NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

ink

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Ink

When you have time to come back, please can you advise;-

Is it correct that Presbyterian ministers do not pay;-

1) Rent?
2) Income tax?
3) National insurance stamps?

Also, is it correct that they are entitled to a special grant from the church to help them raise their family, a family grant?

Thanks
T&B

Sorry I haven't been on the forum recently. It's not because I'm in hiding but I have just been very busy (except for a holiday in the middle).

To answer your first questions T&B-
Ministers don't pay rent. We do pay income tax and national insurance just the same as everyone else. Ministers are given a sum by their congregation(s) to cover travelling and some other expenses specific to our job. As in any other job, these have to be reported to HMRC. If under a certain level, they are not taxable but if they go above that level, they are.

There is a family grant which ministers can apply to. It is means tested. A family with a low combined income will get more of a grant than a family on a higher income and above a certain threshold, you don't get anything at all.

I will come back on the other questions and issues in the near future.

serpico

Toast & Butter

I may have spent to much time on the West coast of the US and beome very cynical about churches as a result witnessing the exploitaion of the of the Mega Chuches and the behaviour of the RC in respect of there abuse of minors.

However you are wrong to say that I am harsh in respect of PCI members, indeed I expressed my sympathy for the small savers with less than £20k invested , possibly I was imspired by the posting by a certain small saver whose entire family had lost everything £46k to be precise, she £18k her childrens Grandfather £19k and two lots of her childrens saving for university fees, however none of the various saving accounts that made the total exceeded £20k.

No doubt there are thousands of others who lost money they were saving to pay for their funerals or to pass on to their children or grandchildren.

I also do not blame them for placing their money as a result of the PCIs overtures indicating great profit and returns, by the other token the best return is not always the safest and there was no protection in place for them, and it would appear that they were hung out to dry. I also think it a bit rich that when the chips were down the proposal that ministers should give up there bonuses to help out those in desperate need was unanimously voted by ministers and elders and the congregations should dig deep.

No question in my mind that Presbyterians do much good work in respect of youth clubs and the various things you draw to my attention, don't most churches doe this sort of thing, is this not what churches are for.

However I do not diverse from my opinion that it was wrong for the PMS to exclude others of a different religious affiliation, that cannot be denied as discriminiation that is wrong and I am at a loss to understand why the PMS did exclude others it seems contrary tosound business practice. A good read is what I believe is the second biggest selling book in the world, Lord Baden Powells Scouting for Boys, the great game, from which I learned that we are all equal regardless of religious, ethnic beliefs or colour.

Therefore I stillconsider it unacceptable that such people who were denied a share of the benefits of the good times should now welcome their tax pounds being used to bail out PMS, there can be no question that many of those taxpayers who wre considered unworthy to bbe members of the PMS may not have had any savings to invest anyway and are facing hardship themselves.

There are to many unanswered questions which from this forum indicates that small savers appear to have been kept in the dark and I can fully sypathise with those members who have complained here.

Property and land is a speculative market just like investing in gold, oil or pork bellies or holding shares they go up they go down, like everything. Playing the markets can be a lot of fun, excitingand very profitable but never gamble more than you can affod to lose. life is a one big gamble

Anyone with any sense knew that there had to be a crash in property and land price crash four or five years ago, the whole thing was insane NI with one of the lowest GDP in Europe with the biggest property price rises in the UK and the lowest wages, mortgages at ten times earnings and even NINJA (no income no job no assets) home loans.

A sad an unsavoury situation indeed for the small members.

BETRAYED

[QUOTE= Serpico
This was an unregulated private members club that was probably illegal with no authority to conduct its business in the way it did and speculated and gambled on the property market pyramid bubble and it is no differnt from the Tulip and South Sea bubbles.that burst, what kind of muppets were handing out dodgy loans to speculators for building land at £1/1.5M an acre for land that was only worth £500K, they gambled and lost.

