

[Bob Crockett]

38 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think it would better to donate to the existing hospitals, schools, organizations, etc that are already in place.  As mentioned earlier, the Catholic church has lots of hospitals.  The SDA has lots of hospitals and schools as well.  The church should donate to them instead of creating "competing" hospitals or schools.

Thirty years ago the Church got out of the hospital biz as inconsistent with its mission. 

[Tacenda]

 

 

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I personally think that type of object lesson to be disingenuous.  100 billion is hard to grasp, so it would be better to convert it into numbers that are closer to day to day life.

Here's how I would explain the 100 billion fund in a way that makes sense.  According to the whistleblower and others (like Michael Quinn), the church spends 6 billion annually for its operating costs.  That's a lot of money.  Let's take 5 zeroes off of it and turn it into $60,000.  That is an amount closer to how much the average American makes (I think the median is around $40,000 so it is higher but closer).  If you worked from age 18 to 65 making that salary, you would make a total of $2,820,000.  Now, lets convert the 100 billion in the same way.  Take off 5 zeroes and it is now $1,000,000.  That is less than half of what you would make after working all 47 working years.

Another thing, if you read about early retirement plans, they talk about the 4% rule.  That means you should have enough money in your investments where you can live on 4% of that money.  So if you want to retire with a retirement income of $50,000, you need $1,250,000 in investments.  Some people even encourage a lower number (3.5% or 3%) just to be safe.  Using the 4% and 3% rule, lets compare that to the church and its "retirement" fund.  4% of 100 billion is 4 billion and 3% of 100 billion is 3%.  So if the church wanted to be able to "retire" and no longer ask its members for money because it could live on its "retirement" fund for the rest of eternity, it needs more than 100 billion.  In fact, it would need 150 billion to make the 4% rule or 200 billion to make the 3% rule.

The 100 billion is big but when you compare it to their operating expense, it really isn't that big.  The church spends a lot of money (6 billion!) and so having 100 billion in savings is actually not that much.

Well the church takes in approx. 7 billion from tithe payers per year to offset the 6 billion, IMO. Also, I have read the link and quotes from Calm about what the church does for people, but that is why the church is tax exempt, it's expected to do so, IMO.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Tacenda

[webbles]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

 

Well the church takes in approx. 7 billion from tithe payers per year to offset the 6 billion, IMO.

Yes, it appears that the church takes in about 7 billion.  That still doesn't make the 100 billion any bigger.  It's like saying I make $70,000 a year but spend $60,000 for my living expenses.  The remaining $10,000 I put in my investment.  It doesn't change the fact that $1,000,000 is still less than I would make over my entire working life.  In fact, it is now even less than the  number in my previous post since I'm making more.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

Yes, it appears that the church takes in about 7 billion.  That still doesn't make the 100 billion any bigger.  It's like saying I make $70,000 a year but spend $60,000 for my living expenses.  The remaining $10,000 I put in my investment.  It doesn't change the fact that $1,000,000 is still less than I would make over my entire working life.  In fact, it is now even less than the  number in my previous post since I'm making more.

What about the millions per day earned on the 100 billion? I think it's upwards of 38 million a day. 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What about the millions per day earned on the 100 billion? I think it's upwards of 38 million a day. 

What about it?  If you invest money, you don't see the "per day" amount because it is in bonds or stocks that are going up or down.  It is only after you sell the bonds or stocks that you get the money.  And when you invest for long term, you won't be selling the stocks/bonds very often.

And 38 million is extremely high.  Lets bring the numbers back to easier to comprehend.  If I had $1,000,000 (removing 5 zeros) and an amazing 10% return on investment, I would have $100,000 more at the end of the year.  That is $274 per day.  Add an extra 5 zeros, and you would only get $27 million.  I highly doubt the church is getting 10% ROI.  It is probably closer to 7%, so $70,000 per year, $191 per day, or $19 million (if you add 5 extra zeros).  I'm sure they got $38 million in one day at some point in the last few years, but they probably also lost $38 million in one day as well.

 

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

The 100 billion is big but when you compare it to their operating expense, it really isn't that big.  The church spends a lot of money (6 billion!) and so having 100 billion in savings is actually not that much.

