R
Are the Super Rich and there companies to blame for our Economic crisis and plunder?
- Status
N
nmgauss
Guest
Did you actually read the entire website referred to in my link/
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Yes.
T
tabycat
Guest
Last time I checked there are very few (like not in every town) churches (of any kind) in China and the counties that are mostly (or entirely) Islamic.
As for the Churches that the Catholic Church owns, are you looking for a Church building to buy and to use it for what it was builted for (Mass, taking care of the sick and poor, teaching people)?
N
nmgauss
Guest
The Church’s financial structure is complex. First there is the wealth of The Vatican.
Then of its separate See’s. As revealed in a recent analysis, The Vatican has huge assets in private for-profit corporations. That is one way they can satisfy their huge appetite for cash.
As revealed in the recent sex-abuse scandal of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin See, it had to file for bankruptcy because of its legal bills.
On January 4, 2011, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee announced that it would be filing for bankruptcy. The church was facing more than 23 lawsuits, and attempts to reach a mediated settlement with victims failed in December 2010. This came two days before the bishop was scheduled to be deposed about these cases, and after the church had refused to release the names or personnel records of the priests accused. The opposing attorney said that the bankruptcy filing was an attempt to delay turning over church records on the cases.
The Milwaukee archdiocese has already paid out over $29 million to settle 200 cases over the last 20 years. They said that these additional cases would cause hefty legal fees that the archdiocese could not afford. The archdiocese has assets of about $98.4 million, but $90 million of that is restricted for specific uses.[33[/COLOR]]
Ramde, Dinesh (January 4, 2011). “Milwaukee archdiocese to seek bankruptcy protection in wake of pending sexual-abuse lawsuits”. Minneapolis StarTribune. Retrieved January 5, 2011.
N
nmgauss
Guest
slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/03/catholic_church_and_pope_francis_religious_institutions_are_exempted_from.html
Pope Francis is not just the spiritual leader of one of the world’s major religions: He’s also the head of what’s probably the wealthiest institution in the entire world. The Catholic Church’s global spending matches the annual revenues of the planet’s largest firms, and its assets—huge amounts of real estate, St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Vatican City, some of the world’s greatest art—surely exceed those of any corporation by an order of magnitude.*
But it turns out to be surprisingly difficult to understand exactly how rich the church is. That’s in part because church finances are complicated. But it’s also because, in the United States at least, churches in general are exempted from the financial reporting and disclosure requirements that otherwise apply to nonprofit groups. And it turns out, that exemption may have undesirable consequences.
Pope Francis is not just the spiritual leader of one of the world’s major religions: He’s also the head of what’s probably the wealthiest institution in the entire world. The Catholic Church’s global spending matches the annual revenues of the planet’s largest firms, and its assets—huge amounts of real estate, St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Vatican City, some of the world’s greatest art—surely exceed those of any corporation by an order of magnitude.*
But it turns out to be surprisingly difficult to understand exactly how rich the church is. That’s in part because church finances are complicated. But it’s also because, in the United States at least, churches in general are exempted from the financial reporting and disclosure requirements that otherwise apply to nonprofit groups. And it turns out, that exemption may have undesirable consequences.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I think part of the problem is you are confusing assets with net worth. For example, the state of Illinois has about $12.5 billion in its pension plan, so if we look at that we can say that the state is rich. On the other hand, if we look at its pension obligations it is flat broke.
A similar story can be told with the Church. My parish has real estate with a replacement cost of about $1.5 million, but if we sold the Church itself we wouldn’t get anywhere near the replacement cost. As a parish we about break even, so while our assets from a financial point of view are similar to your local McDonalds franchisee, the McDonalds franchisee actually makes money.
M
manualman
Guest
This is a great example of your poor comprehension of the issues involved. One of the large issues in Milwaukee obliquely referred to here is that of cemeteries. The church operates cemeteries that are required under state law to maintain endowments for perpetual maintenance. For obvious reasons, the tenants only pay once and will be there indefinitely, so the state oversees this process to make sure cemetery operators (whether corporate or charitable) don’t spend their revenue up front, go bankrupt and stick the state with the maintenance long term.
