Politics

The Wealth of Scientology: Celebrities Keeping the Religion Alive

July 19, 2018 By Amanda Stewart Leave a Comment

With the multitude of documentaries and television shows about Scientology in circulation right now, it is hard not to think about it occasionally. Leah Remini’s show Scientology: The Aftermath has shown a light on how much the religion can drain from a single person but how much is it taking from its members’ pockets? The wealth of Scientology may surprise you.

Was L. Ron Hubbard a Millionaire?

Prior to beginning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard was a relatively successful author. He’d also come into a sizable amount of cash through an inheritance at an early age, making money a non-issue throughout much of his life. This led L. Ron Hubbard to be a millionaire long before the Church was ever started but it wasn’t a huge source of wealth for the institution.

Wealthy Celebrity Scientologists

When you talk about the wealth of Scientology, you can’t ignore the fact that a large number of people who are Scientologists are wealthy celebrities. Below are just a few stars who are Scientologists, along with their net worth.

Beck: Musician Beck was born into Scientology and has a net worth of $25 million.
Danny Masterson: In 2017, the Church of Scientology allegedly helped Masterson cover up the sexual abuse of four women. He is worth $16 million.
Isaac Hayes: Hayes voiced the character Chef on South Park for years. Scientology is what led him to leave the show, creators say. He has a net worth of $12 million.
Sonny Bono: Bono, who died in 1998, was a long-time member of the Church. When he left in 1991, other members tried to coax him into returning. At his time of death, Bono was worth $4 million.
Jerry Seinfeld: Jerry Seinfeld never actually joined the Church of Scientology but he does contribute some success in his 20s to Scientology courses he took. Seinfeld has an astounding net worth of $860 million.

There are also a number of wealthy but not necessarily famous families that donate to the Church of Scientology each year. In fact, some of these donors are what keeps the religion afloat, outside of its membership fees and propaganda.

The Wealth of Scientology

As you may have noticed above, the wealthiest of celebrities among Scientologists never actually joined the Church. Many members find themselves giving millions of dollars to Scientology with nothing to show for it.

“There is no other religion that I know of that requires two and a half hours of your day, a quarter of a million dollars minimum, and at least 40 years of your life,” former Scientologist Leah Remini said. Remini spent millions during her time in the Church. And, in truth, this is where the true wealth of Scientology lies.

To become a member of the Church of Scientology, you must spend thousands of dollars on books by L. Ron Hubbard, which all benefits the Church. Remini, who has been speaking out against the Church, detailed the costs of being a member to Business Insider.

According to Remini, there are about 12 basic books you need. These books cost around $4,000 and you’ll need to buy new material when it is published. The Church updates its literature regularly, making it necessary for members to continuously spend money on them. The Church also encourages members to buy and donate sets of these books ($4,000 in value) to local libraries as well.

Scientology Introductory Courses and Lectures

There are several introductory courses members pay for as well. Each costs about $35 but Scientologists are required to take them. Other required courses can cost as much as $650 each and require 13 hours of studying a day, seven days a week. If they don’t, they are in danger of being removed from the Church. They also won’t ever reach spiritual freedom if they don’t pay for and take these courses, according to the Church.

Not to mention, you’ll need to purchase Hubbard’s lectures on audio, donate to the Church’s causes, and pay a membership fee. All in all, becoming a Scientologist will cost you about $250,000. So, there’s really no wonder as to why so many celebrities are involved. Not many others would be able to afford the hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions it may cost to join.

Because the church is tax-exempt, the bulk of that goes right into its pockets and members are able to deduct donations. Although church representatives have denied all negative claims against Scientology, there is little room to doubt the source of the religion’s wealth.

If you’re interested in Remini’s show, Scientology: The Aftermath, check out the clip below. The show is scheduled to return for its third season in the fall.

Readers, what do you think about the wealth of Scientology? Let us know in the comment section below or sound off in the Saving Advice forums.

