60 Minutes Australia: "Cooking the Book of Mormon"

[JustAnAustralian]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I was actually fairly surprised at how overtly derisive they were of the church.  The accusations of outright fraud and tax evasion were barely veiled.  I suspect that they listened to the various disaffected former members of the church, who told them that the church will not respond latituously to defamatory accusations, such that they can pretty much say what they want and get away with it.

Oh definitely. It seemed to be a bunch of people that knew nothing about the church except polygamy, missionaries, and mitt romney, giving air-time to some bitter former members, without doing any thorough investigation into the church. I'd love to know what the "6 month investigation" actually entailed. As I said up thread, just reading a half dozen or so Salt Lake Tribune articles would have given them far more juicy stuff than they talked about.

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect that they listened to the various disaffected former members of the church, who told them that the church will not respond latituously to defamatory accusations, such that they can pretty much say what they want and get away with it.

I just spoke with an Australian friend who serves in a Communications calling. She said the Church was approached for information/clarification before the original stories ran in May and again before these stories/broadcast ran. In both cases, the journalists chose to include nothing from the Church's highly detailed and thoroughly referenced submissions.

She also said that the 60 Minutes broadcast included a statement that the Church has chosen to 'remain silent' or something like that, which didn't go over too well with her!

By the way, did you mean 'respond litigiously'?

[Calm]

Never mind what was originally in this post if you read it, trying to restate the idea to make sense, haven’t slept for over 24 hours and it is showing…

JustanAustralian, could you guesstimate what your deduction amount would be if you donated 100 million? Assuming here only 25% of that is taxed…but that amount affects your tax bracket, I assume.  Could it drop you into a lower bracket?  Just wondering how they are getting from donating $90 million a year over 7 years to 400 million when the amount taxed is only 25% of the 90 million and if that was given completely to the government in taxes would be around 22 million, but it will surely be only a percentage of that, so actually much less….22 million one year is around 158 million for 7 years, so it can’t be just that calculation unless there is misrepresentation happening here…

It is probably around 25 years since I did our taxes, we had a professional take over once our wealth became complicated enough for one country and we were trying to satisfy two with different systems, so it is all vague, but my memory is we never save more in taxes from paying tithing than we paid in tithing…but I am thinking maybe this isn’t the same everywhere or perhaps for wealthier people.  How does it work in Australia?  Can you save more in taxes from deducting what you give a charity than what you paid a charity?  

Edited November 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Let’s see if I can manage the math if very simplified…I saw one site that said the average Australian paid 27-28% of their income in taxes.

My hypothetical word problem…A group of Australian citizens (ACs) earned 1,000,000,000 in income or had net income of the same and decided to pay on 100,000,000 in tithing.  This gets sent to the Trust Fund.  Assume all of it gets sent to LDSCA, so fully tax deductible for both Church and individuals.  So that gives them a combined taxed income of 900,000,000 ignoring all other deductions (which would lower their taxes more, so this is the maximum).  They therefore pay 300,000,000 in taxes, yes?  Let’s now assume they just give their tithing to the Church and end up paying taxes on 25% of it…25% of 100,000,000 is 25,000,000.  So instead of 900,000,000 taxable income, their taxable income is 925,000,000…correct?  And 30% of that is 308,333,333, so a difference of 8,333,333 a year or over 7 years around 58 million, which is not 400 million.  So obviously my calculations are fundamentally different.  Am I that far out of the ballpark not adjusting for other possible deductions?  And if other deductions had that much of an impact, how can it be said the savings by a full deduction instead of 75% deduction was what makes that difference?
 

I am perfectly open to being embarrassingly wrong given my lack of sleep.   Or that fact of being uneducated in the science (art?) of taxes getting in the way and therefore me missing something basic, something very basic. But I am very curious of how they came up with that amount given the yearly listed donations to the Trust Fund, so am willing to be humiliated.   

Edited November 1, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How does it work in Australia?  Can you save more in taxes from deducting what you give a charity than what you paid a charity?  

