Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
Upon careful reading of the Mission Handbook Finance section there is one word that keep being repeated:
Reimbursement.
Very little is given to the Mission President until he has paid out of pocket up front.
The college tuition?
Only up to what it would cost to send them to BYU.
It does NOT cover Books, Housing and Living expenses for the college student. If the child is in at a State or Private college that costs more than BYU the President has to come up with the difference.
He has to pay for storing and keeping his own home safe while he is gone on his mission. He gets warned to report the sale of the house or rents received from it to his tax preparer.
Among things NOT covered by the Church
Any domestic, yard, or vehicle services performed by family members.
This one made me smile.
Guess someone has submitted a bill to the TSCC before for doing the own yard work? The yard work is supposed to be done by Facility Management.
Private automobile.
I wonder what the “Church Provided” automobile is like for a family??? The President gets to use it all the time unless his wife needs to borrow it to do the shopping or taking the kids to and from school. If she wanted to go away to a sports game with the kids, or take them to the zoo on Saturday she may not use the company car!
His auto life insurance is $50,000 and hers is $25,000! Yet if he lost his wife the money would barely cover his expenses! Obviously the $50,000 would cover hers!
Of course the Church cannot pay for personal computers and electronic devices…including Nooks and Xboxes…:D that’s acceptable.
Okay, the first and last month of travel expenses for the family are paid for by the Church from the Mission funds as the family goes and meets the mission and the missionaries.
All other travel WITH his family the Mission president must pay for up front and then get reimbursed…he doesn’t get it paid for; it’s his personal expense. So that would discourage his family from going with him about the Mission.
The wife is kept effectively out of the loop of being by her husband’s side as the Mission Presidents wife. If she wants to go with him for any Mission activity they must pay for it themselves. Then the Church will pay them back if they thought it was warranted for her to go because she can only go “occasionally” to a Mission activity.
Her primary work is to maintain the Mission Presidents home and keep his children in line. He is not free to help out because he must be out and about with the Missionaries.
I guess if one of his children was in a school play, or his wife was terribly sick with the flu he wouldn’t be allowed to stay home for a weekend and be a family man to enjoy the play or take up the slack so his wife can recover. Nothing like putting a little marital stress on a man while he’s ‘serving the lard’.
There is one great policy; Missionaries male or female may not baby sit the mission presidents children!
The Mission Office expense includes a housekeeper/cook for up to 20 hours a week. That does not have to be ‘reimbursed’ after the Mission President pays for it. So depending on how the service is rendered it could be a possible stress relief for the family, or make things worse.
I know there are a lot of “perks” paid for by the TSCC to the Mission President.
BUT
I hate ENDLESS reimbursement plans; it means you have to come up with the money first.
I had the US Air Force break one of my windows and crack another with one of their sonic booms. I called their number and was told they would replace my window AFTER I HAD PAID FOR IT AND SENT THEM THE BILL
I didn’t have the money to replace the window!
There was NO ONE who could or would come install it for any price in the little town where I lived.
The window was not a standard size and would have to be custom made.
I boarded it up, put a window shade and lace curtain over it and lived without.
(It became my contribution as a Patriot to my country!)
Sometimes you don’t get to do things even if you’re ‘reimbursed’ because you can’t afford it in the first place! You go without.
After reading the Mission Handbook it looks like a Mission President has to be very well off or have a pretty hefty cash flow to be able to afford everything the church will ‘reimburse” him for!
He gets a break on tuition, but not the books, and other living expenses for college, even at BYU his child does not get free housing and a cafeteria pass!
The manual tells him after the Facility Maintenance Manager inspects the Mission Home once a year the Manager will decide what improvements or changes will be done to the home.
I shudder to think what kind of fridge they might have or the bathrooms might all have carpet on the floors. I don’t know why people want carpet on a bathroom floor that gets gross and nasty from wet feet and the occasional flood from a clogged toilet. I hate living in ‘renters’ white painted rooms they’re depressing. Or what of that kitchen door that always sticks? Or the washing machine that has seen too many days? Or the oven that is too small? Or drapes/blinds that do not close without a major fight and prefer to stay at half-mast?
