Mormon Church negotiates for Italian Welfare!

[_Chap]

Note that the story was published in the Independent, a well-known left-wing tabloid owned by a former KGB agent.

Gosh. Don't we call that 'poisoning the well', or something? But Agreserves (a private company) is in effect owned by the CoJCoLDS, which draws the profits from it (or rather, I suppose, the corporation of the President thereof does, properly speaking), so why is the ownership of the newspaper which published this (I believe) undisputed fact relevant?

Anyway, here is another source for relevant data.. Maybe that site is controlled by Satan direct?

Interestingly, that reveals that from 1999 to 2009 the total taxpayer subsidy received by Agreserves amounts to €15,893,748 or $22,261,585.

Just like it does in Utah, the Church does its commercial investment activities through corporations that are taxable in the ordinary way. In this case the farms in question are owned by a corporate entity called Agreserves Ltd. It is not a "foreign non-profit organization" but a UK registered for-profit company. It does business in the same way, and competing in the same marketplace, as other UK agribusinesses.

Agricultural subsidies are controversial in many parts of the world. The lack of them is controversial in other parts (and sometimes the same parts.) But there's nothing unlawful about them. And please note that the subsidies in question are going to Agreserves, not the Church. The fact that the Church owns Agreserves is interesting, but not relevant to this discussion.

Indeed, agricultural subsidies are controversial, though lawful. So are a lot of other things, which we do not need to list here, many of which even devout LDS might not like to see their church making a profit from, even if they are lawful.

You are at liberty to ask a cross-section of British taxpayers whether the fact that a business owned by a rich and (to them) foreign religion which owns a huge amount of their country's farmland is sucking heartily at the subsidy teat makes them feel better or worse about paying the bit of their taxes that support the subsidies.

But let's get at some figures. The latest subsidy was listed as:

* Mormon Church

Owners of Agreserves Limited, a farm conglomerate. Paid £1.59m

Anyone who wants to can access the accounts of Agreserves via the official UK companies register, Companies House (which is not widely thought to be controlled by the KGB). The most recent documents posted show a profit for the year of £1,267,939. On that the company paid tax of £344,656.

So the latest UK taxpayer's handout to this private company, ultimately owned by 'The Corporation', was more than the profit the company made in the latest financial year on record, and was several times what the company paid in tax. As the British say "a nice little earner"!

Further interest may be perhaps be found in the company's next set of accounts. Whether or not these will be held up because the company's auditors resigned about a month ago is unclear.

[_Droopy]

Once again, you demonstrate that you rely upon your malice, which is controlling, to make up for your ignorance, which is total.

Actually Pahoran, this is perhaps the most succinct, lucid observation of that which drives much of Mr. Graham's style of discourse as any I've ever seen - or written myself.

Note that the story was published in the Independent, a well-known left-wing tabloid owned by a former KGB agent.

Yes, a periodical representing an ideology that has hardly ever been much interested in profits being kept by those who earn them.

Just like it does in Utah, the Church does its commercial investment activities through corporations that are taxable in the ordinary way. In this case the farms in question are owned by a corporate entity called Agreserves Ltd. It is not a "foreign non-profit organization" but a UK registered for-profit company. It does business in the same way, and competing in the same marketplace, as other UK agribusinesses.

Under the same fantastically labyrinthine and irrational mountain of EU agricultural regulations, to boot.

[_Chap]

... an ideology that has hardly ever been much interested in profits being kept by those who earn them ...

Just like it does in Utah, the Church does its commercial investment activities through corporations that are taxable in the ordinary way. In this case the farms in question are owned by a corporate entity called Agreserves Ltd. It is not a "foreign non-profit organization" but a UK registered for-profit company. It does business in the same way, and competing in the same marketplace, as other UK agribusinesses.

Under the same fantastically labyrinthine and irrational mountain of EU agricultural regulations, to boot.

My heart bleeds for the Corporation of the President as it contemplates its poor, oppressed wholly-owned private company Agreserves (UK) seeing its hard-earned profits seized and redistributed to lesbian single mothers by the evil EU ...

Ermm ... no. sorry. It seems it was more like this (see above):

... the latest UK taxpayer's handout to this private company, ultimately owned by 'The Corporation', was more than the profit the company made in the latest financial year on record, and was several times what the company paid in tax. As the British say "a nice little earner"!

[_Droopy]

You are at liberty to ask a cross-section of British taxpayers whether the fact that a business owned by a rich and (to them) foreign religion which owns a huge amount of their country's farmland is sucking heartily at the subsidy teat makes them feel better or worse about paying the bit of their taxes that support the subsidies.

I don't know if this is a good argument to use here, Chap. The British people, since the end of WWII and increasingly over the last half century, have shown little desire or interest in opposing or even much questioning the concept of welfare, corporate or otherwise, as a matter of fact of British life.

Indeed, their entire political culture and concept of social contract is grounded in it at this point.

At your very best here, all you have shown is that the Church is doing business in a foreign country upon its own terms, which, if it wants to do business there, would appear to be the only path in can follow.