Deductions in Australia merely reduce taxable income. The ATO has a 'simple tax calculator' that deals only with income tax (and not the fixed Medicare levy). Median personal income in Australia is currently $805/week or $41,860/year. That allows us to do a real world example:

A Saint who earns $41,860/year, tithes on gross, and has no other deductions (including fast offerings, etc.) would have a taxable income of $37,674 under the current arrangement of 100 per cent deductibility, resulting in an estimated tax of $3,700.06. This is a total tax rate of 8.84 per cent.

In a scenario where only 75 per cent of tithing is deductible (as was the case for a few years before the Church fixed this), a Saint who earns $41,860/year, tithes on gross, and has no other deductions (including fast offerings, etc.) would have a taxable income of $38,721, resulting in an estimated tax of $3,898.99. This is a total tax rate of 9.31 per cent.

In other words, for a person on a median income, being able to deduct 100 per cent of tithing (vs just 75 per cent) reduces her/his income tax contribution by $198.93 per year, reducing the person's tax burden by 0.47 per cent of gross income.

Consequently, if every person in your $1 billion scenario earnt a median income, it would amount to 23,889 people, each paying $198.93 less per year. That's a total difference in government revenue of $4,752,239 per year. (Total government revenue with 100 per cent tithing deductible = $88,390,733. Total government revenue with 75 per cent tithing deductible = $93,142,972.) Over seven years, this would amount to $33,265,671 in 'lost' government revenue.

To put this into context, a government report states that 'average road project costs were around $5.1 million per lane kilometre in 2017'. This means that if tithing in Australia were to return to its 75 per cent deductibility (under your $100,000,000 in tithes scenario), the additional revenue would be enough to build 466 metres (1,529 feet) of a two-lane road each year.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

On 10/29/2022 at 9:26 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

Yes to both of those.

In fact, as tithing used to be only 75% tax deductible here, I would hazard a guess that the government was actually involved in discussions as to what would be required to allow it to be 100% deductible.

"Tithing" though is a religious concept. It's ultimately just a donation to an organisation. When we get our end of year donation receipt for tax purposes, it has a single line on it with tithing, fast offering, humanitarian aid, etc. combined. We don't declare each type individually to the Australian Tax Office, it's done at an organisation level. The church gets one line, a cancer charity gets a different line, a different charity gets a different line etc.

It's what that organisation does with the specific donation that matters in relation to tax deductibility. (see https://www.acnc.gov.au/tools/factsheets/deductible-gift-recipients-and-acnc )

Do you apply the 75% deduction yourself and if so how do you find out what organizations are only 75% and what are 100%?  And if you don’t apply the deduction, does the government calculates your taxes for you based on the info you give them or something else?

Are there tax forms online?  And is there a link where the government discusses the 75%?  If already posted, I have missed it tonight.  I would like it to refute Reiss’ claim I post below…she is just repeating what she is hearing in the news rather than checking herself is my guess.  Nice to have those familiar with Australian taxes here or we would likely be as lost.  (Trying to put all the relevant info together for reference since I suspect this is going to be around for a bit.)

Added:  instructions for deductions

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Tax-return/2022/Tax-return/Deduction-questions-D1-D10/D9-Gifts-or-donations-2022/

 

Quote

D9 Gifts or donations 2022

This question is about gifts or donations you made. You can claim a deduction for:

• voluntary gifts of $2 or more made to an approved organisation
• a net contribution of more than $150 to an approved organisation for a fund-raising event (see Special circumstances and glossary 2022 for further conditions)
• contributions of $2 or more to
  • a registered political party
  • an independent candidate in an election for parliament
  • an individual who was an independent member of parliament during 2021–22 or, in limited circumstances, had been an independent member.

Approved organisations include:

• certain funds, organisations or charities which provide help in Australia
• some overseas aid funds
• school building funds
• some environmental or cultural organisations.

You can also claim a deduction for:

• a donation to an approved organisation of shares listed on an approved stock exchange valued at $5,000 or less
• a donation to a private ancillary fund
• entering into a conservation covenant.

Your receipt will usually indicate whether or not you can claim a deduction for the gift. If you are not sure, you can check with the organisation. If you are still not sure, go to abn.business.gov.auExternal Link or phone us to find out whether the organisation is an approved organisation.

Employees who make donations under salary sacrifice arrangements are not entitled to claim an income tax deduction for the donation on their own tax return.

