There are two reasons why I think the modest living allowance for general authorities may not be so modest:

1) No Checks and Balances:
Like corporate CEO's who have compliant boards, people on the inside of LDS, Inc. are essentially writing their own pay checks. There are no disclosures or outside parties regulating the level of pay. Tithe payers have no way knowing if living allowances are reasonable or not. If compensation were reasonable, why not disclose it and satisfy the question once and for all? Like the rise of CEO pay levels, I am willing to bet compensation at the highest levels of LDS, Inc has mirrored what has happened in corporate America.

My own work/life experience has taught me one important thing: access to lots of cash with no accountability or oversight always leds to corruption.

2) Need to Provide Appropriate Incentives:
An open mind and a half hour on google is all that is needed to see through the lies of LDS, Inc. Maintaining a lie requires a lot of energy and cash. I agree with Holland, general authories are not dodo's. They are often very educated and very experienced people, but they are also human beings. A higher level of pay is necessary to keep everyone in the same tent pissing out. If LDS, Inc nickle and dimed them on pay and benefits, you would see more defections and disloyalty.

These points are valid reasons I quit paying tithing. A non-accountable corporation that big (est. 35 billion in assets) does not need money given to them with no strings attached.

Being a member of that church doesn't have any legal meaning. What a deal! Millions of people handing you money, and you don't have any legal obligation to them whatever. "Members" are not stockholders and can expect no return from their investment except for some nebulous metaphysical promises. Furthermore, veiled threats are issued to keep them paying. It's as close to being a con scheme as you can get without running afoul of the law.

Furthermore, that's not enough for them. They then demand what amounts to slave labor as well. You might expect volunteer labor for charitable works, but ChurchCo is using "missionaries" and volunteers to operate profit-making enterprises.

I think there are two pay scales. There is one pay scale for the GAs who truly believe, and there is a pay scale for the ones who have figured it out, and are sticking their hands back into the cookie jar when no one is looking.

I am not so worried about their modest salary, as much as do the GA's and President pay taxes on their salary or are they clergy and get it tax free? I am thinking tax free.

They probably are exempt from the 10% mormon tax also.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are in the top 10% of wage earners in the country. Most people in America would probably be thrilled to be paid such a 'modest' income.

Their salaries are taxed, but I think they can be given use of a house ("a parsonage") tax free, and they get to travel a lot on the church's dime. That's generally tax free.

so, if the salaries were indeed "modest" the church would be publishing them all the time.

The church brags every time there is a disaster, and asks its members to wear matching t-shirts so everyone will know "the mormons" helped the victims.

The church has hired expensive PR companies to spread the word.

The church owns and operates several TV and radio stations, and of course the DesNews. These outlets provide plenty of opportunity to get the information out-if they wanted to.

The church bragged about donating a billion dollars over a 20+ year period to "charitable causes". (They forgot to do the math, this works out to only a few dollars per member per year...oops)

Clearly, based on its own past behavior, the church believes the salaries and living expenses paid to the GA's are something to hide, not something to publish. They would not hide low salaries.........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2012 07:28PM by danboyle.

Clergy do not get their salaries tax free.

forbiddencokedrinker,

Just asking for your opinion (or anyone else's here) because you mentioned GAs who truly believe. I ask because I just can't imagine that they are all, or have all been, corrupt. Maybe that's naivete, though. Do you think there are GAs who really believe?

Would that person be someone who has not seen the contradictions? Because unless his head is firmly in the sand, how could he NOT see the contradictions--he hears about the controversies but doesn't use his own God-given (if you will) gift of a brain to study the matter himself? Does he toe the line, too, and not question but simply obey? Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

OK, I don't remember where I've read this, but has anyone heard of GA's getting forgiveable loans? So it's not "income" for them, because it remains a liability until death. And after the GA dies the loans are forgiven. However, the loan can be called for repayment at any time and for any reason. As long as they stay loyal, and BS all the way up to their eye balls in defense of TSCC, the loans will never be called for repayment. This seems like a very convenient way to get around paying high salaries, and even having to pay taxes on that money. Not to mention it would be one sure fire way to keep them loyal. I'm no accountant, so I'm not even sure if this is legal or possible, but I read that somewhere, although it might be conjecture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2012 10:33PM by Mormoney.

