11 ms·

Churches should go back to being churches. No reason a religious organization needs a 100 billion warchest. What they are planning to eventually do with it? Bu

Churches should go back to being churches. No reason a religious organization needs a 100 billion warchest. What they are planning to eventually do with it? Buy off my local pol? Buy Utah and secede? Never mind the advantageous tax treatment enjoyed. This disturbs me.

wincy 7y ago
They’re preparing for the end of the world. They call themselves “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, and take that moniker seriously.
- driverdan 7y ago
  That argument doesn't make sense. If TEOTWAWKI happens their investments will become worthless.
  - tomrod 7y ago
    They believe they will not only survive it, but become the world-wide government. The $100B in holdings are a small part of their assets. They have large real estate holdings (e.g. 2% of Florida) as well as a very diversified portfolio.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Latter Day Saints don't believe TEOTW involves the destruction of the world or even of world governments. Only the "wicked" will be destroyed at the second coming. I.e. Germany and the German government will likely still exist and operate for some amount of years after the second coming, but all wicked Germans will die off. The remaining Germans are all good people and will all eventually be converted to true Christianity (including good atheists) Nations will slowly be absorbed into Zion, a communist utopian nation ruled by Jesus Christ himself and the world will see unprecedented prosperity for 1000 years.
Findeton 7y ago
I would be happy if churches had exactly the same status as any other business. Nothing less, nothing more.
- dnautics 7y ago
  It's very easy to incorporate different types of businesses under tax exempt nonprofits under codes that are not 501(c)3. The problem is if you are not incorporated as a nonprofit, if someday you flip to losing money because you're giving it away, the irs will not be happy, and may move to revoke your incorporation.
- mattrp 7y ago
  It is often the case that they do. For example, the church that I attend bought adjacent property to keep as vacant open space.. but since there is no church on the land, the church pays property tax on it just like any other non tax exempt entity would. Kind of ironic since if it were farmland deemed open space it would be a different story in most places. Our tax code is not perfect but the path forward is to look at it in totality... the minute you try to solve one problem here, you’ll create a dozen there. Churches are global organizations... I’m sure it wouldn’t take much thinking, painful as it may be, for the Mormons to decide to hold their wealth outside of the US should our tax policies become unsustainable for them. Just because it’s a large number doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    > Our tax code is not perfect but the path forward is to look at it in totality... the minute you try to solve one problem here, you’ll create a dozen there. Not really. Remove all exemption, deductions, credits, and special treatments.
    - mattrp 7y ago
      Generally I’m with you but in the case of religion, I think it’s a bad idea to tax one’s belief in God. The key issue here is the state isn’t supreme... just because there is untaxed wealth doesn’t mean it automatically belongs to the government... especially if we believe in separation of church and state.
mattrp 7y ago
Before I even clicked to see the comments I knew this sentiment would be here. Why is it that anytime a news article is published about some org having a lot of money someone has to say something like this? They have a lot of money. So what? I’m also under the understanding everyone of their members has a years worth of food too. Kind of prescient with cironavirus running around? Full disclosure - I’m not a Mormon.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Of course the sentiment is here! Because it's reasonable! Look, I got no problem with what people believe or how they pray. But 100 billion isn't needed for that so the purpose is??? Will it involve me? And the tax treatment complaint is also perfectly reasonable. None of this is hatred for private property nor religion.
  - mattrp 7y ago
    In my view I think you would say this also about Bill gates... who are you to define what is a reasonable amount? I think a tax policy based on “reasonable” confiscation is not very sound or sustainable and probably worse policy than allowing churches to collect money tax free. At the same time there are laws in the US at least about how charities must use their cash and if they’ve broken these laws it would be a very serious case for them. Generally a “reasonable” discussion on HN would involve details of the case and further our understanding of the issue. But that really wasn’t on your mind was it... “My throwaway”?
    - mythrwy 7y ago
      Let's leave off the hostilities and spurious accusations please. Your confiscation point is valid. I don't know that is an equitable solution because private people did pay into the program at one point. I suppose what I'd like to see is religions limited to some multiple of working annual budget in assets. This avoids an entire set of perverse negative incentives. Grandfather it in and prevent further investment or collections until the assets come back to the level specified.
dannypgh 7y ago
"Go back to?" I don't know what period you're longing for, but it sounds like an outlier. The church history I'm familiar with is one where the Pope had power at least on par with the head of any government or military near their sphere of influence. Also, crusades. Churches amassing massive wealth is far from new. Nor do I suspect the LDS has even a small fraction of the Roman Catholic Church's wealth.