You cannot claim a deduction for a gift or donation if you received something in return (for example, raffle tickets or dinner) except in certain fund-raising events; see Deductions for contributions relating to fund-raising events in Special circumstances and glossary 2022.

If you made one or more donations of $2 or more to bucket collections conducted by an approved organisation for natural disasters such as bushfires, severe storms and flooding, you can claim a tax deduction of up to $10 for the total of those contributions without a receipt.

If you used the web or phone to make a donation over $2, your web receipt or credit card statement is sufficient. If you donated through third parties, such as banks and retail outlets, the receipt they gave you is also sufficient. If you contributed through 'workplace-giving' your income statement or payment summary shows the amount you donated.

Did you make a gift or donation?

No	Go to question D10 Cost of managing tax affairs 2022, or return to main menu Individual tax return instructions 2022.
Yes	Read on.

Answering this question

If you made donations during 2021–22 to an approved organisation through your employer's payroll system (known as 'workplace-giving'), you still need to record the total amount of your donations at this item. Your income statement, payment summary, or other written statement from your employer showing the donated amount, is sufficient evidence to support your claim. You do not need to have a receipt.

If you made donations in a joint name, include only your share.

See Special circumstances and glossary 2022 for more information about the rules for deductions for:

• gifts of property, such as land and artworks
• contributions to fund-raising events
• gifts of shares valued at $5,000 or less
• contributions and gifts to registered political parties and independent candidates and members.

See Claiming tax deductions for more information about the rules and what records to keep:

• for cultural, environmental and heritage property gifts
• when entering into conservation covenants
• if you choose to spread over five years your deduction for certain types of gifts.

Completing your tax return

Step 1

Add up the amounts of all gifts and donations you are entitled to claim.

Step 2

Write the total at J item D9.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

I cannot believe how many out there are getting the basics wrong…someone should contact Reiss and let her know the reality.

https://religionnews.com/2022/10/31/lds-church-is-under-fire-in-australia/

Quote

Australia does not give any kind of tax exemption for donations to churches or houses of worship.

Another item…this document has the Charitable Trust Fund being created in 1980…it was only the LDSCA that was established in 2014 in response to the new tax laws.

https://news-nz.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-charitable-donations-in-australiaare-helping-people-around-the-world

https://acncpubfilesprodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/357ae4a8-38af-e811-a962-000d3ad24a0d-97dcd68b-9110-41d6-9a46-7bf07ae04731-Governing Document-b259230e-45b0-e811-a963-000d3ad24077-Trust_Deed_LDS_Charitable_Trust_Fund_(2).pdf

I wanted to read the whole thing, but couldn’t.  It is very tiring to read due to my right eye focusing on the distortion in my eye instead of what I am reading,so basically my eyes are looking at too different things much of the time (I have had a detached vitreous for 6, maybe 8 weeks now, it is much better than it was as the distortion is smaller and disappears more and it is only really a problem when reading, driving (find it too difficult to focus on the road), and just discovered tonight to do puzzles. 

.

[Calm]

nvm

Edited November 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

On 10/29/2022 at 9:26 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

as tithing used to be only 75% tax deductible here, I would hazard a guess that the government was actually involved in discussions as to what would be required to allow it to be 100% deductible.

This is an interesting discussion that seems to indicate the Church was part of discussions about the new tax law…(looks like the government solicited input)…it is dated 2012, but the page appears to have been created in 2019.  Is this just an upgrade or a result of an investigation bringing it up again?

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/ChurchofLatterdaySaints.pdf

Quote

2.11 Should charities registered on the ACNC be automatically authorised for fundraising activities under the proposed national legislation?
Yes. However the Church believes that this question raises a broader issue. The processes which are required before Funds established by Charities and Not-for- profits can be qualified as DGRs are notoriously opaque. This is particularly so where the proposed DGR would benefit ‘the needy’ outside Australia even in well recognised Third World Countries. The Church notes that almost immediately after New Zealand created its Charities Commission, it legislated to make all donations to a registered Charity tax deductible. Consideration was also given to granting tax deductions to unpaid volunteer working time, but that generous idea was deferred. The Church believes that Australia needs to become much more committed to encouraging private philanthropy. As one of the most affluent countries in the world, Australia also has a moral duty to provide for those less fortunate in the Third World. Just as Charities registered with the ACNC should be immediately authorised to conduct fundraising activities under the proposed new national legislation, so all donations made to them should be completely tax deductible and the unequal and opaque DGR scheme should be scrapped. Australian people need to be encouraged in their wish to care for the needy in their own community and internationally. Benevolent tax policy can be a great incentive to encourage philanthropic giving. Present tax policy acts as a substantial brake on the goodwill and generosity of the Australian people.

