Gospel Group salaries
Nirman Graham
Kingsmen:
"And, as an added note, he'll probably do far better financially
by working for a church rather than singing for The Kingsmen."
If that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt Tony) it is
understandable to me why people leave the Gospel singing field. If a top
group like the Kingsmen do not pay that well, I can only imagine what
lower-ranked groups pay. I know money should not be the only factor in
determining a job choice but if a gospel singer finds a better paying job
which allows him/her to stay home more I think he/she has to give it serious
consideration (especially when both jobs are ministry related). That's just
my view.
Norm
Paul Slopak Jr.
of them struggle?
"Nirman Graham" <ngra...@home.com> wrote in message
news:YcFL6.31595$r7.53...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
steph...@webtv.net
and it didn't sound too bad,but whether it was true or not I don't
know.Anyways....Alot of the groups must make pretty good,actually real
good.The reason is this....Looking in The Singing News at the At Home
features,some of the groups live in very nice homes.By very nice I mean
something that looks like a country or rock singer would live in.Jeff
and Sheri Easter have a huge,beautiful home and I doubt very seriously
that their home cost less than $200,000,maybe even close to
$300,000.Also Sheri has opened up her own clothing store.It takes money
to do that.I think that most of the big names in gospel music probably
make pretty well!!!! Thanks
Clarence Grigsby
==================================
Nirman Graham wrote:
Tony Rush wrote recently in the discussion on Bryan Hutson leaving the
Kingsmen:
"And, as an added note, he'll probably do far better financially by
working for a church rather than singing for The Kingsmen."
Nirman Graham
individuals hired to sing for a group on a straight salary. That's where the
turnover seems to occur. The Easters, I assume, own their group and, of
course, are both in the group which would increase their earnings. They
regularly appear on the Gaither tapings and also work many of the Gaither
concert shows which helps increase their profile and probably allows them to
charge more when performing elsewhere. They also have other businesses.
Besides the clothing store mentioned, they own a recording studio which
would produce income. I don't know whether the fact that both their
families are in the music business (Lewis Family and Easter Brothers) is a
factor in all this.
Norm
<steph...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13957-3B...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Wes
(although not my personal source of income), that professional SoGos singers
do NOT make a great living. Only the few at the top, such as those
appearing on the Homecoming videos make a 'decent' living, and even they are
far from high rollers.
In fact, I'd venture a guess that even Bill Gaither is worth far less than
many speculate. Wealth? Possibly, but nothing in comparison to the wealth
ANY CEO of a major Corp routintely makes.
IMHO
Wes
"Clarence Grigsby" <Clarenc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10325-3B...@storefull-287.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
David Murray (SG Fan)
> When I raised the issue, and maybe I wasn't clear, I was referring to
> individuals hired to sing for a group on a straight salary.
That's a good question. What might a person hired to sing lead for a group
like the Kingsmen make? I'd presume they pay better than the Anchormen,
right Tony? I'd also presume the Gaither Vocal Band pays more than the
Kingsmen, etc.
But for a typical popular, full time quartet like the Kingsmen or Kingdom
Heirs, would a hired singer make more than $30,000 a year gross in actual
wages, not counting any perks?
--
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@deletethisrfci.net
http://rfci.net/dbmurray/
http://www.musicscribe.com/
Making hay while the sun shines!
Yaderp
to afford that luxury.
--
Yaderp
Everyone has a photographic memory.Some just don't have film.
Wes <we...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Bi0M6.519$Ed7.311...@newssvr10-int.news.prodigy.com...
Wes
probably 'owns' the jet... and at least GVB uses the thing. Most private
CEO's fly once a week tops.
Wes
"Yaderp" <Yad...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9drtuc$4bgf$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Tony Rush
>
> That's a good question. What might a person hired to sing lead for a group
> like the Kingsmen make? I'd presume they pay better than the Anchormen,
> right Tony? I'd also presume the Gaither Vocal Band pays more than the
> Kingsmen, etc.
Without getting too detailed, let me say that the starting salary of
The Kingsmen is less than what I started with The Anchormen.
>
> But for a typical popular, full time quartet like the Kingsmen or Kingdom
> Heirs, would a hired singer make more than $30,000 a year gross in actual
> wages, not counting any perks?
I'm sure The Kingdom Heirs do better than the Kingsmen on the personal
salary issue, simply because they're the closest thing to "corporately
sponsored"
that SGM has. Keep in mind a few issues, too, on the "salary" topic:
- members have to take care of their own taxes. So, depending on how
interested they are in their own tax situation and learning about
deductions, their earnings do not reflect the 30% tax bite.
- members pay their own food expenses. The only thing provided is
the lodging and transportation. When you figure three meals per
day on the road, plus Cokes, snacks, etc., you can take another $50
per day off the salary.
- This does not include phone cards, cellphone bills for calling home,
magazines, books, toiletry items (shampoo, shaving cream, razors,
etc.). When you figure in the cost of these items on a regular basis,
you can easily subtract $100 or more per week instead of just the
$50 I mentioned above.
- Contrary to what many think, a suit of clothes, tie, shirts, socks,
shoes,
etc. are NOT deductible. When you figure that a quality suit of clothes
starts around $300 and you need several (winter and summer), there's
another $1,000-$2,000 that gets spent in the course of the year.
In other words, don't let the facade fool you. Most paid group members
are netting around $12,000 per year and some are making less. I know
one member of a group that you all would recognize as being extremely
popular whose wife and kids use WIC products because of their
income.
Tony
-
Tony Rush
> to afford that luxury.
Really? What CEO of a "major corporation" couldn't afford a jet? Perhaps
some of the smaller corporations, but a major one? Jets aren't that
expensive.
Also, transportation is a tax deduction. Bill Gaither probably saves money
on air fare, in the long run, by having his own jet instead of flying
commercial -
but on top of that, since he's deducting the cost of the jet, the pilot, and
the
fuel, the government is PAYING him to fly to all these concerts.
