Reported income

[Bea Kiddo]

I just received the earnings record from the Social Security office. It lists everything reported from the begining. I hadn't really paid much mind to it before, but I was shocked.

Check this out: I joined the Sea Org in May of 1989. I left in 2004 (May). I will list income since the begining until 03:

83: $4.00
84: 0
85: $14
86: 0
87: 0
88: 0
89: 0
90: 0
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: 2,576
95: 2,284
96: 2,925
97: 2,140
98: 1,355
99: 1,075
00: 637
01: 950
02: 637
03: 216


Instead I got a ton of freedom? Who needs money, eh?

How could anyone blow, even if they wanted to? One year of pay would barely pay for 2 nights in a roach motel!

[Alanzo]

I just received the earnings record from the Social Security office. It lists everything reported from the begining. I hadn't really paid much mind to it before, but I was shocked.

Check this out: I joined the Sea Org in May of 1989. I left in 2004 (May). I will list income since the begining until 03:

83: $4.00
84: 0
85: $14
86: 0
87: 0
88: 0
89: 0
90: 0
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: 2,576
95: 2,284
96: 2,925
97: 2,140
98: 1,355
99: 1,075
00: 637
01: 950
02: 637
03: 216


Instead I got a ton of freedom? Who needs money, eh?

How could anyone blow, even if they wanted to? One year of pay would barely pay for 2 nights in a roach motel!

If Tommy Davis were here, what would he ask?

Weren't you just a part time cleaning lady?

[Dulloldfart]

I just received the earnings record from the Social Security office. It lists everything reported from the begining. I hadn't really paid much mind to it before, but I was shocked.

Check this out: I joined the Sea Org in May of 1989. I left in 2004 (May). I will list income since the begining until 03:

83: $4.00
84: 0
85: $14
86: 0
87: 0
88: 0
89: 0
90: 0
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: 2,576
95: 2,284
96: 2,925
97: 2,140
98: 1,355
99: 1,075
00: 637
01: 950
02: 637
03: 216

Mine was similar in the years 1986-1996. They changed something in 1994, i.e. it stopped being reported as 0. You still got paid something for the years prior, right?

Paul

[Bea Kiddo]

Mine was similar in the years 1986-1996. They changed something in 1994, i.e. it stopped being reported as 0. You still got paid something for the years prior, right?

Paul

Yes- 89 to 93 I was paid. However, it was RPF pay, which was 11.50 per week, from 89 to 91.

Holy rolly pollies!!! I joined in May 88! Not May 89!!! I was RPFed in May 89. Duh.

May 88 I was 15. Turned 16 in Oct.

No school during those months, except Saturday morning class. I did some exam and passed and got HS diploma or whatever.

[AnonOrange]

Yes- 89 to 93 I was paid. However, it was RPF pay, which was 11.50 per week, from 89 to 91.

Paul is bringing up something very important here. Even if it was 11.50 per week it had to be reported.

I don't believe the money you got was ever an "expense reimbursement" and can be paid in cash, without reporting. Had the CoS been smart, they would have made you fill out expense forms. Because they didn't do thta then the 11.50 is a SALARY and must be reported.

If you have any proof that your got the money from 89-93, they've got a big problem on their hands. Also, did they match the employer part of the social security 7.65%?

[alex]

Paul is bringing up something very important here. Even if it was 11.50 per week it had to be reported.

I don't believe the money you got was ever an "expense reimbursement" and can be paid in cash, without reporting. Had the CoS been smart, they would have made you fill out expense forms. Because they didn't do thta then the 11.50 is a SALARY and must be reported.

If you have any proof that your got the money from 89-93, they've got a big problem on their hands. Also, did they match the employer part of the social security 7.65%?

The church claims the moneys given to SO is a stipend. And it is given to "religious workers" a class of person who is mostly a volunteer, such as a priest or nun, not there for the simple exchange of labor for compensation, but working for a cause.

It is a different set of rules than the typical ones more common types of employees are subject too. In some cases "religious worker" compensation is not reported and taxed the same way wages are.

It will be interesting if the Headly case gets any traction, as it will effect other religions such as catholics that have large numbers of people classed as "religious workers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

The law on this is on the church's side.....