But I guess when people are ‘church broke’ it wouldn’t matter because any personality or sense of self has been swallowed up long ago. So they’ll put on their plastic smiles and give the mission hell!
Reimbursement.
Very little is given to the Mission President until he has paid out of pocket up front.
The college tuition?
Only up to what it would cost to send them to BYU.
It does NOT cover Books, Housing and Living expenses for the college student. If the child is in at a State or Private college that costs more than BYU the President has to come up with the difference.
He has to pay for storing and keeping his own home safe while he is gone on his mission. He gets warned to report the sale of the house or rents received from it to his tax preparer.
Among things NOT covered by the Church
Any domestic, yard, or vehicle services performed by family members.
This one made me smile.
Guess someone has submitted a bill to the TSCC before for doing the own yard work? The yard work is supposed to be done by Facility Management.
Private automobile.
I wonder what the “Church Provided” automobile is like for a family??? The President gets to use it all the time unless his wife needs to borrow it to do the shopping or taking the kids to and from school. If she wanted to go away to a sports game with the kids, or take them to the zoo on Saturday she may not use the company car!
His auto life insurance is $50,000 and hers is $25,000! Yet if he lost his wife the money would barely cover his expenses! Obviously the $50,000 would cover hers!
Of course the Church cannot pay for personal computers and electronic devices…including Nooks and Xboxes…:D that’s acceptable.
Okay, the first and last month of travel expenses for the family are paid for by the Church from the Mission funds as the family goes and meets the mission and the missionaries.
All other travel WITH his family the Mission president must pay for up front and then get reimbursed…he doesn’t get it paid for; it’s his personal expense. So that would discourage his family from going with him about the Mission.
The wife is kept effectively out of the loop of being by her husband’s side as the Mission Presidents wife. If she wants to go with him for any Mission activity they must pay for it themselves. Then the Church will pay them back if they thought it was warranted for her to go because she can only go “occasionally” to a Mission activity.
Her primary work is to maintain the Mission Presidents home and keep his children in line. He is not free to help out because he must be out and about with the Missionaries.
I guess if one of his children was in a school play, or his wife was terribly sick with the flu he wouldn’t be allowed to stay home for a weekend and be a family man to enjoy the play or take up the slack so his wife can recover. Nothing like putting a little marital stress on a man while he’s ‘serving the lard’.
There is one great policy; Missionaries male or female may not baby sit the mission presidents children!
The Mission Office expense includes a housekeeper/cook for up to 20 hours a week. That does not have to be ‘reimbursed’ after the Mission President pays for it. So depending on how the service is rendered it could be a possible stress relief for the family, or make things worse.
I know there are a lot of “perks” paid for by the TSCC to the Mission President.
BUT
I hate ENDLESS reimbursement plans; it means you have to come up with the money first.
I had the US Air Force break one of my windows and crack another with one of their sonic booms. I called their number and was told they would replace my window AFTER I HAD PAID FOR IT AND SENT THEM THE BILL
I didn’t have the money to replace the window!
There was NO ONE who could or would come install it for any price in the little town where I lived.
The window was not a standard size and would have to be custom made.
I boarded it up, put a window shade and lace curtain over it and lived without.
(It became my contribution as a Patriot to my country!)
Sometimes you don’t get to do things even if you’re ‘reimbursed’ because you can’t afford it in the first place! You go without.
After reading the Mission Handbook it looks like a Mission President has to be very well off or have a pretty hefty cash flow to be able to afford everything the church will ‘reimburse” him for!
He gets a break on tuition, but not the books, and other living expenses for college, even at BYU his child does not get free housing and a cafeteria pass!
The manual tells him after the Facility Maintenance Manager inspects the Mission Home once a year the Manager will decide what improvements or changes will be done to the home.
