Tithing - Gross, Net, Or Leftover

[Grudunza]

The meaning of "interest" has been interpreted by the First Presidency to be income. That trumps any and every other understanding, past or present.

 

What trumps the counsel of the FP pertaining to my individual life?  Personal revelation and inspiration.  And interestingly, that's exactly what the FP ultimately tells us to go with in their statement.  Which is good, because their declaration is vague...  Does "income" mean gross income or net income?  If you suggest that they absolutely must have meant gross income, that's fine for you, but I reject that for reasons already stated, and the 1970 statement allows me that personal interpretation.  

[pogi]

What is more relevant, since that statement is directly referring to the D&C revelation's reference of "interest," is not what people in 1970 would interpret, but what people at the time thought of the term.  One of the definitions in the 1828 Webster's dictionary for "interest" was "any surplus advantage."

 

The least common usage (and therefore the most unlikely interpretation) of the word "interest" in 1828 was "any surplus advantage".  The more common usages fall perfectly in-line with the official 1970 interpretation as "income".

 

See: http://webstersdictionary1828.com

 

Because we have the official interpretation of "interest" as "income" in 1970, It is more important to understand the usage of the word "income" in 1970 than it is to understand the usage of the word "interest" in 1828 for a proper understanding of the verse (but either way they both point to "income" as being the correct understanding).  

 

Does "income" mean gross income or net income? 

 

Either way, it certainly does not mean "left-over" or "surplus".  Even in 1828 the usage of the word "income" was the same as today.  You can verify that on the link above.  It did not and does not mean surplus. 

Edited April 26, 2015 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The least common usage (and therefore the most unlikely interpretation) of the word "interest" in 1828 was "any surplus advantage". The more common usages fall perfectly in-line with the official 1970 interpretation as "income".

See: http://webstersdictionary1828.com

Because we have the official interpretation of "interest" as "income" in 1970, It is more important to understand the usage of the word "income" in 1970 than it is to understand the usage of the word "interest" in 1828 for a proper understanding of the verse (but either way they both point to "income" as being the correct understanding).

Either way, it certainly does not mean "left-over" or "surplus". Even in 1828 the usage of the word "income" was the same as today. You can verify that on the link above. It did not and does not mean surplus.

Except the Lord used interest not income. In fact there was a word in 1828 that meant exactly what income means today:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Income

Which definition of interest from your link do you think falls "perfectly in-line" with the definition of income and why didn't the lord just say income if that's what he meant?

Edited April 26, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mikegriffith1]

"Increase" is just that: "increase."  If you are awarded a 50K bonus and after all taxes, refunds/rebates, deductions, etc., you receive a total of 40K in your bank account and that will be all the money that you will ever  receive from that bonus, then your wealth has "increased" by 40K. Similarly, if you were paying tithing on a crop of corn instead of on money, and a tornado came along and wiped out 300 pounds of the 2,000 pounds of corn that you had just harvested, your "increase" would clearly be 1,700 pounds, not 2,000. If you never receive something, it's not an "increase" to your wealth.

[VideoGameJunkie]

When you pay to humanitarian aid on a tithing slip, does that go to causes like the people affected by the earthquake in Nepal? I sure hope so.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Increase" is just that: "increase."  If you are awarded a 50K bonus and after all taxes, refunds/rebates, deductions, etc., you receive a total of 40K in your bank account and that will be all the money that you will ever  receive from that bonus, then your wealth has "increased" by 40K. Similarly, if you were paying tithing on a crop of corn instead of on money, and a tornado came along and wiped out 300 pounds of the 2,000 pounds of corn that you had just harvested, your "increase" would clearly be 1,700 pounds, not 2,000. If you never receive something, it's not an "increase" to your wealth.

In theory you receive value for the taxes you pay. Likewise for the health insurance and other deductions from your paycheck.

This value received is theoretically part of your income (the Church's definition of "increase").

But if there's a question in your mind, why not choose the more generous route and, if erring at all, err on the side of generosity? After all, can you ever get the Lord in your debt?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mnn727]

In theory you receive value for the taxes you pay. Likewise for the health insurance and other deductions from your paycheck.