Why there can be considered a benefit to the government to allow for 100% deductibility…

 

Quote

We note that the NZ Government moved to provide tax deductibility for all contributions to registered charities at almost the same time as they established their Charities Commission. The majority partner in NZ’s coalition government was initially reluctant to implement this election policy of their junior coalition partner (United Futures – The Hon. Peter Dunne). There was also some delay while economic modelling and public consultation was undertaken, but ultimately the implementation experience has been completely positive.  Complete tax deductibility for donations to charities has been shown to encourage altruism in society and absolves government of large portions of responsibility for the delivery of charitable services in the community. Largely because they can harness the good will of volunteers, charities are normally much more efficient in delivering social services than are government departments.

 

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I just spoke with an Australian friend who serves in a Communications calling. She said the Church was approached for information/clarification before the original stories ran in May and again before these stories/broadcast ran. In both cases, the journalists chose to include nothing from the Church's highly detailed and thoroughly referenced submissions.

She also said that the 60 Minutes broadcast included a statement that the Church has chosen to 'remain silent' or something like that, which didn't go over too well with her!

I hope the Church puts out a statement about that.  

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By the way, did you mean 'respond litigiously'?

Yep.  Voice-to-text is iffy.  I corrected it.  Thanks!

-Smac

[Tacenda]

 

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I cannot believe how many out there are getting the basics wrong…someone should contact Reiss and let her know the reality.

https://religionnews.com/2022/10/31/lds-church-is-under-fire-in-australia/

Another item…this document has the Charitable Trust Fund being created in 1980…it was only the LDSCA that was established in 2014 in response to the new tax laws.

https://news-nz.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-charitable-donations-in-australiaare-helping-people-around-the-world

https://acncpubfilesprodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/357ae4a8-38af-e811-a962-000d3ad24a0d-97dcd68b-9110-41d6-9a46-7bf07ae04731-Governing Document-b259230e-45b0-e811-a963-000d3ad24077-Trust_Deed_LDS_Charitable_Trust_Fund_(2).pdf

I wanted to read the whole thing, but couldn’t.  It is very tiring to read due to my right eye focusing on the distortion in my eye instead of what I am reading,so basically my eyes are looking at too different things much of the time (I have had a detached vitreous for 6, maybe 8 weeks now, it is much better than it was as the distortion is smaller and disappears more and it is only really a problem when reading, driving (find it too difficult to focus on the road), and just discovered tonight to do puzzles. 

.

I couldn't do all that you do with lack of sleep and other health problems. I admire you for the research you put it with all that you have to handle. I'm not able to do a tenth of what you and others do to find the truth in these matters. I appreciate the detective work Calm! 

[smac97]

Jana Riess weighs in, with her typical approach intact:

Quote

LDS Church finances are under fire in Australia

If the reports are true, the government has every right to be angry. This kind of financial practice looks terrible for the church. It feels covert and deceptive.

"If."  Has there been any indication that the government is "angry?"

Meanwhile, I wonder if Jana makes use of any tax laws that lower her tax burden, and if so if that "feels covert and deceptive." kind of things.

Quote

The opening of the “60 Minutes” segment doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence in its accuracy about Mormonism as a whole. 

Neither, frankly, does the bulk of Jana's commentary about the Church.  With friends like her...

The piece is so slanted and heavy-handed that I can't help but wonder if that alone invites a bit of skepticism the other way (in the eyes of reasonably fairminded viewers, that is, not Jana).

Quote

One early sequence shows a white-shirted missionary heading to a doorbell all alone (where is his companion?) while gospel music plays in the background (I only wish we had such powerful and uplifting worship music in the church).