I shudder to think what kind of fridge they might have or the bathrooms might all have carpet on the floors. I don’t know why people want carpet on a bathroom floor that gets gross and nasty from wet feet and the occasional flood from a clogged toilet. I hate living in ‘renters’ white painted rooms they’re depressing. Or what of that kitchen door that always sticks? Or the washing machine that has seen too many days? Or the oven that is too small? Or drapes/blinds that do not close without a major fight and prefer to stay at half-mast?
But I guess when people are ‘church broke’ it wouldn’t matter because any personality or sense of self has been swallowed up long ago. So they’ll put on their plastic smiles and give the mission hell!
It has been a while since I read it, but I thought the wife was allowed to "borrow" an additional "company" car, whenever one was available in the fleet.
...from what has been reported on various blogs regarding the reimbursements paid to Church leaders, the MP is the "entry level" position which receives the most conservative amount of compensation. As you go up the Church/Corporate ladder, the "reimbusements" become larger and more generous. Makes some sense from a Corporate standpoint, (which the Church is), but not so much from a religious perspective. Especially when considering the Church's true charitable offerings come in at around 1% or so. The point of granting a 501 (c)(3) tax exemption to a church, after all, is for alledgedly being a "charitable organization"...right?
< After reading the Mission Handbook it looks like a Mission President has to be very well off or have a pretty hefty cash flow to be able to afford everything the church will ‘reimburse” him for!
Agreed. I don't see a Mission President making much off of the church or coming out ahead. What I do see is the church providing some perks trying to make it so the Mission President pretty much breaks even.
Uuuuuugggggghhhhh. Having to deal with keeping the missionaries in line, dealing with lovesick, homesick, depressed missionaries and their bitching parents, having the church crack on you about baptism numbers, entertaining holier-than-thou G.A.'s that come in to visit, etc. Being a Mission President babysitter...no thanks!!
Agreed. I don't see a Mission President making much off of the church or coming out ahead. What I do see is the church providing some perks trying to make it so the Mission President pretty much breaks even.
Uuuuuugggggghhhhh. Having to deal with keeping the missionaries in line, dealing with lovesick, homesick, depressed missionaries and their bitching parents, having the church crack on you about baptism numbers, entertaining holier-than-thou G.A.'s that come in to visit, etc. Being a Mission President babysitter...no thanks!!
more words do not make more truth.....this is discussion no matter how many words you use
Isn't financial success required of MP's to even be in the candidate pool?
I thought like most LDS executives they were gazillionaires to be even considered for the positions, unless they went the CES route.
Not that it would make them want any less reimbursement, but there would be no issues of them having the funds to make the original purchase.
The flipside of this is that since many of them are financially affluent, they should not only be more familiar with tax rules, they potentially have much to lose should the tax authorities target them.
I thought like most LDS executives they were gazillionaires to be even considered for the positions, unless they went the CES route.
Not that it would make them want any less reimbursement, but there would be no issues of them having the funds to make the original purchase.
The flipside of this is that since many of them are financially affluent, they should not only be more familiar with tax rules, they potentially have much to lose should the tax authorities target them.
My BIL was a MP in western Europe. Home was very nice, but run down. They looked for a replacement but every thing was too expensive. Well damn, Europe is spendy.
He left his job (attorney) for three years, while at the peak of his earning, socking it away for retirement (obviously no pension). When he returned, he had to start over finding clients. He has since recovered, but is at least 3-4 years behind.
He is very TBM (now AA70), and would say yes to anything, but I can't help but think that the morg could have waited a few years at let him retire and then call him.
He left his job (attorney) for three years, while at the peak of his earning, socking it away for retirement (obviously no pension). When he returned, he had to start over finding clients. He has since recovered, but is at least 3-4 years behind.
He is very TBM (now AA70), and would say yes to anything, but I can't help but think that the morg could have waited a few years at let him retire and then call him.