wincy 7y ago

They’re preparing for the end of the world. They call themselves “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, and take that moniker seriously.

driverdan 7y ago
That argument doesn't make sense. If TEOTWAWKI happens their investments will become worthless.
- tomrod 7y ago
  They believe they will not only survive it, but become the world-wide government. The $100B in holdings are a small part of their assets. They have large real estate holdings (e.g. 2% of Florida) as well as a very diversified portfolio.
- umvi 7y ago
  Latter Day Saints don't believe TEOTW involves the destruction of the world or even of world governments. Only the "wicked" will be destroyed at the second coming. I.e. Germany and the German government will likely still exist and operate for some amount of years after the second coming, but all wicked Germans will die off. The remaining Germans are all good people and will all eventually be converted to true Christianity (including good atheists) Nations will slowly be absorbed into Zion, a communist utopian nation ruled by Jesus Christ himself and the world will see unprecedented prosperity for 1000 years.

Findeton 7y ago

I would be happy if churches had exactly the same status as any other business. Nothing less, nothing more.

dnautics 7y ago
It's very easy to incorporate different types of businesses under tax exempt nonprofits under codes that are not 501(c)3. The problem is if you are not incorporated as a nonprofit, if someday you flip to losing money because you're giving it away, the irs will not be happy, and may move to revoke your incorporation.
mattrp 7y ago
It is often the case that they do. For example, the church that I attend bought adjacent property to keep as vacant open space.. but since there is no church on the land, the church pays property tax on it just like any other non tax exempt entity would. Kind of ironic since if it were farmland deemed open space it would be a different story in most places. Our tax code is not perfect but the path forward is to look at it in totality... the minute you try to solve one problem here, you’ll create a dozen there. Churches are global organizations... I’m sure it wouldn’t take much thinking, painful as it may be, for the Mormons to decide to hold their wealth outside of the US should our tax policies become unsustainable for them. Just because it’s a large number doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  > Our tax code is not perfect but the path forward is to look at it in totality... the minute you try to solve one problem here, you’ll create a dozen there. Not really. Remove all exemption, deductions, credits, and special treatments.
  - mattrp 7y ago
    Generally I’m with you but in the case of religion, I think it’s a bad idea to tax one’s belief in God. The key issue here is the state isn’t supreme... just because there is untaxed wealth doesn’t mean it automatically belongs to the government... especially if we believe in separation of church and state.

mattrp 7y ago

Before I even clicked to see the comments I knew this sentiment would be here. Why is it that anytime a news article is published about some org having a lot of money someone has to say something like this? They have a lot of money. So what? I’m also under the understanding everyone of their members has a years worth of food too. Kind of prescient with cironavirus running around? Full disclosure - I’m not a Mormon.

mythrwy 7y ago
Of course the sentiment is here! Because it's reasonable! Look, I got no problem with what people believe or how they pray. But 100 billion isn't needed for that so the purpose is??? Will it involve me? And the tax treatment complaint is also perfectly reasonable. None of this is hatred for private property nor religion.
- mattrp 7y ago
  In my view I think you would say this also about Bill gates... who are you to define what is a reasonable amount? I think a tax policy based on “reasonable” confiscation is not very sound or sustainable and probably worse policy than allowing churches to collect money tax free. At the same time there are laws in the US at least about how charities must use their cash and if they’ve broken these laws it would be a very serious case for them. Generally a “reasonable” discussion on HN would involve details of the case and further our understanding of the issue. But that really wasn’t on your mind was it... “My throwaway”?
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    Let's leave off the hostilities and spurious accusations please. Your confiscation point is valid. I don't know that is an equitable solution because private people did pay into the program at one point. I suppose what I'd like to see is religions limited to some multiple of working annual budget in assets. This avoids an entire set of perverse negative incentives. Grandfather it in and prevent further investment or collections until the assets come back to the level specified.

dannypgh 7y ago

"Go back to?" I don't know what period you're longing for, but it sounds like an outlier. The church history I'm familiar with is one where the Pope had power at least on par with the head of any government or military near their sphere of influence. Also, crusades. Churches amassing massive wealth is far from new. Nor do I suspect the LDS has even a small fraction of the Roman Catholic Church's wealth.