Even when a media outlet caricatures the Church, Jana perseveres in finding a way to turn that into a criticism of the Church.  One almost admires her creativity.

Quote

It states “Mormons are required to hand over 10% of their income,” which makes it sound like there is no choice involved and that all members cough up a full 10% of their income in tithing just for the privilege of sitting in the pews.

Yes, Jana, it does indeed sound like they are not fairly characterizing the Church.  Like they didn't take much time or effort to understand even basic things like missionary companionships, church music, and tithing.  Like they instead lined up an array of disgruntled former Latter-day Saints and let them use 60 Minutes to launch a sectarian assault on their former faith.

So why are you giving unjustified credence to their reporting?

Quote

All of that is just within the first four minutes of the 19-minute investigative segment. It’s an inauspicious beginning: If the reporters did not manage to get these basic facts right about the Utah-based church, what did they get wrong about its alleged financial mismanagement?

A fantastic question.  Another good one: If you harbor substantive suspicions about the credibility of this "investigative segment," why start your article with statements like "the government has every right to be angry," the Church's conduct "looks terrible" and "feels covert and deceptive," and so on?

Quote

From there, though, the report stops trying to make under-researched generalizations about the religion and turns to the specifics of how the church has conducted itself financially in Australia.

A team from The Sydney Morning Herald, the Canadian Broadcasting Co. and The Age has been investigating the church in Australia for months, with the first of the stories coming out in April. The past few days have brought a fresh round of revelations.

The reporters assert that the church created what The Age referred to as “a shell company” to exploit a loophole in Australian law. 

The Church "exploit{ing} a loophole" is code for "fully complying with the law in a way its opponents and critics - dislike and want to weaponize against it."

Quote

The reports are stating that the church created a “charitable trust fund” and directed Australian Saints to send their tithing and other donations to that trust fund rather than to the church itself. They could then claim the tax exemption for contributing to a charity.

But if I am understanding it correctly, Australian law then requires the registered charities to distribute much of that money within Australia and to have that distribution overseen locally, with all decisions made by Australians who run the charity from within the country.

I hope the Australian folks on this board will weigh in here.  Regarding the "distribute much that money within Australia" bit, is Jana's "understanding" as stated here correct?

Quote

Instead, what appears to have happened is that Australians’ tithing dollars got centralized in Salt Lake City under the larger umbrella of the denomination’s charitable arm, which then disbursed the funds as it wished.

"If I am understanding it correctly..."

"What appears to have happened..."

These are some fairly pivotal factual and legal points that ought to be more definitively laid down before relying on them to make pronouncements about the Church's ethics.  But hey, it's Jana Riess.  Is the Church ever good enough in her eyes?  Will it ever earn any sort of good faith presumption or benefit of the doubt from her?  I'm not holding my breath.

Quote

The website of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits commission lists the “L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund” as a registered charity in Australia, reporting in November 2021 that it had received AU$100,211,557, more than 99% of which was from donations and bequests. Of that, it spent AU$7,810 for charitable purposes and reported no employee salaries or other expenses.

Which, if true, kinda makes you wonder where the rest of the donated funds have gone.

Nobody is getting rich off the Church.  Those who are situated to potentially live like robber barons by spending the Widow's Mite on themselves (the General Authorities) demonstrably do not do that.  

Per Hamba, the Church provided "highly detailed and thoroughly referenced submissions" to 60 Minutes, which was ignored in favor of the broadcast including a statement that the Church has chosen to "remain silent."  It is not uncommon to see letting the Church speak for itself resulting in harshing the narrative being told by its critics.  Who needs that kind of buzzkill?

This is why I hope the Church puts out a public statement.

Quote

As The Age put it:

“LDS Charities Australia has no paid staff, Australian website, expenses or infrastructure to run what purports to be one of the country’s major charities, collecting more in individual donations than Oxfam, Beyond Blue or Caritas Australia, the Catholic Church’s international aid charity.”

A charitable organization with essentially no overhead is . . . bad?

Quote

The church says it has done nothing wrong, and it’s possible that what it has done will turn out to be legal. That’s what has happened in Canada, where the church is also under investigation for its use of members’ tithes. The CBC reported last week that the “Mormon church in Canada moved $1B out of the country tax-free—and it’s legal.”