Reimbursement does NOT address the church funding university fees. These are a benefit in kind as is having a food budget, a maid, or a car you can use.
Get it into your head that the law is pretty clear on this and it is defined as benefit in kind. It must be declared and it is all fully taxable.
The chur h knows this. It has given written instruction to MPs to purposely avoid disclosing this information for the sole purpose of avoiding tax liability. This foreknowledge and instruction is a criminal offence in and of its own right.
The British taxpayer will not look kindly on this theft at all. Especially when they realise church leaders live a 1% lifestyle funded through tax exempt donations.
Get it into your head that the law is pretty clear on this and it is defined as benefit in kind. It must be declared and it is all fully taxable.
The chur h knows this. It has given written instruction to MPs to purposely avoid disclosing this information for the sole purpose of avoiding tax liability. This foreknowledge and instruction is a criminal offence in and of its own right.
The British taxpayer will not look kindly on this theft at all. Especially when they realise church leaders live a 1% lifestyle funded through tax exempt donations.
Just to reinforce what lilburne has said, the ‘church’ in the UK is in or will soon be in, very hot water over illegal payments made to MP’s I say illegal because ALL payments made to individuals as allowances MUST be declared to HMRC. No matter how much the LDS may claim that MP’s are volunteers the fact that they are volunteers in a religious body qualifies them as employees of the church for taxation purposes and presumably that is why these so called volunteers are, as lilburne so rightly points out, ordered by the ‘church’ to commit an offence under UK law namely that of failing to declare all income and in its turn that inevitably leads to the further offence of tax evasion.
However, having said that, the amounts involved are relatively small compared to the huge amounts gained through fraudulent use of the Gift Aid scheme. For many years the LDS has been claiming tax relief on such diverse subjects as tithing, temple construction fund, missionary fund etc etc. In 2005 HMRC ruled that the temple and missionary buildings were taxable due to them being of no public benefit. Obviously the LDS appealed this decision but that appeal was rejected in 2008. The last appeal was to the European court of appeal and it was rejected earlier this year. In spite of these appeals being rejected the corporation has continued to claim, via the Gift Aid scheme, tax relief for the temple contruction fund etc and this I am assured by HMRC, is illegal.
However, having said that, the amounts involved are relatively small compared to the huge amounts gained through fraudulent use of the Gift Aid scheme. For many years the LDS has been claiming tax relief on such diverse subjects as tithing, temple construction fund, missionary fund etc etc. In 2005 HMRC ruled that the temple and missionary buildings were taxable due to them being of no public benefit. Obviously the LDS appealed this decision but that appeal was rejected in 2008. The last appeal was to the European court of appeal and it was rejected earlier this year. In spite of these appeals being rejected the corporation has continued to claim, via the Gift Aid scheme, tax relief for the temple contruction fund etc and this I am assured by HMRC, is illegal.
The obvious question is then, why don't the HMRC prosecute?
Do these policies vary between missions (based on cost of living, financial status of the MP, etc) or is it one size fits all?
Get it into your head that the law is pretty clear on this and it is defined as benefit in kind. It must be declared and it is all fully taxable.
"Get it into my head" Sounds very bi**tchy.
I was merely pointing out that besides the obvious "perks" which is income being hidden within the reimbursement funds the other things have to be paid for up front.
So it's like trying to charge an item on a credit card that you have to fill up like a debit card first.
Like another poster stated, a lot of the MPs funds are set up as 'break even'.
I didn't like how little the Husband got in comparison to his wife in their life insurance policy.
He may be the 'breadwinner' but she does so much for the relationship he'd have a very hard time replacing it if she died. He'd have the house payment, but no real money to get the hired help he'd need to cover the children and his comfort needs he's not used to providing for himself.
I do like how this might get exposed as to how the gift of tuition is not reported directly. You can get tax credit for paying on college credits, but not if you got them reimbursed, then you'd have to pay taxes on the money you were reimbursed for the tuition you paid out.