Free Super Bowl Squares Printable Chart for Super Bowl LI

January 25, 2017 By Amanda Stewart 4 Comments

With the Super Bowl just around the corner, it’s common for people to begin getting ready for the game between the New England Patriots and Atlanta Falcons. One of the questions which often arises is, “How do you play Super Bowl football squares?” For those who only play the game once a year when the championship game comes around, it’s not necessarily obvious simply by looking at the chart. The good news is it’s not too difficult at all once you learn the proper way to set the game up. Properly setting up Super Bowl football squares is important because not doing so can give participants the chance to greatly increase their odds of winning by manipulating where they place their name in the squares. Once you know the basics, you can use if for any football game in the future. Below you’ll find a step by step instructions on how to play Super Bowl LI football squares:

Step One: Print the Super Bowl Football Squares Chart

The first step to playing is to print a 10 square by 10 square chart. You can do so by clicking on the image or for a larger printable football squares chart, you can follow this football squares link (pdf printable)

Step Two: Set a Price for the Value of the Squares

If you decide to make a friendly wager on the game, you next need to decide how much each square on the chart will be worth. The amount you decide is what each participant will need to pay for each square they place their name in on the chart. The amount for each square is completely up to you and can be adjusted to fit the group of people you’re going to be playing the game with. Below are a few examples of amounts you could determine each square to be worth, and what the total pool for that amount would be.

10 cent squares would create a total pool of $10.00
25 cent squares would create a total pool of $25.00
50 cent squares would create a total pool of $50.00
1 dollar squares would create a total pool of $100.00
2 dollar squares would create a total pool of $200.00
5 dollar squares would create a total pool of $500.00
10 dollar squares would create a total pool of $1000.00

For those who don’t want to bet money, another common option is to not sell each square for a certain amount, but to have the host buy small prizes which are given away to the winning square holders at the end each quarter or at the end of the game.

Step Three: Assign Squares

The next step is to fill in the 100 squares inside the chart. The most common way to do this is to have all those participating initial the square(s) the want for the game. Another common way is to assign each participant a color and they color in the square(s) they want. You can use any method you want to assign the squares as long as it’s easy to determine which ones belong to each participant.

The number of squares each person gets depends on the number of people playing the game. If you have 10 people playing, each would pick 10 squares. If you have 5 people playing, each would pick 20 squares. If you have 50 people playing each would pick 2 squares.

It’s important to not switch step three and four around, as doing so can give those who first choose squares a distinct advantage of winning.

Step Four: Randomly Assign Numbers 0 – 9 to Top and Side Rows

You want to have participants fill in all the squares before assigning random numbers to the Atlanta Falcons and New England Patriots rows. There are certain numbers which are far more likely to end up being a winning number than other numbers due to the way football is scored. It’s much more likely the score for each team will end with a 0, 3 or 7 than with a 2 or 5. If you fill in the top and side rows with numbers before assigning squares, those who first fill in their squares have a huge advantage as they can pick numbers which are much more likely to appear as the game’s score. Randomly assigning the numbers (this is usually done by picking the numbers out of a hat) after all the squares have been picked ensures all have an equal chance of getting the “good” numbers.

Step Five: Decide How to Award Prizes

There are a wide variety of ways to award prizes. You can decide which is best for you and the group you’re playing with. Most games give out a small amount at the end of each quarter, with a bigger prize for the participant that has the winning square at the end of the game. Below you’ll find some of the different ways you can award the prize money. For those who are giving away predetermined prizes rather than money, you should also determine how these will be awarded.

Ways you can payout prize money for super bowl squares

Step Six: Determine the Winners

In order to determine the winner, you need to look at the last number of the score for each team. For example, if the score is New England 14 and Seattle 13 after the first quarter, you would look for the “4” column from the Patriots side, and “3” column from the Seahawks side. Once the two columns have been determined, you run the lines together until they meet at a square which is the winner. You follow the same process with the scores at half-time, the end of the third quarter, and the final score.

Finally, if you want to learn how to improve your odds of winning Super Bowl squares, check out our article here.

If you enjoyed this article please leave us a comment below or share it on social media.

Thousands of Vets Almost Free from Paying Back Bonuses

December 5, 2016 By Alexa Mason 2 Comments

December 5. 2016

A California National Guardsman with family member before a deployment to Afghanistan. (Staff Sgt. Emily Surh/Army National Guard)

LOS ANGELES – It looks like thousands of California veterans will soon be released from any obligation to pay back millions of dollars to the Pentagon. The new agreement was folded into the latest Defense Appropriations Bill, which the Senate takes up this week.

