LEAKED: WHQ Accounts: 2016-2020 Budget
If one has cash reserves to spend, then your head is still above water. If you have assets to liquidate, then your head is still above water. It is within one’s means to spend what one has or to liquidate assets. To live beyond one’s means is to borrow. If anyone here doesn’t understand this simple principle, then you are in danger of incurring debt that you cannot pay.
Living beyond your means is pretty easy to do these days, especially since we live in a time when buying on credit — and having a YOLO mentality — has become the norm. But just because it seems normal doesn’t mean you aren’t doing a real disservice to your current and future well-being.
Here are eight red flags that you’re living a lifestyle you simply can’t afford — and how to get back on track ASAP.
Living beyond your means is pretty easy to do these days, especially since we live in a time when buying on credit —
Too costly for one, more than one can afford. For example, A second vacation this year is well beyond our means. The noun means here signifies “resources at one's disposal,”
If your resources are cash on hand, savings or real properties which can be disposed of, then it’s still living within one’s means to utilize them. Only when one incurs debt do they live beyond your means.
i am not quite sure why some here cannot understand this simple economic principle.
if I decide to sell my house and spend the equity, I am still within MY means. It is when I go to someone else to borrow THEIR means that I have gone beyond MY means.
Using cash reserves and liquidating assets to pay ...
It is MY cash, it is MY assets, and I can do what I want with them. It is MY means. Nobody is going to dictate to ME how I should use MY stuff.
Mine... get it?
Beyond MINE is yours... get it yet?
Please listen to that second accounting video that somebody just posted. The sister praised Jayhoov because the “bank” not mine, gave a line of CREDIT
I'm sure the Armageddon mentality is akin to the YOLO approach to finances.
Looming Debt? Don’t worry… Armageddon will take care of it! This is a never to be repeated work and the end is just a few years away…
Londo, YOU get it.
When the Bank Demands Payment in Full: 3 Options for Borrowers with Matured Business Loans (By David Soble)
There are 3 realistic options that a business owner should consider when their bank demands payment of the loan in full:
1. Pay off the loan. In today's restrictive banking climate refinancing sounds much easier than it really is. Banks infrequently rewrite their own commercial loans upon maturity. This is because the financial position of many small businesses has diminished since 2007. Also lending guidelines were more' flexible' then, with commercial properties reportedly having higher values.
2. Negotiated Exit. Be assured that if a loan has matured and the borrower is not prepared to pay if off, the bank will begin a lawsuit. Defending a law suit can be expensive, but in most cases it will only delay the inevitable. Absent real legal defenses for bank misconduct or the mishandling of a loan, the best approach for a business owner is to negotiate a realistic "exit" from the bank with the assistance of experienced counsel. There are a numerous variables for consideration when negotiating a forbearance or settlement agreement, so unless a business owner is familiar with bank work out or special asset protocol, retain an experienced attorney.
3. Reorganization. Chapter 11 reorganization can be expensive, but it is an excellent remedy for business owners... A Chapter 11 bankruptcy should be a final option,
Watch Tower and Tract Society of Canada is a Major 100 charity with $79.7m in donations in F2015. Its administrative costs are 3% of revenues, and the charity does not report any fundraising costs. For every dollar donated, 97 cents go towards the charities programs, falling outside of Ci’s reasonable range. Before its $27m in bank loans, the charity has $19.8m in gross funding reserves, resulting in a net program cost coverage ratio of -8%. The financial statements Watch Tower provides to the CRA Charities Directorate are incomplete missing the financial notes and auditors information.
The above is just Canada. The Watchtower has bank loans.
In short, the organisation has peaked.~ Cofty
Time will tell, but I hope you're right!
They get a tax REBATE back from the UK Govern
ement (20%) for doing it!
To receive a REBATE, would imply first paying tax. Since WT is a tax exempt charity and a religious organization, I suspect ongoing donations to other charitable organizations is likely one means to maintain tax-exempt charitable status.
It would be interesting to know the other charities WT donates to as well as their backgrounds. One site I read some time ago, suggested WT appoints trusted elders independent from WT, to register and administer charitable organizations, with no traceable link to WT. By donating to those charities, WT is essentially donating to itself. To continue to qualify as a charity, those charities then donate to each other.
A second method for appearing to reduce WT assets was mentioned. When the entire organization, often including individual congregations, purchase supplies and services from specific suppliers required by WT, we would usually expect substantial cost savings would be realized. It seems in WT's case, prices paid are often substantially higher even as the supply companies are often owned by JW's. Are these JW owned suppliers then forced to provide tax exempt donations of any overage to other charities owned at arms length by WT?
I recall a prior thread on this forum where at least one example was detailed, where WT donated a substantial sum to one specific congregation for an unspecified purpose. The congregation as a whole was not aware of any such donation and the donation was not reported in the congregation's financial report. It seems only few congregation elders were aware of the 'donation', deposited to a new separate bank account in the congregation's name, but not to be touched as the funds belong to and are held for WT.
Once funds are paid to a charity, potential creditors including courts of law can no longer claim those funds are WT assets in which to collect a judgement against.
It would be interesting if forum members who are professional accountants, will comment if these techniques would actually work to reduce WT assets, regardless of legalities.
cofty The GB introduced a 'simplified' model where mags were to be given away for free but expected JWs to contribute
I well remember the transition to a 'simplified' model.
The WT clearly underestimated your average JWs love of free stuff however because they had to follow up with repeated reminders that "literature is not free, it is without cost", and that the idea wasn't to allow every JW to suddenly order themselves a full theocratic library at the expense of the WT society.
I wonder what that unplanned consequence cost them as every JW promptly ordered Insight volumes for themselves and their friends.
Couple of thoughts:
1 - Why do they ALWAYS use some cherry picked portion of a scripture to support EVERY SINGLE thing they talk about. Jesus, common sense tells you that you need a budget especially to run a multi-billion dollar organization. Its just so annoying.
2 - These guys take boring and dull speaking to new lows. I would give them a W on multiple speech counsel points.
3 - They definitely have overspent in the past. How much, not sure yet. Did they borrow money that was coming due? Likely given the liquidation of assets.
Cofty's assessment is right in line with my thoughts. They have certainly peaked. They are in the beginning stages of decline. They are doing things they have to now in an attempt to right the ship. But, their long term prospects do not look good. That doesn't mean collapse in my mind, it means them shrinking.
It would be great if it was a house of cards. But my wishing it was doesn't make it so.
I agree w/loss of funds on literature -- SBF made this point mos ago along with others and it made sense. WT Cult was out to make money by hook or crook and they weren't printing junk for free. What I don't understand is seldom did the general populace ever contribute for the magazines, books, whatever. It was difficult giving it away -- that's the best I could do. Maybe I was unaware of how most JWs at the door placed/collected for the goods and never experienced this out in service with the hardliners. I was under the impression JWs were paying out the same amount after the 'simplified' version was in effect. We contributed what we wanted even before this new 'simplified' way. Wasn't literature still being monitored at the hall! I can't imagine the clergy class turning a blind eye. I think its hilarious JWs were grabbing the literature for nothing -- hard to believe! Too bad they aren't as greedy with their life's time as they are they're moolah.