I object to the notion that the church has a 100 billion being called "savings".  Most of that "money", if true, is not money but assets that goes up and down every day.  Assets have to be converted into money by being sold.  If not sold, then its not real money.   It is sort of an annoying thing that people on the left use.  Jeff Bezos has 200 billion dollars. No he does not.   Or he made 14 billion in one day as Bernie Sanders objected to.  No he did not.  In order to get 1 dollar of that 14 billion, Bezos would have had to sell ALL of his Amazon stock.   Otherwise he did not get one dollar from that 14 billion dollar day increase.

Edited March 12, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[Stargazer]

On 3/8/2021 at 5:06 AM, Tacenda said:

I will never win the argument that the church can do more, because I always get comments that steer away from it. From the past I've heard plenty of things that shut me down.

Ultimately, no matter how much the church (or anyone else, for that matter) does, it could always be said that more could be done. Someone could look at your home and possessions, for example, and criticize you for how much you could divest yourself of and give to the poor. And yet you don't do it, and how stingy you are being. 

I'm not trying to dissuade you from anything, please, just trying to point out that neither you nor I are in a good position to make any valid judgements. Though I am sure that we are quite capable of making suggestions that lead to better outcomes.

On 3/8/2021 at 5:06 AM, Tacenda said:

And I understand how difficult it is to get the help to these countries. But is there any way to get through somehow, if there's a will there's a way? I don't want people killed over trying to help, never, such as Robert mentioned. But aren't there many missionaries of other faiths that go in and do things, as well as from our church? And corporations etc. So if it's helping then we can always do more, IMO. 

No doubt you have heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

My first introduction to this was a science-fiction short story in which space-age humans interacted with a still relatively planet-bound culture consisting of city states. They set down an embassy in one of these states, and in an effort to increase the prosperity of the locals, they decide to finance the building of a road to link a neighboring state. The intent is to jump-start trade between them, which they believe and intend will lead to greater prosperity. The road is a challenging project, due to the terrain it must traverse, and they need lots of workers. The road is eventually finished, but then the consequences become clear: the labor on the road has drawn off labor from the farms and other important projects, resulting in lower farm output, and people begin to become hungry. The neighboring polity, seeing their neighbor in distress, take advantage of both the road and the weakness of their neighbor to invade. The invasion succeeds, and the now more powerful state begins to use its new power to invade its other neighbors, causing a series of wars. All because of the commendable desire to help people become more prosperous.

A real consequence of supplying food to countries having a hard time feeding their people can be the undermining of a country's own ability to feed itself. The food coming in might underprice in-country production of food, leading to the devastation of the farm-sector. Which makes the country more dependent upon outsiders than before.  As we all know, education is important. But one consequence of more available higher education where the surrounding society is unable to make use of it, is a "brain drain".  How many lawyers does a society need? Or physicists? Or mathematicians?  There was a serious problem in the UK post-WW2 where there were many educated people who couldn't find jobs in their areas of expertise, so they moved to Canada or the US. 

But the truth is, it is impossible to do just one thing. Everything has unintended consequences. Some consequences are good, some neutral, and some bad. It's hard to calculate sometimes. Or maybe all the time. So the best thing we can do is to try to be aware of what could go wrong. And take steps to allow for them.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, webbles said:

I personally think that type of object lesson to be disingenuous.  100 billion is hard to grasp, so it would be better to convert it into numbers that are closer to day to day life.

Here's how I would explain the 100 billion fund in a way that makes sense.  According to the whistleblower and others (like Michael Quinn), the church spends 6 billion annually for its operating costs.  That's a lot of money.  Let's take 5 zeroes off of it and turn it into $60,000.  That is an amount closer to how much the average American makes (I think the median is around $40,000 so it is higher but closer).  If you worked from age 18 to 65 making that salary, you would make a total of $2,820,000.  Now, lets convert the 100 billion in the same way.  Take off 5 zeroes and it is now $1,000,000.  That is less than half of what you would make after working all 47 working years.

Another thing, if you read about early retirement plans, they talk about the 4% rule.  That means you should have enough money in your investments where you can live on 4% of that money.  So if you want to retire with a retirement income of $50,000, you need $1,250,000 in investments.  Some people even encourage a lower number (3.5% or 3%) just to be safe.  Using the 4% and 3% rule, lets compare that to the church and its "retirement" fund.  4% of 100 billion is 4 billion and 3% of 100 billion is 3%.  So if the church wanted to be able to "retire" and no longer ask its members for money because it could live on its "retirement" fund for the rest of eternity, it needs more than 100 billion.  In fact, it would need 150 billion to make the 4% rule or 200 billion to make the 3% rule.

