Joseph Smith Rings

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

How do mission funds work these days? To whom are payments made and do amounts vary at all from mission to mission?
LBP

parents pay for it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

parents pay for it.

I sort of counted on that part of it, but thanks for playing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I sort of counted on that part of it, but thanks for playing.

And boy is Creekster going to pay.

[ute4ever]

About 75-100 posts ago there was an inquiry of President Monson's needs/reimbursments, and would his ordination at a relatively young age preclude him from earning his own investments and retirement.

A few points:

- He owns a cabin in Provo Canyon, next to my friend Jill's. While I realize not everyone owns a cabin, they are not all that uncommon either and his is a simple one-story affair, which I assume is relatively inexpensive.

- He was 36 when called to the Q12. My friend Brandon is 26, a CFO and owns a $745k 23rd-story penthouse in downtown San Diego, and a Corvette. I mention this because while uncommon, it is possible to build a small fortune at a young age and if the Lord was preparing President Monson for 50 years of service in the Q12, I assume the Lord would prepare a way for him to provide for his family for decades down the road.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

That's very new to me and I am sceptical considering money directed to missionaries is taken from the general mission fund of each Ward - Stake - Region etc., which is made up soley of contributions of members and does not come from the church, and is considered a charitable donation and not income.

I'm older and for the first year of my mission my parents sent me money directly, before the whole mission equal payment method. That money most definately wasn't taxable because it was savings.

The source of the money is a charitable donation (and is not taxable to the church). The distribution of that money is taxable. Otherwise, every church employee could argue that they should be exempt from taxation (if they could show their money came from donations). It isn't any different for any tax-exempt organization. Take a charity with employees. The employees are all taxed on their income even though the money being paid to them is the result of charitable contributions.

Like I said, though, it shouldn't matter with the church missionaries because the amount paid to them is so small they wouldn't owe tax anyways. The standard deduction would be larger than their income.

[pelagius]

Ok, here is how much the apostles make, or their living allowance if you prefer, using the best data available. In 1899 Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smith (both apostles) received stipends of $250 a month (see Mormonism in Transition, page 100). So that's $3000 a year. If that has kept pace with inflation over the last 108 years (about 3% on average), then apostles would receive a stipend of about $73,000 a year

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The source of the money is a charitable donation (and is not taxable to the church). The distribution of that money is taxable. Otherwise, every church employee could argue that they should be exempt from taxation (if they could show their money came from donations). It isn't any different for any tax-exempt organization. Take a charity with employees. The employees are all taxed on their income even though the money being paid to them is the result of charitable contributions.

Like I said, though, it shouldn't matter with the church missionaries because the amount paid to them is so small they wouldn't owe tax anyways. The standard deduction would be larger than their income.

Is it truly income?

If rent, food and transportation are provided as a deduction by the 501(c)(3), do we call it income?

I thought the Code allows for charitable orgs to pay for volunteers food, room and transportation without considering it income. Are the missionaries truly considered "employee"? I don't think so, but I haven't read the recent opinions.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

About 75-100 posts ago there was an inquiry of President Monson's needs/reimbursments, and would his ordination at a relatively young age preclude him from earning his own investments and retirement.

A few points:

- He owns a cabin in Provo Canyon, next to my friend Jill's. While I realize not everyone owns a cabin, they are not all that uncommon either and his is a simple one-story affair, which I assume is relatively inexpensive.

- He was 36 when called to the Q12. My friend Brandon is 26, a CFO and owns a $745k 23rd-story penthouse in downtown San Diego, and a Corvette. I mention this because while uncommon, it is possible to build a small fortune at a young age and if the Lord was preparing President Monson for 50 years of service in the Q12, I assume the Lord would prepare a way for him to provide for his family for decades down the road.

I don't really know how it works for the 12, as I've only met them on a few occasions, never feeling comfortable about asking, "Gee Elder Monson, how big a stipend does the Church give guys any way?"

I understood back when the WSJ did something on the seventies, that the seventies were paid about 70 and that President Hinckley received several hundred thousand dollars but that was on imperfect information.

In reality, because these guys do a lot of work, obviously leading modest lifestyles, at least from my perspective, the Church seems to be doing it correctly. In other positions, as employees, the payscale for Church employees sucks big time. One high level employee who loved working for the Church still lamented, "because the Church lives off of 10% of everybody else's earnings, the Church believes we should live off of ten percent of what normal people earn."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't really know how it works for the 12, as I've only met them on a few occasions, never feeling comfortable about asking, "Gee Elder Monson, how big a stipend does the Church give guys any way?"

I understood back when the WSJ did something on the seventies, that the seventies were paid about 70 and that President Hinckley received several hundred thousand dollars but that was on imperfect information.

In reality, because these guys do a lot of work, obviously leading modest lifestyles, at least from my perspective, the Church seems to be doing it correctly. In other positions, as employees, the payscale for Church employees sucks big time. One high level employee who loved working for the Church still lamented, "because the Church lives off of 10% of everybody else's earnings, the Church believes we should live off of ten percent of what normal people earn."

I will say this much- having known several general authorities and even spending time at their homes, I can assure anyone interested that they do get paid, but not well. There is no chance anyone in their right mind would agree to the amounts they receive if they were negotiating an employment contract.

I will also say that even as an employee of the church, or a person who performs work for the church in their regular profession, you shouldn't ever expect much money from the transaction. You should also expect to work more hours than you would ever want to work. In short, the church is an awful employer. If they pay their employees that poorly, you know they aren't "paying" their volunteers any better.

Your reward for church service and church employment certainly isn't going to be financial. Given that fact, I don't understand why people then feel the need to pretend that no church leader receives any money at all. They do get money. They have to get money. They probably deserve more money.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Is it truly income?

If rent, food and transportation are provided as a deduction by the 501(c)(3), do we call it income?

I thought the Code allows for charitable orgs to pay for volunteers food, room and transportation without considering it income. Are the missionaries truly considered "employee"? I don't think so, but I haven't read the recent opinions.

I could be wrong, but my understanding has always been that any payments to missionaries were taxable.