Posted on 06/19/2004 11:46:35 PM PDT by Michael2001
O'Connor making this kind of profit doesn't pass the smell test. He was the both the seller's agent and the buyer. If as agent he sold a $489,000 painting to a third party for $3,200 not knowing what it was worth, I'd chalk it up as one of those things. If as a buyer not connected to the church auction he saw a steal, err bargain, and made a 15,000% return on his money, great for him. But he was both. An agent cannot screw his principal like that. If this church was a local government that sold something worth $489,000 for $3,200 to the government employee in charge of the sale there would be an indictment.
Interesting they make it sound like an "evil church" story. The fact is, any charity, once hearing about a large windfall, will set their donation dogs upon it and try to get a piece of it - using some related history is always useful in a potential transaction. This is how private donating should work, rather than a government collecting our money and handing it out to anyone who asks.
If these "friends" don't want to donate anything, it's their right to refuse. They're not being forced to to anything; they were obviously going to keep all the dough, and they resent the fact that they're "expected" to make a sacrifice now. Whining to the press so they can feel better about not making a grateful donation to the church, I guess!
Did the giver know the value of the painting, that he owned, when he donated it to the church?
Agreed.
Socialists consider all wealth to be community property, except for _THEIR_ wealth.
GOD mandates tithing 10% should go to some worthy cause to help the poor...48K would be a nice amount to the church as well as other people in need...
THEY PURCHASED IT FROM THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS WORTH? BUYER/SELLER BEWARE. SELLERS REMORSE. OH WELL.
I personally always pay tithe on gross. My belief is that this is God's money even if the government does take part of it before I get it. There is no mention in the Bible of taxes being exempt from tithes.
He tithes on what is appropriate for him.
IMHO, those who actually give 10% on the net, instead of the gross, give me no cause to complain. If all did this, churches would not have problems taking care of their basic needs and charity.
also, my belief is that God's work is not solely through the Church but in personally taking care of his flock. (i.e. some of that 10% is charity outside the Church)
I'll give you seventy-five cents for it, but the offer expires at midnight.
He should pay (if he chooses to) on what he actually received. $70,000.
Great point... except that in this case, the seller—the person the church trusted to get the best price for the painting—just happens to be the very same person who then bought the painting for less than 1% of its true value.
"SELLERS REMORSE."
This particular seller should be feeling his remorse in prison.
Good question. I go with the $7,000, personally (10% of net).
How come you guys are hung up on fraud?? I don't see anything wrong, the partners took a chance of the painting, they may or may not have suspected it was worth more. So what, if the church was happy with their $ 3200. So be it.
I wish I could go back to every deal I have ever made, and tell the other person, hey you sold what I sold you and you made some money on it, so I think you should split with me. Yeah right. get real, this happens every day. I am bidding on some old coins as we speak, and I hope to find a market for them and make some money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.