In Milwaukee, the lawsuit lawyers tried to raid the perpetual endowment funds set up for cemetery maintenance and the courts rightly rebuffed those efforts. Your “accounting” considers these funds part of the loot of the Vatican. Nonsense, of course. It’s necessary funding required to fulfill the obligations made to those who purchased burial plots.
As for the real estate value of all the parishes, again you can’t look at assets and ignore debts. Practically every parish I’ve ever belonged to ran a precarious budget that paid off the building mortgage right about when major renovations or repairs were needed. The NET value is never very high at all.
So your example actually rather disproves your case. In the richest nation on earth, a typical catholic diocese has cash reserves somewhere in the range of about $20 per catholic. Oooh, how outrageously wealthy!
W
WilT
Guest
try avarice or other definitions dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed?s=t
S
Seraphim73
Guest
So how much money would be an inordinate amount?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Again we are back to the idea that we should confiscate people’s wealth not to fund an essential function of government but rather to make sure they have less stuff. How is that not theft?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Yes but is the answer using the police power of government to confiscate wealth from the rich? Wouldn’t it be better to raise the poor up instead of tearing the rich down?
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I don’t have a clue, but then again, I didn’t bring up the subject of greed, I just responded to your request for a definition.
N
nmgauss
Guest
To me encouraging productivity is good, but rewarding people for being poor sends the wrong message.
N
nmgauss
Guest
So how does one determine whether a person is rich? Is it his total assets or his net worth? How is it usually done?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Yes but it is a crucial question. Greed is almost completely subjective. It’s an emotional word used to promote envy.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Does Wealth Come From Owning Assets?
By: Emlyn Scott
The traditional definition of assets defines an asset as anything you own that has some monetary value. While this definition is correct and may seem logical, it is completely unhelpful when it comes to wealth creation. For example, the car sitting in your driveway or even the television sitting in your lounge room are assets under this definition. The wealthy are rich because they own lots of assets aren’t they? But how are either of these “assets” helping you become wealthy. Well in short; they’re not!
It is true that to be wealthy, you need to own lots of assets, but these assets must be of a certain type. In the world of wealth creation we need to define assets differently so that we can easily distinguish between assets that help you become wealthy like stocks or investment real estate and assets that don’t help you at all, like the car and TV we just looked at. In terms of wealth creation we can define assets as either Good assets or Bad assets
Good assets, when owned, put money in your bank account. They are things like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, commodities, investment real estate, futures, options, hedge funds, and so on. All these assets have the ability to put money in your pocket. These are commonly called investments.
Bad assets take money out of your bank account. They are things your car, house, clothes, TV, stereo, mobile phone, furniture, CDs, Xbox, boat, and so on. Bad assets take money out of your pocket in three main ways. They cost you money to buy, they usually cost you money to maintain and they have an opportunity cost, which represents the forgone opportunity and benefits that could’ve been earned or received from that opportunity.
The types of assets you own as well as the amount of you own largely determines which wealth class you’re in. The problem is that people often don’t distinguish between good and bad assets. The table below summaries the connection between asset type and wealth class:
Poor: Little to no Bad Assets and No Good Assets (Investments)
Middle Class: Loads of Bad Assets and Little to no Good Assets
Wealthy: Minimal Bad Assets and Loads of Good Assets (compared to their wealth)
The wealthy are wealthy because they own passive and portfolio type assets that produce passive and portfolio income. They don’t have to rely on individual-type assets for income, which are limited because individuals can only work so many hours. Passive and portfolio assets aren’t limited in this way. These assets will continually provide income whether their owner works or not and can be owned to a theoretically unlimited degree, which means that the income they produce is theoretically unlimited. The wealthy know this, which is why they concentrate their energies on acquiring as much passive- and portfolio-type assets as they can.
The poor don’t realize this, which is why they earn an individual type income and concentrate on getting marginal increases in their salaries that are always limited.
By: Emlyn Scott
The traditional definition of assets defines an asset as anything you own that has some monetary value. While this definition is correct and may seem logical, it is completely unhelpful when it comes to wealth creation. For example, the car sitting in your driveway or even the television sitting in your lounge room are assets under this definition. The wealthy are rich because they own lots of assets aren’t they? But how are either of these “assets” helping you become wealthy. Well in short; they’re not!