There are too many unanswered questions which from this forum indicates that small savers appear to have been kept in the dark and I can fully sypathise with those members who have complained here.

A sad and unsavoury situation indeed for the small members.[/QUOTE]


Well said.

Congregations I am told have some £20m invested in PMS. These congregations have had to delay planned building and other projects until this matter is resolved but not so for Church House.

Toastandbutter

serpico wrote: »

Toast & Butter

I may have spent to much time on the West coast of the US and beome very cynical about churches as a result witnessing the exploitaion of the of the Mega Chuches and the behaviour of the RC in respect of there abuse of minors.

However you are wrong to say that I am harsh in respect of PCI members, indeed I expressed my sympathy for the small savers with less than £20k invested , possibly I was imspired by the posting by a certain small saver whose entire family had lost everything £46k to be precise, she £18k her childrens Grandfather £19k and two lots of her childrens saving for university fees, however none of the various saving accounts that made the total exceeded £20k.

No doubt there are thousands of others who lost money they were saving to pay for their funerals or to pass on to their children or grandchildren.

I also do not blame them for placing their money as a result of the PCIs overtures indicating great profit and returns, by the other token the best return is not always the safest and there was no protection in place for them, and it would appear that they were hung out to dry. I also think it a bit rich that when the chips were down the proposal that ministers should give up there bonuses to help out those in desperate need was unanimously voted by ministers and elders and the congregations should dig deep.

No question in my mind that Presbyterians do much good work in respect of youth clubs and the various things you draw to my attention, don't most churches doe this sort of thing, is this not what churches are for.

However I do not diverse from my opinion that it was wrong for the PMS to exclude others of a different religious affiliation, that cannot be denied as discriminiation that is wrong and I am at a loss to understand why the PMS did exclude others it seems contrary tosound business practice. A good read is what I believe is the second biggest selling book in the world, Lord Baden Powells Scouting for Boys, the great game, from which I learned that we are all equal regardless of religious, ethnic beliefs or colour.

Therefore I stillconsider it unacceptable that such people who were denied a share of the benefits of the good times should now welcome their tax pounds being used to bail out PMS, there can be no question that many of those taxpayers who wre considered unworthy to bbe members of the PMS may not have had any savings to invest anyway and are facing hardship themselves.

There are to many unanswered questions which from this forum indicates that small savers appear to have been kept in the dark and I can fully sypathise with those members who have complained here.

Property and land is a speculative market just like investing in gold, oil or pork bellies or holding shares they go up they go down, like everything. Playing the markets can be a lot of fun, excitingand very profitable but never gamble more than you can affod to lose. life is a one big gamble

Anyone with any sense knew that there had to be a crash in property and land price crash four or five years ago, the whole thing was insane NI with one of the lowest GDP in Europe with the biggest property price rises in the UK and the lowest wages, mortgages at ten times earnings and even NINJA (no income no job no assets) home loans.

A sad an unsavoury situation indeed for the small members.

Thanks Serpico,

I understand your cyncism about religious wolves, just please dont shoot God and everyone else in the hope of taking down the real bad guys please.

The UK Government made a voluntary donation of £800m to British savers who lost money in Icelandic banks. The taxpayer will never see any of this £800m again.

**********************************************************************************
In contrast the biggest possible burden on the taxpayer for the PMS would be LOANS.
The PMS still earns some £9m in rent alone even now and would be obliged to REPAY the money to the taxpayer.
*********************************************************************************

The other option is a banktakeover which would be even less of a burden on the state.

However it almost seems you would prefer that no solution be found at all???


So your main issue is that non-Presbyterians were excluded? Are you then also attacking the small PMS savers you sympathise with for being part of such a "discriminatory" scheme? Should legislation for churches and related charities really be modelled on the book Scouting for Boys???

;-)

IMO it was not so much that non-Presbyterians were actively excluded as a matter of active discrimination but rather that the PMS was designed by and for Presbyterians and for uses compatible with Presbyterian ethos.