Another example is Claude Hopper's $600,000+ bus. Do we really think
that Claude needs a bus that expense when he hates spending money?
No, instead, he knows that he's going to get out of a massive amount
of taxes by riding in the finest style available.
Bottom line: if you're either going to have to buy something really nice
or give all that money to the government, the smart businessman
buys something nice. :)
Wes
NOT pay you for anything. PERIOD...
Having a tax deduction simply means that you DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX ON
THAT MONEY!!! But believe you me, You STILL HAVE TO SPEND IT....
I'm considered a "contractor" by the government in my line of sales work...
and my expenses average $50,000 a year. I PERSONALLY SPEND THE $50,000 MY
FRIEND... all 'writing it off" does is allow me to avoid paying income tax
on that $50 grand, and it's EXACTLY the same process for ANY TYPE of
business/
Secondly, there is absolutely NO WAY that flying a private jet could ever
POSSIBLY be cheaper than flying commercial. Flying a private jet costs
several thousand dollars per hour at a minimum. But it is wonderfully
convenient, and personal jets fly on YOUR schedule. That's the most
important element. My company owns a Saratoga, (six seat single engine) and
we often take short business trips. This averages several hundred dollars
per hour, no matter how you shake it. And yes, we can write that off, BUT
WE STILL SPENT THE MONEY, and we don't get it back from Uncle Sam.
And for the record, you can't touch ANY jet for less than MILLIONSSSSS....
Even a prop plane can be over a million if fully dressed.
Now, do I drive a nice car in my line of work? Yeah, sure do, and I write
it off. Every cent of it (even though the gov DOES impose some limits on
that these days).... but you know what? I still pay for every cent of it.
If anyone ever figures out a way around that, PLEASE let me know.
Claude Hopper rides in the finest bus because he LIKES RIDING IN A FINE
BUS... (wish our quartet could say that!!!)... but he doesn't do it
because it helps him financially. NO WAY.
I must admit however, that the unions of old propagated the thought for many
years through the rank and file that tax write offs are a gift from the
government, and that they somehow "don't really cost a business anything"...
but that is, and always has been, TOTALLY FALSE.
Hope that clear it up... At least I feel better for having said it... God
Bless
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg4v9be...@corp.supernews.com...
Tony Rush
You seem to certainly be passionate (and maybe mildly upset)
about my comments. Let me see if I can clarify them or make
them worse.
> Tony!!!! You are SO WRONG on this one. First of all the government does
> NOT pay you for anything. PERIOD...
>
> Having a tax deduction simply means that you DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX
ON
> THAT MONEY!!! But believe you me, You STILL HAVE TO SPEND IT....
Firstly, being wrong is a right we all have. Perhaps I exercised mine;
perhaps
I didn't.
I never said that you didn't have to spend it. In fact, I believe that's
precisely
what I DID say.
> I'm considered a "contractor" by the government in my line of sales
work...
> and my expenses average $50,000 a year. I PERSONALLY SPEND THE $50,000 MY
> FRIEND... all 'writing it off" does is allow me to avoid paying income tax
> on that $50 grand, and it's EXACTLY the same process for ANY TYPE of
> business/
What did I say that made you think I misunderstood that? It's a fairly
straightforward
concept. My point was, and still is, that there are some things that you
can
buy with your salary that you will not have to pay taxes on. So, if you
earn
$50,000 per year and are able to write off, say, travel expenses which
amount to $20,000, then you are exempt from paying taxes on that
$20,000.
End result: you enjoyed $20,000 worth of travel and didn't have to pay
taxes on the income that allowed it. Period.
> Secondly, there is absolutely NO WAY that flying a private jet could ever
> POSSIBLY be cheaper than flying commercial. Flying a private jet costs
> several thousand dollars per hour at a minimum. But it is wonderfully
> convenient, and personal jets fly on YOUR schedule. That's the most
> important element. My company owns a Saratoga, (six seat single engine)
and
> we often take short business trips. This averages several hundred dollars
> per hour, no matter how you shake it. And yes, we can write that off, BUT
> WE STILL SPENT THE MONEY, and we don't get it back from Uncle Sam.
> And for the record, you can't touch ANY jet for less than MILLIONSSSSS....
> Even a prop plane can be over a million if fully dressed.
I'll take your word for the jet topic - I have no knowledge of what jets
cost,
but since it's tax deductible, it's evidently in Mr. Gaither's best interest
to have one. Therefore, that was my point, regardless of what the
details may be.
> Now, do I drive a nice car in my line of work? Yeah, sure do, and I write
> it off. Every cent of it (even though the gov DOES impose some limits on
> that these days).... but you know what? I still pay for every cent of
it.
Again, I never said that you didn't. I only pointed out that you are exempt
from taxes on income that is spent on a tax-deductible activity
> Claude Hopper rides in the finest bus because he LIKES RIDING IN A FINE
> BUS... (wish our quartet could say that!!!)... but he doesn't do it
> because it helps him financially. NO WAY.
Sorry, I disagree. It's simple, really. Let's say that I'm going to owe
$5,000 in taxes at the end of the year. My accountant will call me
and let me know that it would be a good time to spend some money
if I don't want to lose it to Uncle Sam. So, I spend $5,000 on a new
computer and phone system.
The point is that you're going to spend the money EITHER WAY. By
paying it to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes, you get NO benefit. By
purchasing a tax-deductible item with it, you get the benefit of new
equipment with no additional taxes. What's so hard about that
to understand?
So, to illustrate my point using Mr. Hopper as an example, I can tell
you that Claude Hopper is a tightwad - he does enjoy fine things
but he is driving the bus he's got for tax purposes. If he's got to
pay $500,000 in taxes, he'd rather spend it on something that
will give him assets and reduce his tax bill by $500,000 - hence
the new bus.