Roughly ten years ago, in an effort to increase the number of troops at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 10,000 California National Guardsmen and women were incorrectly offered bonuses to re-up their service. Now, Congress appears to be coming together to protect them from their employer’s mistake.

Congressman Andrew Schiff, D-Dist. 28, who represents the Greater Los Angeles area, said a tremendous number of veterans received these bonuses – and then years later, were targeted by the Pentagon for repayment.

“Several of these soldiers then paid them back, or suffered consequences in terms of their credit. Others really faced a terrible predicament because they used this money to buy a home or to get an education,” Schiff said. “It’s a terrible position to be in.”

Schiff’s petition to allow the guard members to keep the bonus money was widely supported. But the defense bill has been called bloated by detractors who object to increasing military spending by $3 billion beyond what the president had sought.

The bill would also give troops a pay raise of 2.1 percent – slightly more than the Pentagon had requested. And it specifically prohibits the Obama Administration from fulfilling its promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The Defense Appropriations Bill is expected to pass in the Senate, and will likely be signed by the president. In the meantime, the Pentagon has until July 2017 to bring any cases against soldiers believed to have committed fraud in receiving bonuses. Schiff said he’s ready to stand by the vets.

“These soldiers had every right to feel betrayed,” he said. “They were made this bargain, they were offered these bonuses; there was no reason for them to question them. And for the Pentagon, so many years later, to come after them and essentially say, ‘You shouldn’t have been offered that bonus, we want you to pay it back’ – it’s just a terrible disservice.”

Schiff said he’s cautiously optimistic that Congress can work together to get things done in the New Year, as evidenced by this progress for veterans. He said he thinks common ground could be found with an infrastructure bill, to fix roads and update the telecommunications and energy grids.

Republished with permission.

Logan Pollard, Public News Service – CA

Reviewing the Mind-Boggling Mistakes of the 2016 Election

November 1, 2016 By Alexa Mason Leave a Comment

After a seemingly interminable and utterly frustrating year, the election is finally ending. Yet, before we celebrate the winners (or revolt for the losers) we should take a few moments to reflect on what made the 2016 election so ugly.

For members of both parties, the 2016 presidential race was heart-breaking, hair-pulling, side-splitting, and back-aching; it was the most unpleasant election in living memory, and possibly the nastiest race in American history. For the sake of making future elections less painful to behold, here are a few thoughts on what went so wretchedly wrong (and what went surprisingly well) this election cycle.

Contemptible Candidates

Even before the party primaries, most voters were bemoaning the lack of options. In the years since President Barack Obama’s reelection, no well-known Republican has stepped forward to become a party leader and presidential front-runner. Meanwhile, most Democrats were well-aware that Hillary Clinton would toss her name into the hat once more, but many sought for less-controversial, more-progressive alternatives, like Bernie Sanders. Still, the Democratic Party was able to produce a candidate who could unify her party, and the GOP ultimately nominated Washington-outsider Donald Trump.

Indeed, both candidates have their share of scandals. The Clinton Foundation might have accepted contributions from foreign powers with whom Clinton negotiated during her tenure as Secretary of State while the Trump Foundation used a significant portion of its funds to settle Donald’s personal legal problems. Clinton mistakenly used a private server to send and receive classified emails, and Trump refused to release his tax returns ― a precedent for all presidential nominees that ensures they are behaving above-the-board. Clinton accepted responsibility for four American deaths at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi while Trump continues to deny controversial statements he is on record for saying, such as that climate change is a hoax, that he was for the Iraqi war, and that it is smart to avoid paying taxes.

For much of the lead up to the election, Clinton effectively unified her party and pulled in the allegiance of independents and moderates. Contrastingly, Trump continued to alienate all but his core fans, allowing leading Republicans to publicly renounce him and back alternative GOP candidates ― even as early ballots were already in voters’ mailboxes. Even with such unlikeable candidates, the race remained the same: Voter turnout determined who won.

Model Moderators

Perhaps because the nominees were so despicable this cycle, the presidential debates were some of the most-watched. In fact, the first debate pulled in 84 million viewers across 13 television channels, ousting the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate as the most popular debate in the tradition’s 60-year history. However, even as more people than ever tuned in to see Clinton and Trump verbally joust, many pundits bemoaned the outdated format of the presidential debates.