The 100 billion is big but when you compare it to their operating expense, it really isn't that big.  The church spends a lot of money (6 billion!) and so having 100 billion in savings is actually not that much.

Your analysis is ok but it leaves out the fact that while one draws down on principle the principle is still earning $$$.  Using a modest annual return of 5 to 6% the Church can run its operation from the earnings of the $100 bullion and never touch the principle.  So no they do not need $200 billion tp fund all costs. They could do it now. Quite easily.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I object to the notion that the church has a 100 billion being called "savings".  Most of that "money", if true, is not money but assets that goes up and down every day.  Assets have to be converted into money by being sold.  If not sold, then its not real money.   It is sort of an annoying thing that people on the left use.  Jeff Bezos has 200 billion dollars. No he does not.   Or he made 14 billion in one day as Bernie Sanders objected to.  No he did not.  In order to get 1 dollar of that 14 billion, Bezos would have had to sell ALL of his Amazon stock.   Otherwise he did not get one dollar from that 14 billion dollar day increase.

So what if it is not liquid. It is still an asset and has value. Sure the market goes up and down. House values go up and down as well. But it is nonsensical to say it is not savings.  Net worth is bases on the value of all assets and not just cash.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Teancum

[Stargazer]

On 3/10/2021 at 10:47 PM, Tacenda said:

How much was in the budget for Christmas dinners for wards. I was on the committee recently, it wasn't much.

I haven't looked ahead to see if someone else has already answered this, so maybe there's a duplication here, but I know something about this, being a stake clerk and having served as a ward clerk and finance clerk. Keep in mind that I have a very limited view of it, just from what I have seen "in the trenches", as it were.

The church provides the budget for each ward. Being somewhat ancient, I remember the days when the ward would set its budget and then badger the members for budget donations. I heard once that this ceased because general tithing faithfulness made it possible for all ward/stake activity to be funded by the general church. 

And then, after the ward receives its overall budget, then the ward's leadership has to decide how to divvy up what is received. The general church doesn't decide how much to spend for the ward's Christmas budget, for example. Your bishop consults with the various organizations in order to come up with a budget for each organization. And the Activities Committee may be close to the bottom in importance as compared to, for example, Primary or Relief Society. If you think the budget for activities needs to be increased, you need to talk with your bishop, perhaps.

I don't know the exact parameters, but a ward's budget depends upon a number of factors, and these include the number of members of record, sacrament meeting attendance, and tithing faithfulness. There may be other factors, such as how many youth, how many young adults and so on. When I was the financial clerk of a singles branch, I thought our budget was incredibly generous. The budget included not just operational expenses, but also funds specifically for activities. I had to occasionally remind the branch president that we needed to spend more money, because it was piling up -- money for social activities. Retention of young adults is extremely important, as you know, and one way to aid this is by having activities.

As Robert has mentioned in his case, in five or six years as a finance clerk I don't think there was even one occurrence of the branch president denying a reimbursement request. As a stake clerk, during my so far two years in the calling, there has likewise been no occurrence of a reimbursement request being denied.

Quote

Or how much does the ward keep for fast offerings before having to send it to headquarters?

This works as follows: the ward keeps nothing, in actual effect. This differs from the practice of the past, I should point out. It used to be that the ward kept FO funds for one month, and then the unused FO funds were sent to the stake, to be doled out to ward's with insufficient FO donations, and then any excess went to the general church to be doled out to stakes whose FO needs exceeded their donations. Nowadays FO funds go immediately to the general church, along with tithing.

You have to understand that except possibly in less-developed countries, wards and stakes do not have their own bank accounts. Not anymore, at least. 

And the fast offering category is a fund with theoretical infinite depth.  Your ward's FO donations go into your country's FO account. The bishop writes checks on the FO account without reference to whatever funds were received from the members of his ward.  Some wards and stakes are net FO donors. Others are net FO consumers. My stake is currently a net FO consumer -- due to the effects of the Covid lockdowns, we have a lot of financially distressed members. Your stake may be a net FO donor.

I hope this aids in understanding!

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I haven't looked ahead to see if someone else has already answered this, so maybe there's a duplication here, but I know something about this, being a stake clerk and having served as a ward clerk and finance clerk. Keep in mind that I have a very limited view of it, just from what I have seen "in the trenches", as it were.