"It's possible that what {the Church} has done will turn out to be legal," she said, through gritted teeth.

Quote

I’m sure the Australian case will continue to draw scrutiny, and it should. While I’m not persuaded that the investigative reports have all the facts, and I’m open to hearing the church’s explanation.

And yet despite having doubts about the factual quality of the investigation, and despite the Church not having yet said anything about it, Jana publicly assumes the worst about the Church.  To wit:

Quote

This kind of financial practice looks terrible for the church. It feels covert and deceptive. Creating a “charity” that appears to be in name only is unfair to other religions in Australia that have played by the rules. It’s unfair to the Australian government, which has been shortchanged millions in taxes. And it’s unfair to those tithe-paying Latter-day Saints Down Under who had a right to assume their tithing was going where it was supposed to.

Oi.

The supposed "scandal" here is that

A) the Australian Saints are giving generous charitable donations,

B) the Church has lawfully structured those donations to allow its members to claim a tax deduction that would otherwise not be available,

C) without this structure - which appears to fully comply with Australian law - the Australian Saints would be paying more in taxes to the government, and

D) some people already prejudiced against the Church (essentially all of the participants in the report, and now Jana Riess as well) dislike this state of affairs.

So the moral thing to do is ignore the law and give more money to the State.  

Thank you, Jana, for clearing that up.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 1, 2022 by smac97

[Harry T. Clark]

Being a church, perhaps it shouldn't be so aggressive in looking for tax loopholes?  The optics surely are terrible even if legal.

[Rain]

On 10/30/2022 at 3:50 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Easy. Australia should recognise the value of all donations to registered charities like the rest of the Anglosphere.

Arizona has a tax credit that is charitable. In order to get the credit you need to make sure the organization is on the list. They have a similar one for foster care. So yes, except for maybe maintaining the list and making sure charities qualify for it I think it would be easy to do it that way.

 Here is what it takes to be an Arizona qualifying charity for 2023. Australia could do it quit similar or different.

On 10/30/2022 at 3:50 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

And in fact, the last time I looked into this, the Church had made submissions to the Australian Government recommending that very approach for the benefit of all religious bodies.

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Rain

[ksfisher]

39 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Being a church, perhaps it shouldn't be so aggressive in looking for tax loopholes?  The optics surely are terrible even if legal.

So you'd like the church to pay more taxes than it is legally obligated to pay?

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Being a church, perhaps it shouldn't be so aggressive in looking for tax loopholes?  The optics surely are terrible even if legal.

Should other types of charities also be so unguarded with the funds that they receive in donations?  Or are churches the only type of non-profit that shouldn't be expected to carry out their fiduciary responsibilities with care?

[smac97]

An object lesson I just taught myself:

I came across this clip last night on YouTube: "Elon Musk firing Twitter Exec on AIR - Joe Rogan Podcast"

We've all seen plenty of news coverage in the past few days about Musk's purchase of Twitter, and of his stated intention to fire 75% of Twitter employees.  Regarding such things I have felt . . . nothing.  People get fired all the time.  Musk just spent billions buying a company, and he is perfectly entitled to "clean house" if he wants.  But the above video has him firing this lady in an unnecessary, cruel, vindictive way.  And not just fire her, but publicly humiliate her.  With malice.

I'm broadly ambivalent about Elon Musk.  He is certainly an interesting figure, and will likely end up with a popular legacy matching or exceeding that of other tech giants (Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Brin and Page, etc.).  Nevertheless, I just don't care about these folks much in and of themselves.  I will never meet any of them, and their effect on my life is really attenuated, coming almost entirely through the products and services provided by their companies.  I acknowledge that with massive wealth comes massive influence and power, so I do think it is important that the government make sure these guys and their companies are complying with the law.  But in the main, their personal foibles and flaws, are only nominally interesting to me.

However, last night I watched the above video and, regarding Musk, immediately thought something like: "What.  A.  Jerk.  It's hard enough to lose your job, even if you deserve to get fired.  But nobody deserves to be subjected to abject public humiliation like this."