[_Droopy]

... the latest UK taxpayer's handout to this private company, ultimately owned by 'The Corporation', was more than the profit the company made in the latest financial year on record, and was several times what the company paid in tax. As the British say "a nice little earner"!

Well, as I don't trust the Independent (or the Guardian UK) as far as I can throw the New York Times or the Washington Post, this is going to demand a bit more research outside the mainstream media.

Agricultural subsidies in the U.K. are not at all unlike those that have been common here since the 30s, and which are the sole driving economic force behind the great white elephant of ethanol. Perhaps the Church should take a second look at the economic dynamics over there. I don't know.

I'm sure a number of LDS farmers in the Depression era received substantial payments from the government that allowed them to destroy large quantities of food crops and livestock in order to drive food prices higher at market under conditions in which people were standing in soup lines and using wooden nickels in rural areas as coinage. I have to take my Social Security check, even if I'm a millionaire and I do not support the concept of the program (actually, I'll never see a Social Security check, at least unless its completely composed of other people's money).

I'm almost on the verge of a good solid Austrian argument for the grabbing of the government by the lapels and shaking it violently here, and getting it out of the corporate welfare business in toto, but I will only say, as has been pointed out here already, the Church is doing nothing illegal in Britain, is providing jobs (that the editors and reporters for The Independent will most surely support as a further endless pit of tax revenue for the British welfare state), and paying taxes.

What is the problem?

[_Chap]

You are at liberty to ask a cross-section of British taxpayers whether the fact that a business owned by a rich and (to them) foreign religion which owns a huge amount of their country's farmland is sucking heartily at the subsidy teat makes them feel better or worse about paying the bit of their taxes that support the subsidies.

I don't know if this is a good argument to use here, Chap. The British people, since the end of WWII and increasingly over the last half century, have shown little desire or interest in opposing or even much questioning the concept of welfare, corporate or otherwise, as a matter of fact of British life.

In fact, the British public is unusual in Europe in being opposed to EU farm subsidies:

Britain leads a small rump of nations opposed to the costly farm spending programme.

The amount of British respondents who declared themselves "totally in favour" of the EU giving payouts to farmers was just 33 percent, significantly below the European average.

Droopy is of course at liberty to believe that if only the UK taxpayer knew the subsidy was ultimately going to that wonderful American religion from SLC (aren't those 'Elders' really cute?) they would make a special case for Agreserves.

... The Independent will most surely support [the CoJCoLDS] as a further endless pit of tax revenue for the British welfare state), and paying taxes.

Earth to Droopy: on the basis of the published accounts, it looks as if one year's worth of subsidy from the taxpayer to Agreserves is several times more than Agreserves pays in tax. See above.

[_Pahoran]

Gosh. Don't we call that 'poisoning the well', or something?

Oh, I'm quite sure you'd be an expert on that topic, Chap.

I have read your material, ignoring your spiteful editorialising, of course. All of which is interesting and, despite your rather obvious hostility, quite benign. However, we seem to have drifted away from the topic. The Church's various subsidiary corporations do business in the same business environment as their competitors, suppliers and customers. As business conditions change, those corporations adjust their activities, and the Church may divest itself of some investments or acquire new ones.

The Church itself, however, does not seek public money for its core activities, and does not accept it when it is on offer. That is the material point at issue in this thread.

The Church will not be accepting Italian "welfare."

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Chap]

Gosh. Don't we call that 'poisoning the well', or something?

Oh, I'm quite sure you'd be an expert on that topic, Chap.

Yup. I have seen quite a few Pahoran posts in my time ...

I have read your material, ignoring your spiteful editorialising, of course.

That policy applied to Pahoran's posts would diminish the corpus a bit, I suspect.

All of which is interesting and, despite your rather obvious hostility, quite benign.

Good. My observations about the EU/UK taxpayer apparently providing all the profit generated by one of the businesses owned by the Corporation of the President of the CoJCoLDS through subsidy payments has passed the Pahoran test, and the seal of approval has been granted.

Let the news go forth.

[_Kishkumen]

It definitely is good news for the Church that its agribusiness is raking in public funds from the UK.

[_Droopy]

In fact, the British public is unusual in Europe in being opposed to EU farm subsidies:

They may be, and they're fed up with AGW as well, but my statement was that welfare statism is an accepted fact of British political culture, and that subsidizing either corporations or the individual in Britain is hardly a unpalatable concept for much of the Bristish electorate.

The amount of British respondents who declared themselves "totally in favour" of the EU giving payouts to farmers was just 33 percent, significantly below the European average.

What have they traditionally thought of their own government subsidizing their own farmers?

Droopy is of course at liberty to believe that if only the UK taxpayer knew the subsidy was ultimately going to that wonderful American religion from Salt Lake City (aren't those 'Elders' really cute?) they would make a special case for Agreserves.

Question: does the Church have a choice in whether or not it receives such subsidies, or is this a part of the superstructure of agricultural business in the EU (like its taxes, regulations etc) that cannot be avoided.

As Pahoran has already pointed out here, the Church is philosophically opposed to the taking of such subsidies, and has not done so in the past.