Mormoney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, I don't remember where I've read this, but has
> anyone heard of GA's getting forgiveable loans?
> So it's not "income" for them, because it remains
> a liability until death. And after the GA dies
> the loans are forgiven. However, the loan can be
> called for repayment at any time and for any
> reason. As long as they stay loyal, and BS all
> the way up to their eye balls in defense of TSCC,
> the loans will never be called for repayment.
> This seems like a very convenient way to get
> around paying high salaries, and even having to
> pay taxes on that money. Not to mention it would
> be one sure fire way to keep them loyal. I'm no
> accountant, so I'm not even sure if this is legal
> or possible, but I read that somewhere, although
> it might be conjecture.

-------------------------

Sounds very similar to a tax avoidance scheme that has been in the news in the UK recently. A well known Brit commedian (Jimmy Carr) was involved in a tax scheme, based on his salary/earnings being paid directly to a company who then 'loaned' him back his own money. As a result he was able to pay as little as 1% of his £3,000,000 annual earnings in tax.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9341797/Jimmy-Carr-tax-avoidance-scheme-investigated-by-HMRC.html

He died owing the church about a million dollars, which was quite a lot of money back then. The church forgave the loan.

I think it was Michael Quinn who wrote about this in one of his books.

No wonder Bring'em Young was such a successful business man, he had an unlimited, never-pay-back credit line.

...Why didn't I think about the fact that we don't actually know what they give the GA. And while they say "modest", the fact is that they aren't telling us a number. I think when I was young, I asked someone about this, because I remember being told "It's just enough for them to live and travel for the church." Starting to think that is bs...

Gordon B. Hinckley explained the living allowance was "modest" when compared with corporate executive remuneration.

The idea is that executives at corporate board level would likely earn far more.

I have advised GAs on their taxes so I have some idea of the amounts involved. I won't disclose them but, if the general membership were aware of the 'gross equivalent' (i.e. grossed up to pre-tax levels), they would not consider them "modest".

interesting...

I understand why you would not disclose exact amounts, but would you be willing to provide a range?

Right now I'm inclined to think $100-180K USD per year.

whoa.

The last figure I heard about was about 10 years ago--$160K if my memory is correct. So it's a fair guess that their salary is currently $200-$250K?? Add in the benefits: an excellent health plan with no co-pays or deductibles, holidays, generous vacation time, expense accounts, corporate-owned cars and limousines, etc. That would bring it to at least the $250-$300K range, maybe?

I'd stay in the church for that! (just kidding. I wouldn't sell my soul for 100X that)

***just looked up some info--it may be that their "stipend" is based on their former career salary, some get less than others, some more. ??



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2012 05:19PM by gnosticguru.

you were given the Second Anointing? You were considered one to trust?

...I fully sustained them, I bought into the whole thing hook, line and sinker. I had nothing to do with the finances of those who arranged the second anointing for me.

One of the qualifications for those to be nominated for the SA is that they will never apostatize. They considered that would be impossible in my case and so did I. After all, I had a sure knowledge it was true.

When I found out it was not true I could do nothing else but say that. It was a great disappointment to me that others could not be honest but choose to continue the deception.

You have to think about the "modest" living wage, plus the free church owned apartment, plus the free servants, plus the free medical care, plus the 24 hour security (and we know how paranoid an elderly person can be), all the free travel, and it soon turns into the dream retirement for most elderly people. So they have to go to a bunch of meetings, and do a bunch of work from time to time, most elderly are dying to get involved in something that keeps them busy.

"Gordon B. Hinckley explained the living allowance was "modest" when compared with corporate executive remuneration"

Let's be honest, senior executives of similarly large multi-$bn global corporations would be on significant high six-figure / and probably more likely seven-figure salaries and perks. Therefore GBH's interpretation of TSCC leaders taking 'modest' living allowances could still amount to something that would surprise most members.

I tend to take the view that the church doesn't openly publicise what these 'modest' allowances are, precisely because it would cause concern among much of the membership.

In reality the church knows full well that it can take a highly secretive approach and that the sheeple will always give them the benefit of doubt and not dare question the use of the lord's sacred funds.

You can look on various county assessors websites, using GA names and find out what the county assesses their homes at. Packer had a home values at over 2 mill a few years back. IIRC, Oaks and Eyring lived up by the Bountiful temple and had homes worth near a million.

I don't suppose you get those types of home on "modest" salaries. I am a degreed engineer with 27 years experience and an MBA and can not approach homes like that.

I say bull $hit to the whole idea that they are "modest". Most of us would feel like we had died and gone to heaven to have homes like those.