> I must admit however, that the unions of old propagated the thought for
many
> years through the rank and file that tax write offs are a gift from the
> government, and that they somehow "don't really cost a business
anything"...
> but that is, and always has been, TOTALLY FALSE.
Again, I never said that they didn't cost the business anything. Read my
post again - if anything even SOUNDED like that, I apologize for not
communicating more clearly. No doubt you were referring to my
comment that the government was "paying him" to fly the jet - that
WAS an incorrect statement. Technically, he's paying it, but he's
getting a 1:1 reduction on his tax bill for every dollar he spends
in transportation. So, if you view "reducing debt" as the same
as "making money" then, yes, from one point of view, he IS
getting paid to fly. That's some stretchy logic, I know, but the
concept is the same.
Tony
David Murray (SG Fan)
> Tony!!!! You are SO WRONG on this one. First of all the government does
> NOT pay you for anything. PERIOD...
<snipped>Chill out, man. It's not like he robbed you or something.
BTW, I agree with most of your points, but there's no need to shout.
David Murray (SG Fan)
> > Claude Hopper rides in the finest bus because he LIKES RIDING IN A FINE
> > BUS... (wish our quartet could say that!!!)... but he doesn't do it
> > because it helps him financially. NO WAY.
>
> Sorry, I disagree. It's simple, really. Let's say that I'm going to owe
> $5,000 in taxes at the end of the year. My accountant will call me
> and let me know that it would be a good time to spend some money
> if I don't want to lose it to Uncle Sam. So, I spend $5,000 on a new
> computer and phone system.
>
> The point is that you're going to spend the money EITHER WAY. By
> paying it to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes, you get NO benefit. By
> purchasing a tax-deductible item with it, you get the benefit of new
> equipment with no additional taxes. What's so hard about that
> to understand?
>
> So, to illustrate my point using Mr. Hopper as an example, I can tell
> you that Claude Hopper is a tightwad - he does enjoy fine things
> but he is driving the bus he's got for tax purposes. If he's got to
> pay $500,000 in taxes, he'd rather spend it on something that
> will give him assets and reduce his tax bill by $500,000 - hence
> the new bus.
Your math is flawed, Tony. Say I have half a million dollars in extra
income. I'm choosing between a $400,000 bus and a $500,000 bus. I end up
buying the $400,000 bus, because it will do everything I need for the least
money. I must pay taxes on the remaining $100,000 in income (30% was the
figure you used, I think), which means I have $70,000 left over to spend or
save, or do with as I please. (I can actually keep more than that, since
there are ways to invest some or most of the $100,000 to avoid paying
taxes.) If I buy the $500,000 bus, I have no cash left over, and I have a
piece of equipment that's going to depreciate in value considerably the more
I use it.
It's true for you to say that Claude Hopper is driving the more expensive
bus in order to pay less in taxes, but you can't say he's coming out of the
deal with more money in the long run. If that were true, he'd be willing to
pay a full million for a bus that was really only worth $500K.
You buy business equipment just like everything else: most bang for the
buck.
Now, back to the scenario with your accountant. If you don't need a new
phone system, you're off your rocker to buy it just to avoid paying the
taxes. If you do need it and it's something you're going to buy sooner or
later, it makes sense to buy it as late in the year as possible to avoid
paying the taxes.
I know a fellow in the landscaping business who has a ton of equipment he
never uses because he buys things to avoid paying taxes. The thing is, he
could have paid the taxes, put the remaining cash to work drawing interest,
and have considerably more now in cash than the aging equipment is worth.
Tony Rush
> Now, back to the scenario with your accountant. If you don't need a new
> phone system, you're off your rocker to buy it just to avoid paying the
> taxes. If you do need it and it's something you're going to buy sooner or
> later, it makes sense to buy it as late in the year as possible to avoid
> paying the taxes.
David,
Thanks for the correction. You actually put my point into proper verbage
in the above paragraph. I'm not suggesting that anyone frivolously
buy something they don't need in order to reduce taxes. But, if you
are thinking of buying a new bus and buying one will reduce your
tax bill, it's a sound business decision. Apparently I didn't state
my point clearly enough as Wes got pretty irate about it. :)
So, I wasn't trying to make the numbers dance on paper and I apologize
if my examples weren't properly thought out - I pretty much put them on
the screen off the top of my head.
Tony
Paul Slopak Jr.
make singing with a top 10 group or quartet?
Wes
THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT. It just simply can't happen.
All you would ever AVOID PAYING is income tax (whether business income or
personal)... and that would be a percentage (20-30%) at best. So spending
the money could potentially mean you're really able to get the product at a
20-30% discount.
That would be the maximum benefit.
Wes
"David Murray (SG Fan)" <dbmurrayd...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:JPHM6.13266$iC1.4...@news6.giganews.com...
Wes
Sorry if I sounded irate. Excited a little to be sure. I've gotten shook
up over the years when people that worked for me felt that the goverment was
giving us a gift because we could write something off.... I've had a couple
of employees that actually believed heart and soul that "if we could write
if off, it didn't cost us anything"....
Whew!
I've discovered since, that a lot of folks, particularly out of old time
union based homes, REALLY believe that big business is bad and the goverment
is giving them money when they "write it off".
So I always go OUT OF MY WAY to correct that thinking when I run into it.
Sorry if I seemed to rant and rave a little. I suppose I am guilty of
that....
But at least "I" felt better having said it, and hopefully didn't offend
you.
Have a great one.
Wes
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg6pjrc...@corp.supernews.com...
Wes
Sorry if I sounded upset. I'm not. But over the years I've had employees
that felt like if "I could write it off" it somehow gave me an advantage.