Then, this morning, I came across Jana Riess' article and surveyed her standard MO of casually and unfairly (and often ignorantly) disparaging the Church.  I think she is so predisposed to think the worst of the Church that she reflexively takes disparagements of it as presumptively true and accurate, even to the extent of ignoring legitimate questions about the accuracy of the 60 Minutes piece.  That is, she nominally acknowledges, but then totally ignores, legitimate questions of accuracy and fairness.  These are just speed bumps on the way to her negative assessment of the Church.

Weirdly, after reading Jana's article my thoughts wandered back to the above video about Elon Musk.  Last night I had thought that the editing of the video was a bit odd, with jump cuts, zooms, and other edits that seemed a bit hinky.  However, the substantive content of the video had triggered in me an immediate negative perception of Musk, such that in the moment I pretty much ignored the hinkiness of the clip.  This morning, after reading Jana's article, the video came to mind, along with my reaction to it.  So I went and took a second look at the video, this time pulling it up on my laptop (last night I had just glanced at it on my phone).  As it turns out, the description on the search results page of YouTube is . . . illuminating:

"Disclaimer - Parody."

Yeesh.  In retrospect, this should have been pretty obvious.  I've watched several clips of Joe Rogan's podcast, but this one seemed a bit incongruent in terms of editing, the intrusive big blue drip logo in the upper right corner, the lightning bolt down the middle, the audio ("You're fired" is pretty obviously dubbed in), and so on.

But none of that mattered in the moment last night because I let my reflexive and emotionalistic "What a Jerk" response predominate over, say, cautious circumspection.  The video is edited to cast Elon Musk in the worst possible light (albeit as a parody).  It was created to calculatedly direct viewers toward the maker's preferred response, and it worked.  It was effective in the moment because I wasn't really paying attention, and because I don't know much about Musk.

I wonder how many Australians (most of whom, I think, have only a fleeting familiarity with the Church) will, like I did with the above clip about Elon Musk, let their reflexive and emotionalistic "What a Jerk" response to the 60 Minutes segment predominate in reaching what will almost certainly be a negative assessment of the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 1, 2022 by smac97

[Chum]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So you'd like the church to pay more taxes than it is legally obligated to pay?

I'll answer yes to this. For example, I like when my ward pays sales taxes - which offsets the many services members use to facilitate worship (eg:streets/traffic control, water/sewer/drain).

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Chum said:

I'll answer yes to this. For example, I like when my ward pays sales taxes - which offsets the many services members use to facilitate worship (eg:streets/traffic control, water/sewer/drain).

I completely agree with the church paying taxes.  But I wouldn't want my ward to pay more sales tax than is required by the law, for example.  I'd rather than money go towards something the church decides.  But that's because I trust the church to handle it's money better than I trust the government to handle it's money.  

I don't have much faith in government spending, though I do believe that taxes serve a purpose.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I couldn't do all that you do with lack of sleep and other health problems. I admire you for the research you put it with all that you have to handle. I'm not able to do a tenth of what you and others do to find the truth in these matters. I appreciate the detective work Calm! 

Since I can't up-vote your post, I'm doing that here.  👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I'll answer yes to this. For example, I like when my ward pays sales taxes - which offsets the many services members use to facilitate worship (eg:streets/traffic control, water/sewer/drain).

Your ward isn't paying sales tax.

I would rather that the money that I am willingly giving to the church go to the church, and not the government.

Edited November 1, 2022 by ksfisher

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Quote

So you'd like the church to pay more taxes than it is legally obligated to pay?

I'll answer yes to this. For example, I like when my ward pays sales taxes - which offsets the many services members use to facilitate worship (eg:streets/traffic control, water/sewer/drain).

Does that happen?  

Moreover, it seems like all taxes can be characterized as going toward "services members use" (streets, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Does that happen?

Sure. I've never seen a tax exempt ID used for any ward I've been in. 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Your ward isn't paying sales tax.

Yes. It is.

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I would rather that the money that I am willingly giving to the church go to the church, and not the government

I've never lived anywhere with just one government. I live under at least 3 here. It's better than building my own storm drain system.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Chum

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Chum said:

Yes. It is.

Where do you live?  I was assuming you live in the United States where churches are exempt from paying sales tax.