The wife can use any Mission car that is available....I bet that makes a lot of RMs cringe; remember the Hornets and Mini Pick Ups from the 70s? The ones that could be jacked up, put into reverse and idled all night to take the mileage off the odometers??? Would any MP have peace if his wife had to drive one of those old beat up rattle traps????
Being an MP could be a real marriage breaker don't you think?
"Get it into my head" Sounds very bi**tchy.
I was merely pointing out that besides the obvious "perks" which is income being hidden within the reimbursement funds the other things have to be paid for up front.
So it's like trying to charge an item on a credit card that you have to fill up like a debit card first.
Like another poster stated, a lot of the MPs funds are set up as 'break even'.
I didn't like how little the Husband got in comparison to his wife in their life insurance policy.
He may be the 'breadwinner' but she does so much for the relationship he'd have a very hard time replacing it if she died. He'd have the house payment, but no real money to get the hired help he'd need to cover the children and his comfort needs he's not used to providing for himself.
I do like how this might get exposed as to how the gift of tuition is not reported directly. You can get tax credit for paying on college credits, but not if you got them reimbursed, then you'd have to pay taxes on the money you were reimbursed for the tuition you paid out.
The wife can use any Mission car that is available....I bet that makes a lot of RMs cringe; remember the Hornets and Mini Pick Ups from the 70s? The ones that could be jacked up, put into reverse and idled all night to take the mileage off the odometers??? Would any MP have peace if his wife had to drive one of those old beat up rattle traps????
Being an MP could be a real marriage breaker don't you think?
Apologies Observer, I was too sharp in my response. It was the frustration of the crime seeping into my post and unfortunately I directed it at you. Sorry.
Mormon Observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I didn't like how little the Husband got in
> comparison to his wife in their life insurance
> policy.
> He may be the 'breadwinner' but she does so much
> for the relationship he'd have a very hard time
> replacing it if she died. He'd have the house
> payment, but no real money to get the hired help
> he'd need to cover the children and his comfort
> needs he's not used to providing for himself.
>
Most people already have their own, seperate from work, life insurance policies already. Anything else, is just extra.
It's smart to do this anyway. Whether you are unemployed or between jobs, that work sponsored life insurance that is cheap is not ineffect.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I didn't like how little the Husband got in
> comparison to his wife in their life insurance
> policy.
> He may be the 'breadwinner' but she does so much
> for the relationship he'd have a very hard time
> replacing it if she died. He'd have the house
> payment, but no real money to get the hired help
> he'd need to cover the children and his comfort
> needs he's not used to providing for himself.
>
Most people already have their own, seperate from work, life insurance policies already. Anything else, is just extra.
It's smart to do this anyway. Whether you are unemployed or between jobs, that work sponsored life insurance that is cheap is not ineffect.
I know a Stake President who taught at a college. He was called on a mission, and even rose to be a temple president.
He lives on his college pension.
He lives on his college pension.
“The obvious question is then, why don't the HMRC prosecute?”
Void, I understand that HMRC investigations can take up to 2 years to complete, the Gift Aid fraud was reported to them about 4 months ago, Tom Phillips and myself reported the MP tax evasion issue to HMRC about 18 months ago. I’m assuming this part of the investigation is nearing completion and we should hear something fairly soon.
Void, I understand that HMRC investigations can take up to 2 years to complete, the Gift Aid fraud was reported to them about 4 months ago, Tom Phillips and myself reported the MP tax evasion issue to HMRC about 18 months ago. I’m assuming this part of the investigation is nearing completion and we should hear something fairly soon.
Interested observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> HMRC investigations...
> the Gift Aid fraud was reported to them about 4 months ago, >MP tax evasion issue 18 months ago
Gift Aid Fraud -- March 2014 to March 2016
MP tax evasion -- Janurary 2013 - Janurary 2015
Perhaps after the new year 2015 we will hear informaiton regarding any motions or cases to go after the UK mission presidents?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> HMRC investigations...