It doesn't. And there is positively NO WAY there is EVER a one for one
advantage to writing off. If anyone believes that spending a half million
dollars on a bus somehow allows you to avoid paying a half million dollars
in taxes you're CRAZY. (Not you Tony, but anyone that believes that ;))
Truth is, spending 500,000 on something that could be 100% deductable, would
probably allow you to avoid paying AN ADDITIONAL $100,000 to $150,000 in
taxes.
Let me clarify for anyone not understanding. I would have STILL SPENT
$500,000. But I DON'T have to report that as income since it's deductable.
If I had reported it as income, I would have to pay 20-30% income tax
(depending on where you land after all is said and done) SAY $150,000....
So that's it. My benefit was avoiding paying $150,000 in taxes. So I spent
a half million to avoid paying uncle Sam $150,000. A long way from one for
one, but an admitted savings. But the government didn't pay me in any
way... I still had to spend the money.
And again I say, Bill Gaither does NOT own a jet because it benefits him
financially. NO WAY. He owns a jet because it benefits him, his
organization and the GVB. Period. THere is NO WAY it saves him money.
IMPOSSIBLE.
And Claude Hopper is NOT saving money by driving a nice bus. AIN'T NO WAY.
Sorry, he might have to believe that himself to offset the guilt for driving
a terrific bus, but IS IS NOT POSSIBLE to save money by spending it. It's
an old TOTALLY FALSE belief.
Have a wonderful day. Thanks for your response.
Wes
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg6gpjf...@corp.supernews.com...
Shawn Pennington
>Technically, he's paying it, but he's
> getting a 1:1 reduction on his tax bill for every dollar he spends
> in transportation. So, if you view "reducing debt" as the same
> as "making money" then, yes, from one point of view, he IS
> getting paid to fly. That's some stretchy logic, I know, but the
> concept is the same.
>
> Tony
>
I don't think one actually gets a 1:1 reduction on the tax bill do they? If
so, I am definitely doing my taxes incorrectly! :^)
I can't relate to these mega bucks expenses but to put it in terms more
familiar, I can relate that to tithing.
If I tithe $10,000 a year (I wish!) then, based on a 30% tax bracket, I save
$3000 in taxes, since my taxable income is reduced by $10K, but my net is
still lessened by $7000. So, while I do get a tax break, I am not making
money by spending money and the literal savings don't even approach 1:1.
If I have been figuring that wrong, someone PLEASE correct me! LOL
The good thing about tithing, though, is that the Lord blesses by much more
than 1,000,000:1, so money logic doesn't really apply. :^)
More on topic, that blew my mind what you mentioned, Tony, about a well
known singer's family having to depend on WIC. That is really sad that they
don't make enough to be able to fully support their families. That is
definitely an eye opener and I respect these folks all the more for making a
sacrifice that I never dreamed they were making.
I think it is a gross violation of the sacred trust of the ministry for
those working for the Lord to live obscenely rich lifestyles (like the PTL
advocated lifestyle) but I do believe that those working in any aspect of
the ministry should be comfortable and I fully support good salaries for
those involved.
It is definitely admirable that those folks are willing to involve
themselves in such a powerful outreach ministry as travelling gospel singers
while making so many personal sacrifices (low wages, life on the road, etc).
Again, I respect them all the more now that I know that.
Tony Rush
of it the topic thanks to Wes' and David's posts - I appreciate it!
In answer to Shawn's comments:
> More on topic, that blew my mind what you mentioned, Tony, about a well
> known singer's family having to depend on WIC. That is really sad that
they
> don't make enough to be able to fully support their families. That is
> definitely an eye opener and I respect these folks all the more for making
a
> sacrifice that I never dreamed they were making.
I disagree. I don't think any of those people deserve any respect for being
clearly out of the will of God. It's not an issue of "sacrifice" - it's an
issue
of neglect.
The Bible plainly teaches that a man's FIRST priority is to his family,
THEN to the ministry. If a man is traveling 200+ days per year and can't
pay his bills, then he needs to make some changes. Of course, not
everyone agrees, but I've seen alot of broke people in SGM and their
resultant family problems. I think, more than ever, it became clear to me
that God expects men to get their priorities straight.
> I think it is a gross violation of the sacred trust of the ministry for
> those working for the Lord to live obscenely rich lifestyles (like the PTL
> advocated lifestyle) but I do believe that those working in any aspect of
> the ministry should be comfortable and I fully support good salaries for
> those involved.
This is a bit vague. So, who should determine what is "obscenely rich"
and what is "comfortable" and "good salary"? Should we fault a man
like Charles Stanley for earning hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Or a pastor in Dothan, AL who earns $75,000 per year? Or is it
only bad when they wear Rolex watches and white suits? If that's the
case, is it really about what they're earning or is it about where they
spend their money and on what?
What is a "good salary"? The Bible says that a workman is worthy of
his hire. I don't think God expects His people to be broke and I think
alot of Christians are missing out on their heritage as a child of God
because they choose to believe that it's spiritual to be poor.
I think anyone in the ministry ought to be able to earn as much as they
can. And I think the criticism of what they earn ought to be quelled by
a large amount. It's not really anyone's business what someone earns.
> It is definitely admirable that those folks are willing to involve
> themselves in such a powerful outreach ministry as travelling gospel
singers
> while making so many personal sacrifices (low wages, life on the road,
etc).
> Again, I respect them all the more now that I know that.
There ARE alot of sacrifices. Road food, poor sleep, being away from home,
etc. But, some things are NOT meant to be sacrificed: such as the welfare
of the home. Also, you have to keep in mind that not everyone who is
making these "sacrifices" are motivated in the way you think they are.
Some of them legitimately think they're doing it for God, but others
are doing it because they enjoy music and it's their chosen profession.
If a man is neglected his family, he doesn't deserve "respect" or praise for
his "sacrifice". He needs to go home and take care of his family.
Tony
Tony Rush
> This has all been great but my ORIGINAL question was - how much does a guy
> make singing with a top 10 group or quartet?