Hence the use its funds were put to in building church facilities across Ireland and other mutual purposes. It was mutual because members agreed to mutual savings within a Presbyterian ethos for Presbyterian purposes.

It would have been turning this completely on its head to make it a commercial venture open to the public. Presbyterianism typically is thrifty, hardworking, non-risking taking and serves its community tirelessly. These are not typically held mutual values of the general public I'm afraid.

These are not mutual values of stockmarket listed banks. That is why so many ordinary Presbyterians signed up. They trusted each other for these banking purposes and the purposes the money was being put to. ie personal savings and loans to churches for facilities for community use was a major part of this and this was 100 per cent in line with the original ethos and aims. It was to PMS savers their Presbyterian Church bank, headed up by their ministers. So interest the rates were good you say - So do PMS savers deserve to lose all their savings because they shopped around?


Incidentally, it was apparently one of these stockmarket listed banks which actually sparked the PMS run by chasing PMS savers for their money, spreading panic in a spiral out from a particular branch in NI.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Allegations-over-banks39-coldcalling.5118435.jp

The News Letter has carried many reports about this, and almost 20 people came forward to MP J Donaldson to affirm this story.

You can't criticise the existence of the PMS without criticising its aims and mutuality and community service it was intended for by the majority of its members. You cant criticise the PMS without slamming all the youth organisations and other community services and charities that worked through it and benefitted from it with new facilities etc.

(How many agnostic/humanist churches across NI and the USA provide such wide community benefits in almost every town in the country, by the way? Our charity commissions accept that churchs by definition in the UK provide a public benefit).

Ordinary savers had no idea money was being loaned to property developers and speculators. This is where the gaps in funding have appeared - just like in Dunfermline Building Society which the government rescued overnight.
PMS savers were repeatedly assured that there was NO SPECULATION. TSC says they were innocent and should be saved and it has had access to all the facts and experts.

It is an independent watchdog of the highest government dept that is supposed to regulate such matters ie HM Treasury.

Are you sure the TSC has got it so wrong? Have you even read its report? Please can you refer to the paragraphs where it has got wrong?

As for why taxpayers should help the PMS out? You dont appear to have read the Treasury Select Committee report, I referred you to.

See previous post.

This report concludes that the PMS submitted to every ordinance of the state it was required to for its stated purposes and that the state was negligent in regulating it. Industrial and provident societies in GB are monitored much more closely and only now are changes being made to close the gap between NI and GB.

Why amend regulation of industrial and provident socities in NI at this time if the government is not culpable for PMS as the TSC says?

So in other words, the state officially approved the consitution and aims of the PMS and officially takes responsibility for regulating industrial and provident socieites.

So the state approved the Presbyterian limits of the society and its banking purposes.

And the state has been officially found by TSC to have been negligent in regulating the PMS.

And the state has now been ordered to solve the crisis by the most senior independent committee of MPs who have the authority to probe this matter.

And the new Prime Minister made it an election pledge to deal fairly and justly with PMS savers, who had "done the right thing".


The altnernative scenario would surely be;-

- Churches should be outlawed from running mutual funds/charities etc of any sort for internal purposes which have practical community benefits. (Wouldnt that be religious discrimination of the highest order Serpico? How many US constitutional rights would that breach I wonder?)

- Or if churches are allowed to run mutual funds/charities the state must not take any regulatory role in their running - and presumably no taxes either from the many employees and transactions etc!



I repeat Serpico, please dont take everybody down along with the wolves. If you want to engage, please read the TSC report and then report back to us.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmtreasy/260/260.pdf


So, in summary, why should the taxpayer help a Presbyterian Mutual Society?

I repeat, quoting the chair of the TSC;-

"...it is clear in the case of the PMS there was a fatal regulatory gap, which no lay person could reasonably have identified. Ministerial Working Group must report swiftly to ensure that MS members do not suffer unduly. We are not prescriptive about what solution is best; it is however clear that a remedy must be found.”