It is true that to be wealthy, you need to own lots of assets, but these assets must be of a certain type. In the world of wealth creation we need to define assets differently so that we can easily distinguish between assets that help you become wealthy like stocks or investment real estate and assets that don’t help you at all, like the car and TV we just looked at. In terms of wealth creation we can define assets as either Good assets or Bad assets
Good assets, when owned, put money in your bank account. They are things like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, commodities, investment real estate, futures, options, hedge funds, and so on. All these assets have the ability to put money in your pocket. These are commonly called investments.
Bad assets take money out of your bank account. They are things your car, house, clothes, TV, stereo, mobile phone, furniture, CDs, Xbox, boat, and so on. Bad assets take money out of your pocket in three main ways. They cost you money to buy, they usually cost you money to maintain and they have an opportunity cost, which represents the forgone opportunity and benefits that could’ve been earned or received from that opportunity.
The types of assets you own as well as the amount of you own largely determines which wealth class you’re in. The problem is that people often don’t distinguish between good and bad assets. The table below summaries the connection between asset type and wealth class:
Poor: Little to no Bad Assets and No Good Assets (Investments)
Middle Class: Loads of Bad Assets and Little to no Good Assets
Wealthy: Minimal Bad Assets and Loads of Good Assets (compared to their wealth)
The wealthy are wealthy because they own passive and portfolio type assets that produce passive and portfolio income. They don’t have to rely on individual-type assets for income, which are limited because individuals can only work so many hours. Passive and portfolio assets aren’t limited in this way. These assets will continually provide income whether their owner works or not and can be owned to a theoretically unlimited degree, which means that the income they produce is theoretically unlimited. The wealthy know this, which is why they concentrate their energies on acquiring as much passive- and portfolio-type assets as they can.
The poor don’t realize this, which is why they earn an individual type income and concentrate on getting marginal increases in their salaries that are always limited.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Net worth.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
I some dealings with various religious organzations (Catholic and non-Catholic) and their assets. One of the notable features about the Catholic properties is that I’ve never yet to come across a property that has a mortgage from a secular source. I’ve seen a few newer Catholic Churches with loans, which were from the diocese. As far as the properties owned for decades or centuries, never. I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist, but that’s simply something I’ve noticed over the years with various religious organizations.
That’s important in terms of wealth, since my wealthy people generate income from real estate, either by renting or flipping. The Catholic Church normally does not do this. Occasionally real estate assets are disposed of, but more often than not it is because the asset has a negative cash flow; e.g., a church or school that has shut down due to demographic changes, a retreat where the maintenance causes a drain on assets, etc.
Also important to note that the various entities within the Church may hold what appears to be a large sum of money, but that large sum may be actually being used like a trust fund to support that community. As an example, let’s say a religious organization holds $25,000,000 in the bank account. At a 4% return, that is $1,000,000 per year income. That doesn’t go very far once salaries, benefits, maintenance, etc. are considered.
I having dealing with America’s 1% on an ongoing basis, and the manner that the Catholic Church deals with Her assets is entirely different from the way the 1% deals with their assets. The Catholic Church acts like an old philanthropist, not a greedy Wall Street type.
As usual, many people point an accusatory finger at the Church without really understanding the issue.
That’s important in terms of wealth, since my wealthy people generate income from real estate, either by renting or flipping. The Catholic Church normally does not do this. Occasionally real estate assets are disposed of, but more often than not it is because the asset has a negative cash flow; e.g., a church or school that has shut down due to demographic changes, a retreat where the maintenance causes a drain on assets, etc.
Also important to note that the various entities within the Church may hold what appears to be a large sum of money, but that large sum may be actually being used like a trust fund to support that community. As an example, let’s say a religious organization holds $25,000,000 in the bank account. At a 4% return, that is $1,000,000 per year income. That doesn’t go very far once salaries, benefits, maintenance, etc. are considered.
I having dealing with America’s 1% on an ongoing basis, and the manner that the Catholic Church deals with Her assets is entirely different from the way the 1% deals with their assets. The Catholic Church acts like an old philanthropist, not a greedy Wall Street type.
As usual, many people point an accusatory finger at the Church without really understanding the issue.
- Status