A Top 10 group? Probably between $600 per week and $1,500 per
week. That's a large range and you can bet that the higher end of
that scale are the owners of the group who are taking a weekly salary
in addition to the end-of-year profits.
Now, let's put this in perspective. That's the top ten groups out of how
many groups who are trying to make it in the business. Anyone want to
take a stab at how many check-writing groups there are out there?
Let's say there's 1,000 which may be WAY off - I don't know.
The Top Ten would represent the top 1%. That means that 99%
of the rest of groups are probably earning less than $600 per
week. Most earn MUCH less. And I'm not talking about some
group you've never heard of. Here's the starting pay for some
groups that regularly appear on the NQC stage at least twice
per week, who have charting singles, #1 songs, and you can
hear them any week on The Gospel Greats:
$275
$300
$300
$315
$350
$360
There is a group that is starting salaries at $600. That is an
anomaly - they are a known group who does
about 2-4 concerts per weekend. They're not majorly known -
you probably have heard of them but may never have heard
them in concert. They have a great bus, great starting salary
and do things in a top-notch way. How? By having a group
member who is a smart businessman with a thriving business
who doesn't mind spending his money to do something right.
It's pretty refreshing to see. :)
So, in the groups I described, you've got members earning from
$13,750 to $18,000. Now, figure the costs of being on the
road that we discussed earlier and you've got some pretty
shoddy salaries.
I've been in network marketing since 1996. The fact that my
wife and I have our own home-based business is the only
reason that I was able to take a job playing piano
professionally again. I'm glad I did - and I enjoyed it. But,
I could not have done it if I didn't have another income coming
in with which to pay the bills. There's no way to provide a living
for a family of four on what most SGM groups pay. It's sad, but
true. Thankfully, I had an established income that allowed my
wife and I to BOTH be at home with our kids. So, being on
the road didn't hurt us financially like it does some people.
With that in mind, isn't it obvious why some of our most talented
young people don't choose to make careers out of SGM? It's
a hobby job. It's a job to earn $300 per week while you're single
and living at home. That's one of the reasons the SGM business
model is so frustrating. I love SGM and I love the people, but you
can't make a good living in it unless you're in a non-performing
area of the industry.
Ah, well. Enough of my ramblings. Sorry if I carried on too long.
To those of you who read this far - thanks and hope it was worth
your time and you're not comatose in your chair from me
droning on and on and on and on and on...........
Zzzzzzzzzz,
Tony
Paul Slopak Jr.
really make it big. At their best time they were doing 200 concerts a year
taking in a $15,000 guarantee per concert. That is a cool 3 million dollars
a year and that doesn't include any tape and CD sales.
I know there is a big overhead for traveling, Glenn and George flew most
places that were more than a 6 hour drive in the latter days.
Seems sad that Southern Gospel is another industry where the journeyman
singer has to be kept poor in the ministry.
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg7srgh...@corp.supernews.com...
Tony Rush
The Cathedrals certainly were doing alot of revenue, but I don't think they
were doing 200 dates per year when their flat was that high. I could be
wrong here, but I think they had already cut their dates back to less
than 50 per year when they were going for $15-20K per concert.
Either way, though, the point is the same: that is the pinnacle of what
a group has achieved through normal efforts. Considering that only
Gold City is the only group that has actually come close and they
don't consistently get more than $6,500, it's evident that we are
talking about a very small percentage of people who are prospering
as performers.
Tony
Wes
probably why he suggested it is "good" to be single if you choose to do that
so you're "free" to serve Him. But if we're married, our first obligation
is to our family.
Wes
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg7ro4p...@corp.supernews.com...
RayDunakin
bill for every dollar he spends in transportation. >>
I'm no expert, but I don't believe that is correct. When you deduct a business
expense, you reduce your taxes by the amount you would have paid on the money
spent. For example, if have a total income of $50,000, and you spend $5000 on a
deductable expense, you then pay taxes on $45,000. If the tax is 30% (or
whatever), then your savings is 30% of $5000 -- not 100%.
RayDunakin
known singer's family having to depend on WIC. That is really sad that they
don't make enough to be able to fully support their families. That is
definitely an eye opener and I respect these folks all the more for making a
sacrifice that I never dreamed they were making.>>
Me too! Especially since they have to make so many other sacrifices -- travel
away from family, etc.
RayDunakin
THEN to the ministry. If a man is traveling 200+ days per year and can't pay
his bills, then he needs to make some changes. Of course, not everyone agrees,
but I've seen alot of broke people in SGM and their resultant family problems.
I think, more than ever, it became clear to me that God expects men to get
their priorities straight. >>
I agree with this too. I just think it's sad that talented people with a
ministry can't make a decent living and support their families doing what they
do best. But you're right, they should be putting their families first.
RayDunakin
this in mind when we buy tapes or concert tickets!
steph...@webtv.net
willing to bet that they are pretty wealthy.If not wealthy,at least
pretty well off!!! I was surprised to hear that The Kingsmen paid less
than the Anchormen...considering The Anchormen are not popular.It seems
to me that The Kingsmen would pay pretty good at least compared to a
local group! I'm pretty sure some of the famous family groups pays
good.I would think that they would want to pay their family members
enough,lol...I bet groups like The Hoppers,The McKameys,Jeff and
Sheri,The Crabb Family, and The Isaacs are pretty well off....Those are
also some of the most expensive groups to book....
Tony Rush
people haven't considered - even those who are in the
industry.
Ninety percent of SGM performers are working illegally.
That is to say that they are being "employed" illegally. Before
you think that I'm offering a new urban legend, this can
be proved by a simple call to the IRS office.
The overwhelming majority of SGM performers are hired
as "contract labor", not as an "employee". The difference
is that they "contract laborer" is technically self-employed
and receives a 1099 form at the end of the year instead
of a W-2 form. There is no withholding and the performer
is responsible for his/her own taxes.