Many thanks

T&B

PS Serpico, many people from this side of the Atlantic are hesitant to trust advice on economics from that side of the Atlantic bearing in mind the epicentre of the current crisis appeared to begin over there ie credit crunch.

BETRAYED

Correction

BETRAYED wrote: »

Congregations I am told have some £20m invested in PMS. These congregations have had to delay planned building and other projects until this matter is resolved but not so for Church House.

The Administrator's Office would not confirm this figure of 20m
to me earlier this week.

From information received from other sources I now believe this figure to be circa 40 million.

expat68

serpico wrote: »

Toast & Butter

Therefore I stillconsider it unacceptable that such people who were denied a share of the benefits of the good times should now welcome their tax pounds being used to bail out PMS, there can be no question that many of those taxpayers who wre considered unworthy to bbe members of the PMS may not have had any savings to invest anyway and are facing hardship themselves.

Serpico,

Many good points but the government pumped a lot of money into Northern rock which I believe has one branch in all of Northern Ireland thereby discriminating against the majority of the population. Also seems that many people who werent presbyterian managed to borrow large amounts of money so I dont think there was too much discrimination going on.

Its all been a massive hand washing exercise with the PCI being a particular disaster - the recent church house story beggars belief but their brazeness almost has to be admired. Let the people suffer while we luxuriate in our soon to be palatial surroundings - they are taking their members for fools.

no_more_f.w.o

expat68 wrote: »

Serpico,

Its all been a massive hand washing exercise with the PCI being a particular disaster - the recent church house story beggars belief but their brazeness almost has to be admired. Let the people suffer while we luxuriate in our soon to be palatial surroundings - they are taking their members for fools.

PCI still don't get it do they?

The amounts they are talking about to renovate their building could surely have been used as collateral to obtain a loan to help those in dire need?
And they have never explained (or denied) the alleged £43 million in their "genaral investment account" which has been alluded to several times in the press.
Once again, even if it was "inaccessible" or "a bequest" or "given for another purpose" it could have been the guarantee for a substancial loan to sort this mess out.
Another issue they have never explained (or denied) is the pulpit call in the summer of 2008 before PMS went into administration.
Was the writing on the wall then?
How much did they know then?
Was it a cynical exercise to try to bolster the coffers of PMS/bail the situation out?
How many ministers withdrew their substancial funds? I know of several.

Hand wringing and hand washing are their standard response, the falling membership and income are testimony to their mendacity.

BETRAYED

Susannah Streeter BBC News

"Almost a third of adults in the UK have raided their savings over the past year to cover shortfalls in their income, according to new research.
The survey, by investment firm Schroders, estimates that savers have taken out a total of £60bn.
They have withdrawn an average of £4,600 each."

DEFINITELY NOT SAVERS IN PRESBYTERIAN MUTUAL SOCIETY. WHAT WERE THEY MEANT TO DO ?

ballyblack

http://www.staffordcarson.com/2010/08/pms-update-4/

Lester_F

no_more_f.w.o wrote: »

PCI still don't get it do they?

The amounts they are talking about to renovate their building could surely have been used as collateral to obtain a loan to help those in dire need?
And they have never explained (or denied) the alleged £43 million in their "genaral investment account" which has been alluded to several times in the press.
Once again, even if it was "inaccessible" or "a bequest" or "given for another purpose" it could have been the guarantee for a substancial loan to sort this mess out.
Another issue they have never explained (or denied) is the pulpit call in the summer of 2008 before PMS went into administration.
Was the writing on the wall then?
How much did they know then?
Was it a cynical exercise to try to bolster the coffers of PMS/bail the situation out?
How many ministers withdrew their substancial funds? I know of several.

Hand wringing and hand washing are their standard response, the falling membership and income are testimony to their mendacity.

Who are the "they" that no more FWO is talking about. Is it the moderator, past moderators, ministers, some ministers, all ministers, ordinary Presbyterians who sit in the pews?