Why don’t we do like Social Security – and after a certain dollar amount – you don’t have to pay anymore that year?Let’s face it – after a certain point – there is no longer a dollar added value to the large churches – putting pressure on them to leave the denomination so they won’t waste dollars their members are sacrificially giving.It’s time guys.I believe AG churches only have the senior pastors send their tithes to the HQ – nothing else.(Someone please correct me on that if necessary).It just doesn’t make sense to take in 10 million in tithes and send in 500,000 – 1,000,000 to HQ. Nothing HQ could do to supply that much added value to that mega church________________
Re: Cap the TOT
Re: Cap the TOT
I don’t think Cleveland is wasting money with this administration & the one before it.I do however believe it’s high time we re-think our budget revenue stream.A ToT from our churches seems to create an opportunity for ministers & churches to re-think their financial base & how they report tithe vs. general fund giving.However, if you tie the revenue stream to the credentials of the minister you will have far less opportunity to lose income.So if a church really explodes in growth & their ToT begins to hover around $10,000 or more per month it may be a place where the leadership of said church begin to ask tough questions about why they are still in the denomination.Again, no matter how big the church gets or how small it may be if you tie the minister’s credentials to him paying a portion of his tithe to HQ you have far less chance of anything going sideways …A/G as an example in point.When I was A/G I pastored a missions status church for about 4 years & the first year I wasn’t required to pay HQ anything – soon my little church really grew & I began sending in my tithe to HQ. We have 10’s of thousands of ministers & their tithe would be a healthy revenue stream for HQ to depend on & to always know what their budget numbers would look like.Just my 2 cents.________________Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!Email me at: [email protected] planters are focused on just one thing …introducing people to Jesus!
I certainly agree. Sounds like a plan that would work… ________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/
Like federal taxes, perhaps it would be wise to either lower–or eliminate–the TOT for very small, low-income churches. When a church is getting, say, $600 in tithes, you can be sure that an extra $60 would go a long way.Further, I propose that the TOT be changed so that ALL INCOME of a church is calculated. That is, instead of the 10% TOT, it might be 5% of ALL income. This helps eradicate the funny bookkeeping that some churches seem to do (e.g., having people give to the General Fund instead of Tithes).Lastly, I do like the cap idea, but hope that it would not be at the expense of legitimate HQ business and endeavors. If less incomes creates greater efficiencies at HQ, great. If it just does them damage, not so great.What I like better is reaching a TOT cap…BUT THEN still being responsible for some minimal amount (as justified by tithes) each month. That is, if you usually give $100,000 a month in TOT, but reach the cap, you would still, perhaps, send in $20,000/month after that (if tithes support it).
Aaron, do you have a side job as the writer of U.S. tax laws.You took a simple idea – and complicated it exponentially.$20,000 max per year. Done. No extra stuff, except ministries the church wants to partner with the COG to do. No need to game the system.Just made another trip to Cleveland – I just don’t see the need for the huge buildings and staff – compared to what actually trickles down to the local church anymore.A bi monthly evangel, a 5 night campmeeting for pastors only, a person they can call when in trouble, insurance, a biennial Assembly, what else?Now, there are ministries that many local churches may want to partner with: children’s homes, missionaries, church planting, ministerial training, Lee University, PTSeminary, Winterfest, etc…But a large church, and most small ones, just no longer need what Cleveland is producing…at least not at the cost they are producing it________________
I think the Missionary Church USA has/had an interesting plan. The local churches sent a percentage (like 3%) of their total annual giving, less mission monies and qualified large endowments, to the national office. Each region/state would meet and vote on what percentage each local in the region would send to the regional/state office (somewhere between 2% and 4%). The same rules for percentage would be followed and the funds were sent at the end of the fiscal year, along with a detailed report of giving at each local church. Since the pastor’s were called by the local churches, with the assists of the Regional/State Supervisor, there was no railroading or retaliation to obtain a higher percentage.
Aaron, do you have a side job as the writer of U.S. tax laws.You took a simple idea – and complicated it exponentially.$20,000 max per year. Done. No extra stuff, except ministries the church wants to partner with the COG to do. No need to game the system.Just made another trip to Cleveland – I just don’t see the need for the huge buildings and staff – compared to what actually trickles down to the local church anymore.A bi monthly evangel, a 5 night campmeeting for pastors only, a person they can call when in trouble, insurance, a biennial Assembly, what else?Now, there are ministries that many local churches may want to partner with: children’s homes, missionaries, church planting, ministerial training, Lee University, PTSeminary, Winterfest, etc…But a large church, and most small ones, just no longer need what Cleveland is producing…at least not at the cost they are producing it.
Aaron, do you have a side job as the writer of U.S. tax laws.You took a simple idea – and complicated it exponentially.$20,000 max per year. Done. No extra stuff, except ministries the church wants to partner with the COG to do. No need to game the system.Just made another trip to Cleveland – I just don’t see the need for the huge buildings and staff – compared to what actually trickles down to the local church anymore.A bi monthly evangel, a 5 night campmeeting for pastors only, a person they can call when in trouble, insurance, a biennial Assembly, what else?Now, there are ministries that many local churches may want to partner with: children’s homes, missionaries, church planting, ministerial training, Lee University, PTSeminary, Winterfest, etc…But a large church, and most small ones, just no longer need what Cleveland is producing…at least not at the cost they are producing it.
Here’s the problem…. I think you are being too myopic on this matter. It’s not about what HQ does for MY CHURCH. Yes, that matters, but think of the things HQ does around the nation and the world.Consider that I it doesn’t benefit my church to support the Home for Children. But it’s a very important and needful part of our mission as a denomination.Yes, your local church could just pick an orphanage and support it. But then there’s the problem of how a media-savvy orphanage (or missionary) might, unintentionally, suck all the oxygen out of the air, so to speak. A charismatic leader, a polished media campaign, and–boom!–we all want to support that endeavor…while some other, desperately struggling, orphanage without all the bells and whistles gets overlooked.We need that sort of oversight of finances to make sure that our efforts are going to all the places that need it. No, HQ doesn’t do it perfectly. But it’s for sure that they do it better than a single, local church can do it. We see a very small picture–usually based on what missionaries are connected in some way with our church. But at HQ there is a broader view. Can we do it better? I sure hope so! I have heard that it can take time to filter through the system before reaching the intended recipients, can be doled out a bit at a time, etc. I don’t know if that’s the case (I hope not), but if so, yeah, we need to fix it.In a nutshell, we cannot be in it only for what’s in it for us. I am in it for the bigger picture that is often beyond the sight of my small church. I do propose a FLOOR, just as you have proposed a ceiling. A small, struggling church is clearly going to need that extra $100 a month more than a church that is bringing in a million a month. At the same time, yes, perhaps there should indeed be a maximum. As for the complexity I added (and you a math teacher!), it simply means ensures that there is cash flow to HQ through out the year. For instance, if a church reaches the cap in January…it would mean that at least a smaller trickle would still be coming to HQ for the rest of the year. However, I have a WHOLE LOT more feeling for the MASSIVE MAJORITY that are small churches. I’d much rather see some of the small churches get a break when tithes are below a certain amount, than for larger, much wealthier churches be the only ones who get tax relief. Besides, the big churches already get all the breaks–they are the ones that are on the State Council, get elected to bigger office, etc. So there’s that.Ask yourself a question: What pastor would rather his wealthy tithers get a break on their generous giving instead of the poor folks who can barely make ends meet. You sure are a Republican at his worst.
That oversight didn’t work so great on Assembly finances – that much I can tell you________________