Here's the problem. There are rules that qualify whether
a person is actually self-employed or not. Some of them
are:
- can be told what time to be at work
- can be fired
- if transportation is provided
- if the employer provides equipment for the worker to use
- if the worker cannot work for more than one person at a time
- if the worker can be told how to do the job
- and about 15 others.
If any/most (depending on the IRS' mood) of those rules
are true, then that person is considered an EMPLOYEE and
is subject to withholding taxes and possibly could be
disallowed any previous deductions and the IRS could
demand back taxes.
Based on this information, most SGM singers are earning
their gross income when they should be earning about 30%
less; their group is supposed to be withholding taxes based
on their corrected "employee" status.
So, you see the problem? What are the group and group
member to do? The singer can't afford to bring home
30% less than he does presently. The group certainly
can't afford to give the performer a 30% raise to
accomodate for the new tax liability. So, the singers
quit to find a better paying job and the group folds
for lack of being able to pay a reasonable wage.
Worst case scenario: the bulk of the SGM industry could
disappear virtually overnight due to this small, but crucial
oversight.
Ok, I'm being overly dramatic. But, the problem IS very real and
sooner or later someone is going to discover several thousands
of dollars missing from the IRS coffers because an entire
industry has been allowed to hire "employees" as "contract
labor".
Interesting.
Tony
David Murray (SG Fan)
> Thanks for the correction. You actually put my point into proper verbage
> in the above paragraph. I'm not suggesting that anyone frivolously
> buy something they don't need in order to reduce taxes. But, if you
> are thinking of buying a new bus and buying one will reduce your
> tax bill, it's a sound business decision. Apparently I didn't state
> my point clearly enough as Wes got pretty irate about it. :)
>
> So, I wasn't trying to make the numbers dance on paper and I apologize
> if my examples weren't properly thought out - I pretty much put them on
> the screen off the top of my head.
I wasn't taking issue with the idea of buying things you need and avoiding
paying taxes in the process. That makes perfect sense.
I was taking issue with the idea that people buy luxury items (above and
beyond what they need) in order to avoid paying taxes. They are just fooling
themselves, or simply saying that because most people will swallow that line
with no questions asked. That was how your original example about the
Hoppers came across to me.
--
Tony Rush
> willing to bet that they are pretty wealthy.If not wealthy,at least
> pretty well off!!!
I think you'd be surprised. One major group went without heat on their
bus for years because they couldn't afford to fix it. So, they had an
electric space heater on the dash for a defroster and the guys
all slept with two layers of clothes and plenty of quilts. This is a
very popular group with a recent #1 song and three appearances
a year on the NQC main stage. They don't make as much money
as most think.
>I was surprised to hear that The Kingsmen paid less
> than the Anchormen...considering The Anchormen are not popular.It seems
> to me that The Kingsmen would pay pretty good at least compared to a
> local group!
Compared to a local group that pays for only expenses and maybe a hundred
bucks a week, any fulltime salary is going to look good. :)
But, the best comparison isn't between groups or in the industry. Compare
the salary of $300 per week (minus expenses and taxes) to the
national average of $25,000 per year. Some group members are
nearly at the poverty level.
Tony
Wes
"wealth" in your mind set.
I'd be willing to venture a guess that 90% of full time gospel singers are
making less than $25,000 a year after expenses. And that's pretty sad, in
my opinion.
Wes
<steph...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6756-3B...@storefull-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Wes
stated on the 1099, the IRS isn't getting shorted. (correct me if I'm
missing a point)... and therefore, they'd really have no reason to make a
big fuss about it.
Wes
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg8m3jc...@corp.supernews.com...
Tony Rush
I'm not sure. The allowable deductions for a self-employed
person are different than those allowed for an employee.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does an employee deduct the
cost of mileage for driving to and from his job? If not, then
this deduction would no longer be allowed for singers
traveling to and from the bus (they can currently do that).
Does an employee get to write off the cost of his meals
if he eats out on his lunch hour? I don't think it's allowable.
As it is now, a self-employed singer is able to deduct
$75 per day for food expenses without even showing
receipts. That's an average of $300 per weekend that
the singer would have to pay taxes on.
And let's look at non-road expenses. Self-employed
people can deduct their mileage to and from the bank,
the post office, lots of long-distance calls that may
(or may not) be related to their business, etc.
There are others, but I believe the IRS would make more
money if these people were employees and not
self-employed people who are deducting any business-related
expense. The goverment allows alot of deductions for
a self-employed person - I'm not sure they exist in the
same way for an employee.
Tony
Wes <we...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:A2%M6.304$EG3.210...@newssvr10-int.news.prodigy.com...
Paul Slopak Jr.
the $15,000 to $20,000 guarantee. They were doing 200 dates according to
what they said at a concert here in Peoria in 1995 and they were getting a
$10,000 guarantee. I know this because unfortunately the local group that
sponsored them lost money having them here.
But either way, they were pulling in 2 million a year in appearance money. I
am not saying they didn't deserve it. I am just saying that once in awhile
someone does make it big.
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg8a3s6...@corp.supernews.com...
Tony Rush
> But either way, they were pulling in 2 million a year in appearance money.
I
> am not saying they didn't deserve it. I am just saying that once in awhile
> someone does make it big.
And two million is nothing to sneeze at, is it? I mean, I could nearly
afford to buy gas for my car if I earned that. :)
Tony
Paul Slopak Jr.
tank? Prices here are much higher than that!! <LOL>
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg94t2...@corp.supernews.com...
Wes
thinking of my own situation, even though the IRS considers me "an
employee" of a Corporation, I too take most of the deductions you mentioned,
but I turn them into the Corporation as an expense, and they reimburse me,
(even though they're really reimbursing me from my own "earned funds"...) so
in some ways it's six of one, 1/2 dz another... I write off (via expenses)
two out of three phone lines in my home, an apartment I use in another state
when I'm there conducting business along with a phone, and many other
deductions that are legitimate as well. Car's mileage insurances, cell
phones, motels & meals, etc...