(I'm not saying its fair or right, it would be fair or right if SO got decent food, housing, medical, auditing and training, and care in their later years)

[Div6]

The church claims the moneys given to SO is a stipend. And it is given to "religious workers" a class of person who is mostly a volunteer, such as a priest or nun, not there for the simple exchange of labor for compensation, but working for a cause.

It is a different set of rules than the typical ones more common types of employees are subject too. In some cases "religious worker" compensation is not reported and taxed the same way wages are.

It will be interesting if the Headly case gets any traction, as it will effect other religions such as catholics that have large numbers of people classed as "religious workers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

The law on this is on the church's side.....

Cue the OSA shill, trying to minimize the Church's overts of ignoring the laws of the land and justifying its enslaver mentality.


The law is NOT on the Church's side. The CoS is an ongoing criminal enterprise that has been scheming to deny civil rights to people from its inception. And you support and defend that slavery and abuse, and even try to characterize it as 'freedom'.

Good luck with that.

[AnonOrange]

The church claims the moneys given to SO is a stipend. And it is given to "religious workers" a class of person who is mostly a volunteer, such as a priest or nun, not there for the simple exchange of labor for compensation, but working for a cause.

It is a different set of rules than the typical ones more common types of employees are subject too.

It will be interesting if the Headly case gets any traction, as it will effect other religions such as catholics that have large numbers of people classed as "religious workers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

The law on this is on the church's side.....

Maybe so, but read this from Wiki:
"Stipends are usually lower than what would be expected as a permanent salary for similar work. This is because the stipend is complemented by other benefits such as accreditation, instruction, food and/ or accommodation."

Then the church is totally shooting themselves in the foot with the freeloader debt invoices for people that blow. Those were supposed to be free and a benefit in compensation for the services. Also was the word "stipend" ever mentioned in the contract? I remember reading discussions about "employment" and "salary", but never "stipend".

The simple fact that the amounts are on the W-2 implies a salary, not a stipend.

Also, I like this line from the Wiki article:
"However, it is considered immoral to demand payment for a sacrament, and stipends are seen as gifts."

I guess that means the CoS price lists are immoral! Well, we knew that.

[bluewiggirl]

The church claims the moneys given to SO is a stipend. And it is given to "religious workers" a class of person who is mostly a volunteer, such as a priest or nun, not there for the simple exchange of labor for compensation, but working for a cause.

It is a different set of rules than the typical ones more common types of employees are subject too. In some cases "religious worker" compensation is not reported and taxed the same way wages are.

It will be interesting if the Headly case gets any traction, as it will effect other religions such as catholics that have large numbers of people classed as "religious workers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

The law on this is on the church's side.....

(I'm not saying its fair or right, it would be fair or right if SO got decent food, housing, medical, auditing and training, and care in their later years)

There is legal precedent working against the church specifically on the matter of religious workers: http://www.whoisdavidmiscavige.com/d...-complaint.pdf
page 4, line 24.

[clamicide]

The church claims the moneys given to SO is a stipend. And it is given to "religious workers" a class of person who is mostly a volunteer, such as a priest or nun, not there for the simple exchange of labor for compensation, but working for a cause.

It is a different set of rules than the typical ones more common types of employees are subject too. In some cases "religious worker" compensation is not reported and taxed the same way wages are.

It will be interesting if the Headly case gets any traction, as it will effect other religions such as catholics that have large numbers of people classed as "religious workers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

The law on this is on the church's side.....

(I'm not saying its fair or right, it would be fair or right if SO got decent food, housing, medical, auditing and training, and care in their later years)

Every nun outside of the 'poverty vow' I ever met made a decent living wage and lived well. Those brothers and sisters I met who WERE in orders where they who took the vow of poverty still had enough for basic survival, decent survival, human survival. Lived in clean, well-maintained quarters and had regular meals that were nutritional. Not beans and rice and water. Living on minimum wage IS considered poverty. Oh...and if they got sick, they got a doctor. Not sent off to languish in an ER on the state's dime. And, they were taken care of in their later years. The CoS brings an entirely new meaning to the word poverty. Nothing spiritual about abusing your members for slave labor and claiming it's all "religious". What the CoS is duing might fall under the letter, but not the intent of the law, and it's just a matter of time and fighting before this gets ripped to shreds.