The speed of modern technology is toppling traditional debate structure. For one, viewers at home can discuss debate responses in real time, and many wish for more control over questions and follow-up questions. This could provide voters with more than the empty rhetoric and soundbites most media channels crave.

However, perhaps more pressing is the issue of fact-checking. These debates, more than most, were riddled with he said, she said moments, and thanks to the breadth of the internet, voters and moderators alike were able to verify statements in-the-moment. In 2012, moderator Candy Crowley was both ridiculed and honored for her interjection during Mitt Romney’s debate response, in which she corrected a false assertion.

In 2016, viewers craved such interruptions to ensure candidates remained honest and on-point. In fact, moderators Lester Holt and Chris Wallace were derided for their relative silence during candidates’ mistruths. Should the familiar debate structure continue in future debates, we should expect to see a much greater devotion to on-the-spot fact-checking for more honest discussion.

Fallacious Feelings

The biggest mistake of the entire election ― the one that we should take note of for all future races, presidential or otherwise ― was the widespread reliance on feelings. Before the race, pundits and voters alike used subjective metrics to judge the fitness of candidates for the president: Clinton seemed cold, Cruz seemed skeevy, Trump seemed strong, Sanders seemed goofy. Even when the nominees put forth fleshed-out policies to define their race, the media preferred to cover stories that pulled viewers’ heartstrings or touched viewers’ nerves, playing on feelings rather than reporting on facts.

As a result, this election has caused widespread disappointment and disillusionment with the political system. If we change nothing else in 2020 ― if the parties are still unable to put forth credible candidates and if the debates remain uninformative ― we as voters should strive to put feelings aside in search of the truth.

Top Stocks Impacting The Net Worth of Congress in 2016

July 26, 2016 By Alexa Mason 1 Comment

Taking financial advice from members of Congress? It sounds like the start of a joke. Well…isn’t. A recent study by four economists found that stock trading by U.S. Senators beat market averages by a whopping 12% annually. In fact, the research indicated that not only do senators make better buying decisions, they also make better selling decisions – performance unheard of in the regular market. Partly as a result of this, the average net worth of Congress, specifically of Senators, is $8,047,961.93 – far higher than the national average net worth of of $528,420.00.

The good news is that the net worth of Congress can be estimated from disclosures required by Federal law. These disclosures include what stocks Senators choose to invest in. The bad news is that this information is dated. Still, even dated information can give you insight into what type of companies US Congress people choose to be part of their investment portfolios. The information below is from the 2014 disclosures, the latest information currently available to the public according to Opensecrets.org. The top 10 companies that members of the US Senate held in 2014 are shown below:

#1 Apple Inc.

The stock at the top of the list is Apple Inc. A total of 13 senators had investments in this stock which included 5 Democrats, 7 Republicans and 1 Independent. Democrats held more shares with a minimum investment value of $603.008 for Democrats and $417,007 for Republicans. Given the strong earnings and excellent recent historic price performance of Apple Inc. this company is clearly helping drive congressional net worth.

#2 General Electric

General Electric came in as the second most held stock among US Senators. There were 12 Senators in total who owned the company with 5 being Democrats, 6 being Republicans and 1 Independent. Democrats owned more GE stock than Republicans. The minimum investments were $162,008 and $96,005 for Democrats and Republicans respectively. General Electric pays a 92 cent share annual dividend, contributing substantially to the wealth of Senators owning this stock.

#3 IBM Corp.

In 2014 IBM stock was held by 12 Senators. This includes 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 Independent. Republicans held much more IBM stock than Democrats. The minimum amount of IBM shares owned by Republicans was $230,004 versus $110,005 for Democrats. IBM has a healthy dividend payout of $5.56 per year, making it a valuable addition to the net worth of Congress members who hold it.

#4 Procter & Gamble

Procter & Gamble holds the number forth spot as the most held stock among Senators in Congress. Proctor and Gamble is owned by 7 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 Independent. Republicans hold far more Proctor & Gamble stock than Democrats do. The minimum amount of Proctor & Gamble held by Republicans was $270,009 compared to just $81,004 for Democrats.

#5 Exxon Mobil

Exxon Mobil is the fifth most held stock by members of the Senate with 11 members owning it. This includes 1 Democrat, 9 Republicans and 1 Independent. In keeping with the GOP’s traditional reputation, the minimum amount of Exxon Mobil stock owned by Republicans ($277,009) is much larger than the amount owned by Democrats ($50,001). Despite recent declines in oil prices, Exxon Mobil has a strong track record and pays $3.00 annually.