So my point is that perhaps if they were employees of the singing group,
then the Corporation would take the deduction rather than the individual.
Possibly the end result of "taxes collected by the IRS" would still wash out
pretty similar. I'm not sure, but it's a thought.
Wes
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tg91pi6...@corp.supernews.com...
REvans2311
ALL OF THIS FROM A MAN THAT'S NOT ON THE ROAD MANAGEING A GROUP????????
I would think that if he knows it all, then why is he not out there DOING
IT??????
Outside the Loop
manner such as you did.
HELLO!??? HAVE YOU NOT BEEN READING THIS NEWSGROUP??? TONY WAS OUT THERE DOING
IT AND HE CHOSE TO GO HOME AND BE WITH HIS FAMILY!!! DUH!
So, before you go and point the finger--get your facts straight buddy. Tony is
a great guy, ive met him!
Tony Rush
course,
> thinking of my own situation, even though the IRS considers me "an
> employee" of a Corporation, I too take most of the deductions you
mentioned,
> but I turn them into the Corporation as an expense, and they reimburse me,
> (even though they're really reimbursing me from my own "earned funds"...)
so
> in some ways it's six of one, 1/2 dz another... I write off (via
expenses)
> two out of three phone lines in my home, an apartment I use in another
state
> when I'm there conducting business along with a phone, and many other
> deductions that are legitimate as well. Car's mileage insurances, cell
> phones, motels & meals, etc...
>
> So my point is that perhaps if they were employees of the singing group,
> then the Corporation would take the deduction rather than the individual.
> Possibly the end result of "taxes collected by the IRS" would still wash
out
> pretty similar. I'm not sure, but it's a thought.
Wes,
It would indeed by "6 of one and a half dozen of the other" if the
gospel group would reimburse the singer for these expenses, and
then they, in turn, would take the deductions. However, I don't forsee
any gospel group agreeing to pay for mileage to and from the bus,
all meals on the road, etc.
Tony
Tony Rush
>
> I would think that if he knows it all, then why is he not out there DOING
> IT??????
No need to be immaturely abrasive. What possible difference does it
make to you what I say?
But, since you brought it up, I'll offer one simple answer to your question.
Managing a group is a combination of indentured servitude and running
a daycare center, of which I have neither the time nor inclination to
do. But, neither of those facts makes my information false. If you want
to be immature in your response, that's fine. This is America and you
are most certainly entitled to be as rude in public as you like. :)
I hope I said that diplomatically.
Tony
David Murray (SG Fan)
REvans2311 <revan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010518140224...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
>
> ALL OF THIS FROM A MAN THAT'S NOT ON THE ROAD MANAGEING A GROUP????????
>
> I would think that if he knows it all, then why is he not out there DOING
> IT??????
I think Tony was pretty clear about why he's not out on the road. At least,
it filtered through my thick grey matter. He makes more money at home.
Outside the Loop
>it filtered through my thick grey matter. He makes more money at home.
>
DeeRee13
question others' commitments to God if they have to leave SGM to puraue more
lucrative work. The sad fact is the electric company and/or grocery store does
not charge the gospel singer less money; therefore, they HAVE to do whatever it
takes to provide for ther family & their dedication or devotion to their
calling shouldn't be questioned. It's our support of them which should be
criticixed. Maybe if we gave bigger love offerings & the like they could stay
in the work to which they're called more often.
Carol LeFevre
comfortable living. I'm talking back in the 60s and 70s. They all had
VERY nice houses, cars, shotguns etc.. Pierce had bought a new house in
Montgomery, AL. It was round or octagonal with all the rooms, except
the huge kitchen, radiating off a center courtyard, probably 3,500-4,000
sq. ft.. I also know that he and Urias owned a small plane. And I know
that his wife was a full time mom and homemaker. I considered them
wealthy but they certainly didn't flaunt their money.
CL
Tony Rush
Carol's absolutely correct on this. During the 50's and 60's, it was
a prosperous time for the individuals in SGM, but that was also true
of nearly every genre of music. The television was new and people
were willing to spend some money on albums and concerts of the
people that they had been hearing on the radio for so many years.
It was nothing uncommon for a group like the Stamps to sell as
many as 50,000 albums in a weekend.
However, most groups today don't sell 50,000 copies of a project
in a YEAR. I certainly don't know all the details of every artists sales
but, I would estimate that less than a dozen groups are moving that
much product in twelve months.
Tony
Wes
give him the benefit of the doubt and consider that just 'maybe' he was
complementing you. Otherwise, he certainly made a pretty stupid statement.
Wes
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:tgbki8r...@corp.supernews.com...
mdw...@concentric.net
snip, snip
>Maybe if we gave bigger love offerings & the like they could stay
>in the work to which they're called more often.
You hit the nail on the head. Christians have a reputation for being
cheap, that is well deserved. Many consider "love offering" concerts
free, and throw a buck or two in the offering and think they have been
generous. I think you ought to give at least $10 a head. That is still
cheap entertainment. And if you consider it ministry, how dare you be
so cheap with God.
Sorry if this offends anyone, but it should be obvious why SG salaries
are low. If you have 200-300 people in the church and the offering
isn't even $1500, the problem isn't greedy group owners. It's the
people in the pews.
Mark
REvans2311
OH YEAH Is he the reason the Anchormen were on the top?????????
Way to go Tony!
Paul Slopak Jr.
We had the Pfeiffers at our church. We had around 180 people and collected
around $850.
RayDunakin
that is well deserved. >>
Sad but true, and not just with each other. For instance, my stepsister used to
work at a restaurant, and there was a group that would come in every Sunday
after church. They were very unpopular with the waitresses because they were
such lousy tippers.
