> David Nielsen: I thought we were gonna change the world. And we just grew the bank account.
Ahh ... Welcome to the real world.
That's what I used to believe long back. Later I realized that most so called NGOs are just for lining up the pockets of the management, and to help them lead a luxurious life paid for by the NGOs 'administrative expenses'.
> David Nielsen says since it was created in 1997, the reserve fund has swelled beyond $100 billion …twice the size of Harvard's endowment or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
David Nielsen: You could solve big problems with $100 billion.
I get his point. But there is a counter argument too.
I have seen some business houses establish Trusts that own shares of various companies.
The annual income of these trusts from interest, dividends and profits etc goes into various social activities.
This ensures that the organization will last for decades instead of spending all the money in one go.
That allows them to take up long term projects was my understanding.
----
The real issue is that the Church claims that they are investing money in humanitarian activities and the whistleblower says that they are not. But I think that the whistleblower might not have access to those accounts as those belong to the Church, he was with the investment arm.
----
IRS might be looking to expand it's Tax base.
Taxing Religious organizations can be a good rallying cry for Democratic voter base.
After the rich and wealthy, go after the religions to raise more Taxes.
> I think that the whistleblower might not have access to those accounts as those belong to the Church, he was with the investment arm.
He does clarify that in the interview: the money coming into the fund has never been used for any of that. It’s 150B stashed vs 1B/year that’s actually being spent on “humanitarian activities”.
Exactly. But my point is that he won't have access to that data.
As that would be the Church's expense accounts.
The whistleblower was in the investment arm.
The whole issue boils down to these two statements :
>Christopher Waddell: No, because then everyone would be telling us what they wanted us to do with the money.
> Last year the church says it spent over a billion dollars on humanitarian aid, including food production.
> Christopher Waddell: In any given month you may have an average of nine transfers going from Ensign Peak back to the church to fund all church operations. All humanitarian work-- education work, all the work of the church they fund.
> David Nielsen: Money's going in and out of the cash accounts all the time. But Ensign Peak's funds were never used for any charitable purpose, as to my knowledge the whole time I was there. So there's a bit of a distinction here that's important.
I just find it funny ( from what I understood of the article ) that they don't have to give any audit the accounts and submit to IRS.
Let them not get taxed as a religious organization.
But at least the money trail is something the IRS and Government should be made aware of.
I believe the larger line of valid questions stem from the SEC. There are rules around organizations being required to disclose investments when they have over $X in assets under management.
So the SEC did what it does to hedge funds for failing to disclose, slaps them on the wrist with some fine less than 1%.
It worked out great in 1917 when the Bolsheviks went after the rich, then the religious, then the successful farmers who had been serfs a scant 50 years before. Eventually no one competent is left to counter balance or stand against the authoritarian government and your society is looted and gutted by high ideals co-opted by the most violent and psychopathic thugs around.
Ten years gulag for prostitution, and twenty for the much worse sin of being a nun.
There is a segment in the 60 minutes piece where they clearly show a church document, which shows something like 1.3 billion dollars being invested from Ensign Peak, the church hedge fund, into City Creek, a mall in downtown SLC, that Nielsen (the whistleblower) says his boss showed him.
In Utah it was well known and a topic of conversation so to speak that the church had invested so much money into a commercial venture. There also a segment in 60 minutes about the church bailing out an insurance company they control using these funds. It can really get under your skin coming from Utah, where I saw kids from my high school go off to central Africa essentially to convince people to pay tithing to the church, which we'd ostensibly see as not so bad given that it will help people. If it is the case, and if you've ever met some rich boomer Mormon dudes I can assure you it doesn't take a lot of convincing, look how they run our legislature, that the church took people's money, made a hedge fund, and now starts businesses which benefit... only they really know the completely details of... then it does not take much to feel outraged.
But I also the think the church at the very highest echelons consists of what are probably some very distinguished people who've seen a thing or two or feel a higher calling, that also does not seem far-fetched. I'd imagine being in charge of all that money is really something, having a little bit of a persecution and chosen-people complex is also something, as usual there are interesting social dynamics with Mormons.
I understand why these organizations build up big trusts, but I'd say the social infrastructure of religion is a different way of ensuring organizational longevity. I wonder if they could draw down the money and spend in service of that somehow.
Ahh ... Welcome to the real world. That's what I used to believe long back. Later I realized that most so called NGOs are just for lining up the pockets of the management, and to help them lead a luxurious life paid for by the NGOs 'administrative expenses'.
> David Nielsen says since it was created in 1997, the reserve fund has swelled beyond $100 billion …twice the size of Harvard's endowment or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. David Nielsen: You could solve big problems with $100 billion.
I get his point. But there is a counter argument too.
I have seen some business houses establish Trusts that own shares of various companies. The annual income of these trusts from interest, dividends and profits etc goes into various social activities.
This ensures that the organization will last for decades instead of spending all the money in one go. That allows them to take up long term projects was my understanding.
----
The real issue is that the Church claims that they are investing money in humanitarian activities and the whistleblower says that they are not. But I think that the whistleblower might not have access to those accounts as those belong to the Church, he was with the investment arm.
----
IRS might be looking to expand it's Tax base. Taxing Religious organizations can be a good rallying cry for Democratic voter base. After the rich and wealthy, go after the religions to raise more Taxes.