#6 Chevron Corp.

Chevron is in 6th position. This oil and gas giant is owned by 10 Senators. Four times as many Republicans own Chevron (8) than Democrats (2). Similar to Exxon Mobil the amount of Chevron stock owned by Republicans is much greater ($419,010) than the amount owned by Democrats ($51,002). Despite changes in oil prices, Chevron’s historic growth in stock price and healthy $4.28 dividend contribute substantially to the net worth’s of senators who own this company.

#7 Qualcomm Inc.

Software manufacturer Qualcomm Inc. is seventh on the list. Qualcomm is owned by 10 members of the Senate. Six Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 Independent have an ownership stake in Qualcomm. Both Republicans and Democrats have comparable amounts of equity in this company – the minimum amount held by Republicans was $98,007 versus $82,005 for Democrats.

#8 PepsiCo Inc.

Food conglomerate PepsiCo is 7th in the list with 10 Senators owning shares. These senators include 6 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 Independent. Republicans hold far more Pepsi stock than Democrats. The minimum amount of PepsiCo equity owned by Republicans was $317,006 versus only $34,006 for Democrats.

#9 Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson is held by 10 members (2 Democrats, 7 Republicans and 1 Independent). Republican Senators in general own more of this company than Democrats, with minimum holdings of $212,008 vs. $31,003. Johnson and Johnson pays a $3.20 dividend annually. The price of the company has increased by 125% in the past decade, lining the pockets of Senators who hold it long term.

#10 JP Morgan Chase & Co.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. is in the tenth position with 9 Senate members holding this stock. Ownership is split evenly (4 to 4) among Republicans and Democrats with just one Independent owning shares of this company. Democrats are the bigger owners of JP Morgan Chase with minimum holdings of $128,009 versus only $19,005 for Republicans. While last on this list, JP Morgan Chase certainly isn’t least in the impact on the net worth of Congress. The company pays dividend of $1.93 annually – contributing substantially to the wealth of politicians who own it.

Pope Francis Calls Catholics to Act Against Climate Change

December 31, 2015 By Lilian Nwa Leave a Comment

Pope Francis encourages Catholics and world leaders to fight climate change

Pope Francis has not been one to mince words or refrain from sharing his thoughts. In December, he accused the Curia (the senior governing group of the Vatican consisting of cardinals, bishops and priests) of suffering from “spiritual Alzheimer’s” and of “existential schizophrenia” though he did say that such problems pose a danger to all Christians including himself.

Now, Francis has turned his attention to climate change in a move that will again anger staunch conservatives who were already infuriated by Francis’ prior call to ease global policy via state intervention in the market economy.

According to the website thinkprogress.org, Francis made a biblical case for addressing climate change when he told a large crowd in Rome that, “Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will…[It] is a gift…that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude.” Francis continued by calling destruction of the planet a “sinful act” akin to telling God that his creation is faulty or inadequate.

Now, the Pope is encouraging world leaders and approximately 1.2 billion Catholics to take an active role in protecting the planet and thus preventing climate change that too often disrupts ecologies and peoples’ livelihoods. According to Seattle Pi, Francis will soon visit the Philippines’ city Tacloban, which was devastated in 2012 by Super-Typhoon Haiyan. Many believe he will subsequently release an encyclical (a papal letter sent to bishops and intended for wide circulation) concerning the threat of global warming.

As mentioned, American conservatives have not received this news kindly. In fact, Fox News correspondent Doug McKelway reported that the Pope had aligned himself with “a few environmental extremists who favor widespread population control and wealth redistribution.”

Still, the Pope’s call for action seems to have widespread support among most Catholics and Christians generally. In 2006, the Evangelical Climate Initiative warned its members that poor nations and individuals are most susceptible to the challenge and threat of global warming. Christians, the organizers said, who are naturally called to care for their neighbors must then care about climate change.

Altogether, it seems then that Catholics, along with other Christians, individuals of other faiths and those with no faith, should join efforts to protect the planet from climate change. In our collective efforts, we can decrease the burden borne by the poorest nations and individuals with the most to lose.

(Photo courtesy of Aleteia Image Department)