> the Gift Aid fraud was reported to them about 4 months ago, >MP tax evasion issue 18 months ago
Gift Aid Fraud -- March 2014 to March 2016
MP tax evasion -- Janurary 2013 - Janurary 2015
Perhaps after the new year 2015 we will hear informaiton regarding any motions or cases to go after the UK mission presidents?
At least in the Paris area, the mission home was a nice, upper middle class home. Le Vésinet is so well known as a tony suburb that there was a soap opera named after it. The homes was well furnished and the amenities looked pretty up to par with its neighbors' homes. I don't think that MP's fare poorly or they would not go.
If you want to cry for anyone, it's the missionaries. They pay their own way, no reimbursements here. I even had to pay out of pocket for my prescriptions when I got bronchitis. I later found out I was supposed to be "reimbursed", but no mention of that was made to me at the time. I just had to cut 1/3 out of my already paltry food budget to make up for it.
Our apartments were falling apart. The appliances were old and filthy. You can imagine constantly rotating out 19 year old guys who had never maintained a home before. We were busy, we didn't know how to do it, and we didn't really care since we spent only 4 months or so there. We had to buy our own dishes, so we drank out of jam jars. One member was appalled so she bought us a set of glasses and dishes for Xmas. I almost took those with me at transfers since it was the nicest dishes I'd had for 2 years. You had a pitted frying pan and one pot to boil pasta to stock your kitchen, plus some dull knives, bent forks and assorted spoons. We could never afford to eat out, since that would cost about $15 out of our month $100 we had to eat from.
About 25% of my monthly budget went for a bus/rail pass we had to have. No reimbursement there, either. My bike got stolen and I couldn't afford a new one, so we rode the bus everywhere.
The only new clothes I bought for 2 years were socks. No new shoes, no new suits, no new shirts or pants. I got a few ties for Xmas and birthdays, but those never wore out. I didn't even get new undies.
So, don't cry too hard for the MP and his wife. They may not have had a luxurious lift, it was middle class comfort all the way. We lived in 3rd world conditions in 1st world countries as missionaries. I've never felt so poor in my life.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2014 07:46AM by axeldc.
If you want to cry for anyone, it's the missionaries. They pay their own way, no reimbursements here. I even had to pay out of pocket for my prescriptions when I got bronchitis. I later found out I was supposed to be "reimbursed", but no mention of that was made to me at the time. I just had to cut 1/3 out of my already paltry food budget to make up for it.
Our apartments were falling apart. The appliances were old and filthy. You can imagine constantly rotating out 19 year old guys who had never maintained a home before. We were busy, we didn't know how to do it, and we didn't really care since we spent only 4 months or so there. We had to buy our own dishes, so we drank out of jam jars. One member was appalled so she bought us a set of glasses and dishes for Xmas. I almost took those with me at transfers since it was the nicest dishes I'd had for 2 years. You had a pitted frying pan and one pot to boil pasta to stock your kitchen, plus some dull knives, bent forks and assorted spoons. We could never afford to eat out, since that would cost about $15 out of our month $100 we had to eat from.
About 25% of my monthly budget went for a bus/rail pass we had to have. No reimbursement there, either. My bike got stolen and I couldn't afford a new one, so we rode the bus everywhere.
The only new clothes I bought for 2 years were socks. No new shoes, no new suits, no new shirts or pants. I got a few ties for Xmas and birthdays, but those never wore out. I didn't even get new undies.
So, don't cry too hard for the MP and his wife. They may not have had a luxurious lift, it was middle class comfort all the way. We lived in 3rd world conditions in 1st world countries as missionaries. I've never felt so poor in my life.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2014 07:46AM by axeldc.
axeldc Wrote:
> Le Vésinet is so
> well known as a tony suburb that there was a soap
> opera named after it.
> Our apartments were falling apart.
