The current financial crisis of Watchtower in historical context (part 1)

by slimboyfat 165 Replies latest members private

• 

  sir82

  The problem with the rent idea, as I understand it, is that congregations are under no legal or fixed obligation to send a certain amount to Watchtower.

  That's an important point. There is no penalty (that I am aware of) for congregations that don't send in "enough". The most I've ever heard of is a strongly worded letter.

  But letters won't make money be squeezed out from a rock. If the money ain't there, it ain't there.

  There's nothing really that the WTS can withhold from its members or its congregations as a consequence of not paying "enough".

  Their main method of enforcement is pretty much "we'll be really upset with you, if you don't pay." IF JWs get tired of the empty threats, or figure out there really is nothing to fear, what then?
  
• 

  Doubting Bro

  Remember that there's a program of KH consolidations that has been taking place. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that if a congregation consistently sent less then they pledged over a period of time that they wouldn't be put on a list of consolidation targets.

  I think SBF's point about the contributions to the WWW is an interesting one and one I never thought about. I wonder what assumptions the WTS made when planning on revenues from contributions.? Did they anticipate congregations where the KHs are fully paid for to reduce the amount sent to the WWW? I would imagine if the average JW contributed say $100 per month (made up number) and split that 50/50 between the local and WWW that the same person may rationalize that since the congregation is sending a set amount to the WTS, they should change the split to 60/40 to help the congregation met that obligation? I think what they were counting on is that average publisher increases their contribution. I'm not sure that is happening.

  It does given them some more predictability in budgeting incoming revenues since each congregation has a pledged amount. What I would do if I were them would be to set my expenditure budget to closely align with the pledged amount and use any excess funds to expand or to put in a rainy day fund.
• 

  Fisherman

  that congregations are under no legal or fixed obligation to send a certain amount to Watchtower.

  So what if they where under a binding lease? How would that change anything? The money still comes from the contribution box. And if there is not enough to pay for rent, wt will take as much contributions as they can, which they would do anyway even if KH did not have to pay rent.

  What should happen with the donations at the KH is first to pay for Cong expenses and what is left, send to the wt www. But wt does not have it like that. The way it's set up is to first send a predetermined amount to wt from the donations and if there is anything else left, pay the light bill. So, the Cong is left with a deficit and can't pay its bill for the month because the pubs don't realize that they need to contribute. And how does the Cong manage?? From the elders? From rich pubs on standby? From Cong savings accounts for tons of surplus cash for previous years or months?? Nope. From the wt. And where does wt get this money to lend to cong to pay for Cong expenses? From the same money the Cong sent to wt or other donations to the www.
  
  
• 

  sir82

  And where does wt get this money to lend to cong to pay for Cong expenses?

  ???

  I literally cannot even conceive of the WT lending money to congregations to pay for operating expenses.

  I would need to have irrefutable evidence to believe that it has ever happened in the 140 year history of the WTS.
  
  
• 

  done4good

  Sir82
  

  close book study
  

  Your topic is about the WT's financial crisis. This issue doesn't affect the WT's finances at all.

  I have not read through all 13 pages of this thread, (so far), however it is one of the best I have read here in some time.
  

  As to Sir82's point above, I respectfully disagree. I have since its inception maintained that the elimination of the book study was all about finances, (yes I am aware all kinds of reasons were postulated for this, such as paranoia about information control and lawsuits...none of those were ever proven; at the end of the day, the WT cares about $$$). Think about it. At a practical level, given two meeting nights per week per congregation, most kingdom halls hosted two congregations. Sure there were KHs with more, but this would require Saturday meetings and the like. By eliminating just one of those meetings, (the book study was the easy choice), a KH can now host five congregations comfortably. Within a few years came the transfer of deeds to the Society, and a KH sell off that continues to this day. Coincidence?

  This was all in the pipeline for a long time. They started losing money, (revenue) in 1990 when they stopped selling books. All efforts since have been a long-term correction to address the revenue loss and keep operating expenses paid through restructuring.
  

  d4g
  
• 

  _Morpheus

  So although i dont see the financial situation as dire as slim i can confirm one thing he suspected at least as far as my hall was concerned: when the permanent loan payment was but in place the donations to the www dropped radically. I was secretary at the time and saw the booms every month... it was almost $ for $ money was left out of the www box and put into the local box because the congregation knew the “mortgage” was going to the branch fron the local box anyway.

  Also i agree that halls that dont donate will targeted for contraction. Its happening in DC , an area thats GROWING in overall population
• 

  sir82

  By eliminating just one of those meetings, (the book study was the easy choice), a KH can now host five congregations comfortably.

  I admit I never thought of it that way, but it does make perfect sense.

  Which just makes their "we need to build thousands of Kingdom Halls in the USA, give us all your money" dog-n-pony show presented in early 2015 even more reprehensible.

  If their plan was "consolidation" ever since eliminating the home-based CBS's nearly 10 years ago, then their LDC "master plan" was little more than a shamelessly cynical money-grabbing ploy.

  If that was the case, they are even more cold-heartedly greedy than I expected.

  Greedy....or desperate.

  Desperately greedy?
  
• 

  Fisherman

  literally cannot even conceive of the WT lending money to congregations to pay for operating expenses.

  Who pays for the utilities when there is a deficit? Call it a loan or don't call it a loan, the money still come from voluntary contributions to wt. But if it is called a loan, wt can get their money back should there ever be cash flow in the green direction. And even if it is not called a loan , wt would still get the money from the contribution box anyway or from Cong savings, as much as as often as and whenever, for whatever reason.
  
  
• 

  sir82

  the money still come from voluntary contributions to wt.

  So if the Podunk South Dakota congregation has $25 in the bank and a $200 electric bill, the Watchtower will wire them $175?

  Sorry, would never happen.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  would imagine if the average JW contributed say $100 per month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  In what world do you live? With that kind of money, wt would be making money and Cong expenses would be covered.