The church provides the budget for each ward. Being somewhat ancient, I remember the days when the ward would set its budget and then badger the members for budget donations. I heard once that this ceased because general tithing faithfulness made it possible for all ward/stake activity to be funded by the general church. 

I don't know the exact parameters, but a ward's budget depends upon a number of factors, and these include the number of members of record, sacrament meeting attendance, and tithing faithfulness. There may be other factors, such as how many youth, how many young adults and so on. When I was the financial clerk of a singles branch, I thought our budget was incredibly generous. The budget included not just operational expenses, but also funds specifically for activities. I had to occasionally remind the branch president that we needed to spend more money, because it was piling up -- money for social activities. Retention of young adults is extremely important, as you know, and one way to aid this is by having activities.

As Robert has mentioned in his case, in five or six years as a finance clerk I don't think there was even one occurrence of the branch president denying a reimbursement request. As a stake clerk, during my so far two years in the calling, there has likewise been no occurrence of a reimbursement request being denied.

This works as follows: the ward keeps nothing, in actual effect. This differs from the practice of the past, I should point out. It used to be that the ward kept FO funds for one month, and then the unused FO funds were sent to the stake, to be doled out to ward's with insufficient FO donations, and then any excess went to the general church to be doled out to stakes whose FO needs exceeded their donations. Nowadays FO funds go immediately to the general church, along with tithing.

You have to understand that except possibly in less-developed countries, wards and stakes do not have their own bank accounts. Not anymore, at least. 

And the fast offering category is a fund with theoretical infinite depth.  Your ward's FO donations go into your country's FO account. The bishop writes checks on the FO account without reference to whatever funds were received from the members of his ward.  Some wards and stakes are net FO donors. Others are net FO consumers. My stake is currently a net FO consumer -- due to the effects of the Covid lockdowns, we have a lot of financially distressed members. Your stake may be a net FO donor.

I hope this aids in understanding!

 

Thanks for responding to these questions/statements I've made. You make good points and it looks like every situation or ward runs slightly differently in these respects. 

Do you have anything to offer on the senior missionaries having to pay much more than the young single missionaries? I know of situations that senior missionaries have lost homes over going on a mission. None were someone I know personally  but through posts that I read on different forums. One personal story I have is of my brother and sister in law who just returned from Australia. A good portion of their time was of cleaning missionary apartments and vehicles. So the church benefits from not having to pay someone to do that. I can't remember the exact cost but believe it ranges from 3000 to 4000 a month to serve there. So was wondering why the church doesn't allow the price break that they give to the younger missionaries. And senior missionaries sometimes get the guilt trip into serving, surely you've heard the talks in church. Another story is of my friend and former RS president and her husband who served in England another costly place to serve, and basically worked in a building doing clerical work in the basement of a building the whole time. And hearing her complain, was surprising since she isn't one to do that and loves serving in the temple.  

Thanks for your patience, all of the posters on this thread too. Thanks guys!

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What about the millions per day earned on the 100 billion? I think it's upwards of 38 million a day. 

Tacenda, you really have to learn more about finance. There may or may not be "millions per day" earned on the 100 billion. And it's most likely NOT.

Consider one of the richest men on earth, Elon Musk. A month or so ago he was #1. The next month he was back to #2 or #3. The difference in his wealth was literally billions of dollars. Yet he did not "earn" or "lose" two or three billion dollars. His net gain or loss was because the valuation of his investments (mostly in his own companies) changed up or down. "Market value" is a fiction, by and large, because it fluctuates like crazy sometimes. If he earned any money it was because there was a dividend declared (which happens quarterly, if at all, not daily). And then there is profit and loss from operations, which in the case of a centibillionaire is probably a minor part of it all.

You remember how people panicked or exulted during the any of the recent downturns or upturns? "Oh, dear, I've lost a hundred thousand dollars this month!" or "Oh, wow, I've earned a hundred thousand dollars more this month!" Both statements being completely bolshevik. 

Most investments do not "earn" money. They increase in market value, which until sold does not mean much of anything. You can live in abject poverty and be starving to death while holding a billion dollars in investments that are increasing in value, but don't pay a penny until they are sold. And you dare not sell much of it because the tax hit will be terrifying. Not to mention the reduction of investment value that will result because the act of selling itself frequently causes a reduction in market value, because "the market" may think you're selling because of a lack of confidence in its value.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So was wondering why the church doesn't allow the price break that they give to the younger missionaries.