When I arrived in Paris for my mission, we first went to the mission president's home/office in Le Vesinet. I was impressed, very nice place. Then I shipped out to my first apartment, in Boulogne-Billancourt...after seeing Le Vesinet, it was like hitting the slums. Dirty, disgusting, horrible neighborhood.
Caen wasn't much better. Poitiers was the worst -- half the time the water didn't work, and with 4 male missionaries and no flushable WC, the place stunk to the celestial kingdom.
Got to finish my mission in Versailles, and amazingly, the apartment there was extremely nice. I was told by an AP that there simply wasn't anything "cheap" in Versailles -- so one reason many of the other mission apartments were so crummy was they had to really go dirt cheap to subsidize places like Versailles and Le Vesinet.
What a racket :)
> Le Vésinet is so
> well known as a tony suburb that there was a soap
> opera named after it.
> Our apartments were falling apart.
When I arrived in Paris for my mission, we first went to the mission president's home/office in Le Vesinet. I was impressed, very nice place. Then I shipped out to my first apartment, in Boulogne-Billancourt...after seeing Le Vesinet, it was like hitting the slums. Dirty, disgusting, horrible neighborhood.
Caen wasn't much better. Poitiers was the worst -- half the time the water didn't work, and with 4 male missionaries and no flushable WC, the place stunk to the celestial kingdom.
Got to finish my mission in Versailles, and amazingly, the apartment there was extremely nice. I was told by an AP that there simply wasn't anything "cheap" in Versailles -- so one reason many of the other mission apartments were so crummy was they had to really go dirt cheap to subsidize places like Versailles and Le Vesinet.
What a racket :)
You also need to remember the "reimbursement" is immediate as the MP and his wife have an "expense" account in the church's name that the expenses are paid out of. So it is not like they are actually paying out of pocket.
I was screwed out of my Pell Grant (retro-actively) at BYU and had loans ducked up because I had to claim my monthly missionary "reimbursement" as income. I paid in $400+/mo and got back $100/mo to live off, but that was income and went against my college aide. Which BTW was given to nonmember Asians hoping they would go to BYU and convert and go back and dupe their families.
Mormon Observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know there are a lot of “perks” paid for by
> the TSCC to the Mission President.
> BUT
> I hate ENDLESS reimbursement plans; it means you
> have to come up with the money first.
>
> Sometimes you don’t get to do things even if
> you’re ‘reimbursed’ because you can’t
> afford it in the first place! You go without.
>
I disagree. $30K credit line is more than enough money to spend and pass on the bill to TSCC.
Just have enough to make the minimum payment. Add in the interest charge as an expense while you wait for the check from TSCC.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know there are a lot of “perks” paid for by
> the TSCC to the Mission President.
> BUT
> I hate ENDLESS reimbursement plans; it means you
> have to come up with the money first.
>
> Sometimes you don’t get to do things even if
> you’re ‘reimbursed’ because you can’t
> afford it in the first place! You go without.
>
I disagree. $30K credit line is more than enough money to spend and pass on the bill to TSCC.
Just have enough to make the minimum payment. Add in the interest charge as an expense while you wait for the check from TSCC.
It's a sweet deal for both parties and both win, tax wise and personal bank acct wise, in the end.
This is why so many charitable orgs and church corps send employees overseas. Regular corps, too. Sometimes those employees are called ministers or missionaries or volunteers instead, but it's still a racket.
It is one of the best ways to benefit from the mighty purses full of gold which church and corporate entities amass, and the only losers are the taxpayer abd the government that taxpayer relies on.
This is why so many charitable orgs and church corps send employees overseas. Regular corps, too. Sometimes those employees are called ministers or missionaries or volunteers instead, but it's still a racket.
It is one of the best ways to benefit from the mighty purses full of gold which church and corporate entities amass, and the only losers are the taxpayer abd the government that taxpayer relies on.
tscc has a 'raft' of attys & accountants to figure these loopholes out... How Sweet!