Outside the Loop
at first to work on Sundays because I would get people that believed the same
as i . . . but I SOON learned to HATE sundays! That is the WORST tip day!
Christians - or at least the majority of them - do not tip well.
Anita Bryant came into my restaurant and had her meal COMPED because her
theatre (thats now bankrupt) was next door. She left a $2 tip on a 4 person
meal and did NOT EVEN HAVE TO PAY for her meal.
OK That last thing had NOTHING to do with anything but just thought youd all
like to know....hehe.
Wes
course, I'm 15-20% all the time)... I have a minister Brother in Law, he
says "Hey, The Lord only asks for 10%!!!).... Like that is supposed to
justify lousy tipping.
I guarantee you if those folks worked the tables for a couple of days,
they'd change their minds in a HURRY.
Wes
"RayDunakin" <raydu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010521014920...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Rikman61
Just Allan
I'm very glad about living in Australia is this detestable practice is
not rife here (tipping). People get paid fair, award wages and know
what they're going to have at the end of each week - they don't have
to beg for their money. Buyers know what they are going to have to
pay for something - the price is THE price, and there's no bad
attitudes to deal with. On the rare occasion when tipping is used, it
is because it's really deserved, not because it's expected.
Allan.
On Tue, 22 May 2001 07:20:29 -0400, "Rikman61" <Rikm...@edmail.com>
wrote:
Outside the Loop
something lilke 1 - 2 an HOUR!!! I used to be a waiter and when you only do 1 -
2 tables an hour -- it doesnt come out to much. Also, dont think that all they
do is get your food out. You have to get ice, prepare salad dressings, fold
napkins, prepare silverware. and many other things -- this is known as SIDEWORK
and many times-if you have a realy busy night, the wait staff is there an hour
or 2 AFTER everyone has left getting that SIDEWORK done.
So - no, your not being good stewards, your being stingy and cheap. :-) No
offense intended. However, I dont think you should tip anyone EXTREMELY well
that does not deserve it unless of course you KNOW that they are starting out.
Oliver Grills
> and what is "comfortable" and "good salary"? Should we fault a man
> like Charles Stanley for earning hundreds of thousands of dollars?
> Or a pastor in Dothan, AL who earns $75,000 per year? Or is it
> only bad when they wear Rolex watches and white suits? If that's the
> case, is it really about what they're earning or is it about where they
> spend their money and on what?
Although I would not comment on specific people, partly as I have never
heard of the guy with the $500,000 bus, I would suggest that it is most
definitely what you spend the money on that is important. I heard a great
offering pryer once, "Lord you know what we earn and how we earn it, you
know what we spend and how we spend it, and you know what we give and how we
give it."
I have to say from a personl point of view I find it difficult to accept
that God wants one man to have a $500,000 bus in the same country as Bill
Wilson is struggling in New York week by week to keep wrecked old school
buses on the road in order to be able to bring kids to Sunday School. He
sleeps on the floor of a warehouse because he gave away his bed to a
neighbour in need.
Please accept my point in the spirit it was made.
Tony Rush
That's a great post and some great insight.
Can I make a statement about part of your quote that is speculative
and not necessarily conclusive?
> I have to say from a personl point of view I find it difficult to accept
> that God wants one man to have a $500,000 bus in the same country as Bill
> Wilson is struggling in New York week by week to keep wrecked old school
> buses on the road in order to be able to bring kids to Sunday School.
Oliver,
What if it has nothing to do with what God wants and everything to do
with the expectations of the men? In other words, isn't it possible that
some people have more simply because they accept more?
Just a thought and a speculative one, at that.
Tony
Rikman61
15-20% tipper.
One time in an eating establishment (can't spell resturuant??), I took a
group of 10-12 in 15-20 minutes before closing. We wanted to sit together,
and the manager told the waitress to seat us where I wanted to sit (I was a
regular there). The waitress had a bad attitude. I decided this could
either be a pleasant experience, or a lousy one. I decided to make it
pleasant.
I excused myself, headed toward the register to find my waitress. I found
her and said, "I know it's late, and there's a group of us, but I want to
thank you in advance for the wonderful services you're giving us. I then
put a $20.00 bill in her hand. Her attitude changed immediately. She
could'nt do enough for us. And of course, others tipped her out as well.
Before I moved from that town, when I would go to that eating place,
waitresses would nearly fight with each other over who would wait on the
preacher. In time, I was able to minister to several employees there.
Ephesians 6:8 has a very powerful principle for us...RUV (Rikman's
unauthorized version), "Whatever you make happen for others, God will make
happen for you!"
Thanks for reading and posting this short epistle!! (lol again)
"Outside the Loop" <outside...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010522135838...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Outside the Loop
Thanks for clarifying.
Tony Rush
I heard a fellow named Jim Rohn say, once, that the word "tip" meant
"To Insure Promptness". It makes sense that a person wanting excellent
service wouldn't gamble on it - they would insure it.
By the way, if you don't want to wait in line at a restaurant on a Friday
night, a bribe still works. If the wait is two hours, a $20 bill saves you
a lot of time and helps out whatever college student is doing the seating.
:) Either way, if you've got a small group, it's money well-spent.
Tony
Rikman61 <Rikm...@edmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b0b...@flexnet239.uunt.net...
mrblue...@gmail.com
> Tony Rush wrote recently in the discussion on Bryan Hutson leaving the
> Kingsmen:
>
> "And, as an added note, he'll probably do far better financially
> by working for a church rather than singing for The Kingsmen."
>
> If that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt Tony) it is
> understandable to me why people leave the Gospel singing field. If a top
> group like the Kingsmen do not pay that well, I can only imagine what
> lower-ranked groups pay. I know money should not be the only factor in
> determining a job choice but if a gospel singer finds a better paying job
> which allows him/her to stay home more I think he/she has to give it serious
> consideration (especially when both jobs are ministry related). That's just
> my view.
>
> Norm