Younger missionaries are living in very minimal housing situations, which I don't think seniors are doing. They also are, by and large, far healthier than senior missionaries. It is more expensive to maintain a married senior couple on a mission than a young, single person. There are differences to consider: housing, food, medical, and other differences.

I'm much less qualified to comment on this, as I am not familiar with the economics, but as I understand it, the church is trying to spread the cost of serving a mission so that every missionary contributes proportionally the same towards their mission. And it depends upon the country of origin of each missionary and the country of service. A missionary serving in New York City is going to have much greater living expenses than one serving in Lubbock, Texas, or one serving in Panama, for example. I'm guessing, but I'm pretty sure a Panamanian doesn't pay the same amount a US missionary pays, even if the Panamanian serves in the US and the American serves in Panama. Because Panamanians earn much less than Americans.

It's a complicated subject.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your analysis is ok but it leaves out the fact that while one draws down on principle the principle is still earning $$$.  Using a modest annual return of 5 to 6% the Church can run its operation from the earnings of the $100 bullion and never touch the principle.  So no they do not need $200 billion tp fund all costs. They could do it now. Quite easily.

I don't know if you've read up on the 4% rule but it has been shown that to survive for at least 30 years, you can only live on 4% of your principal at the beginning of your retirement.  See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/four-percent-rule.asp and https://www.thebalance.com/dont-confuse-these-two-retirement-rules-of-thumb-453920 for some quick takes on it.

And, per those articles, some people worry that 4% is too risky.  That's why some are talking about reducing it to 3.5% or even 3%.  So, the church can't live on the earnings alone and never touch the principal.  $100 billion wouldn't last 30 years if we keep having recessions like we had in the last 20 years.  They would need to shrink the costs from $6 billion to $3-4 billion if they want to live on the earnings alone.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't know if you've read up on the 4% rule but it has been shown that to survive for at least 30 years, you can only live on 4% of your principal at the beginning of your retirement.  See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/four-percent-rule.asp and https://www.thebalance.com/dont-confuse-these-two-retirement-rules-of-thumb-453920 for some quick takes on it.

And, per those articles, some people worry that 4% is too risky.  That's why some are talking about reducing it to 3.5% or even 3%.  So, the church can't live on the earnings alone and never touch the principal.  $100 billion wouldn't last 30 years if we keep having recessions like we had in the last 20 years.  They would need to shrink the costs from $6 billion to $3-4 billion if they want to live on the earnings alone.

They could sell some land!

[webbles]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for responding to these questions/statements I've made. You make good points and it looks like every situation or ward runs slightly differently in these respects. 

Do you have anything to offer on the senior missionaries having to pay much more than the young single missionaries? I know of situations that senior missionaries have lost homes over going on a mission. None were someone I know personally  but through posts that I read on different forums. One personal story I have is of my brother and sister in law who just returned from Australia. A good portion of their time was of cleaning missionary apartments and vehicles. So the church benefits from not having to pay someone to do that. I can't remember the exact cost but believe it ranges from 3000 to 4000 a month to serve there. So was wondering why the church doesn't allow the price break that they give to the younger missionaries. And senior missionaries sometimes get the guilt trip into serving, surely you've heard the talks in church. Another story is of my friend and former RS president and her husband who served in England another costly place to serve, and basically worked in a building doing clerical work in the basement of a building the whole time. And hearing her complain, was surprising since she isn't one to do that and loves serving in the temple.  

Thanks for your patience, all of the posters on this thread too. Thanks guys!

How long ago was it that church members were asked to help fund the chapels?  I think it was sometime in the 70s or 80s.

How long has it been since the mission cost for single missionaries was standardized?  50s? 60s? 70s?

I honestly don't know the answers to those questions but based on my guesses, it looks like the church is slowly reducing the financial requirements on things.  Chapels are now built without any of the members needing to donate funds specifically for them.  Same with temples.  Single missionaries now have a standardized cost that is only affected by their country of origin, not their destination.  I would expect that in the future, costs for senior missions will be standardized as well.

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They could sell some land!

As mentioned, they would need $200 billion in total investments.  That includes land.  We know about the $100 billion investment fund.  Do they have another $100 billion in land that can be sold?