This value received is theoretically part of your income (the Church's definition of "increase").

But if there's a question in your mind, why not choose the more generous route and, if erring at all, err on the side of generosity? After all, can you ever get the Lord in your debt?

"In theory" being the key point of your post -- I submit we really don't. The  only taxes I pay that I get value for is property taxes which pays for schools, police and fire departments, etc.

Its been at least 6 decades since the average citizen got any benefit from Federal taxes.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I hope my tithing money will go towards helping the people of Nepal. 4,000 + dead, no shelter, no food, thousands injured. They need help badly and I know the church can do something and will do something.

[pogi]

Except the Lord used interest not income.

 

Given all of the editing that has been done to the revelations over time, I think it is clear that the prophets use their own language to write down their spiritual impressions or revelations.  The Lord does not dictate each word.  Joseph chose that word, not the Lord.  Later, the first presidency clarified that word so as to remove any confusion due to "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) of scripture.  The more common, and therefore most likely usage of the word in 1828 is explained below:

 

Except the Lord used interest not income. In fact there was a word in 1828 that meant exactly what income means today:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Income

Which definition of interest from your link do you think falls "perfectly in-line" with the definition of income and why didn't the lord just say income if that's what he meant?

 

 

"Private profit" falls more in-line with the official interpretation (which is presumably just as inspired as the original writ).  There is no contradiction with the later interpretation and the more common usage of the original word.

 

1828 Profit - "Any gain or pecuniary advantage" or "Any advantage; any accession of good from labor or exertion; an extensive signification, comprehending the acquisition of any thing valuable, corporeal or intellectual, temporal or spiritual. A person may derive profit from exercise, amusements, reading, study, meditation, social intercourse, religious instruction, etc. Every improvement or advance in knowledge is profit to a wise man."

Edited April 27, 2015 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Given all of the editing that has been done to the revelations over time, I think it is clear that the prophets use their own language to write down their spiritual impressions or revelations.  The Lord does not dictate each word.  Joseph chose that word, not the Lord.  Later, the first presidency clarified that word so as to remove any confusion due to "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) of scripture.  The more common, and therefore most likely usage of the word in 1828 is explained below:

Just to clarify my view, I don't disagree with you that tithing on surplus is currently doctrinal or acceptable to the current leadership of the church. I myself tithe on net.  That said, our current form of tithing is not very connected to D&C 119 and I think that a surplus reading of D&C 119 is perfectly valid.

 

"Private profit" falls more in-line with the official interpretation (which is presumably just as inspired as the original writ).  There is no contradiction with the later interpretation and the more common usage of the original word.

 

1828 Profit - "Any gain or pecuniary advantage" or "Any advantage; any accession of good from labor or exertion; an extensive signification, comprehending the acquisition of any thing valuable, corporeal or intellectual, temporal or spiritual. A person may derive profit from exercise, amusements, reading, study, meditation, social intercourse, religious instruction, etc. Every improvement or advance in knowledge is profit to a wise man."

 

Here you are misreading the dictionary. The definition is not "Private profit" but rather "regard to private profit." Interest is not the private profit itself, rather the regard for it. This is demonstrated in the Alexander Pope poem quoted as a sample usage.

[Scott Lloyd]

"In theory" being the key point of your post -- I submit we really don't. The  only taxes I pay that I get value for is property taxes which pays for schools, police and fire departments, etc.

Its been at least 6 decades since the average citizen got any benefit from Federal taxes.

So you derive no benefit from national defense, protection from or prevention of terrorism, consumer protection, federal law enforcement (FBI, U.S marshals, etc.), insurance against bank failures, federal aid to education, relief from natural disasters, care of elderly family members, the federal judiciary, the interstate highway system, aviation protection and regulation, disease control and prevention, scientific research, space exploration, national parks and monuments, national forests, administration of national currency, postal service, funding of art and humanities, etc.?

I know everybody complains about paying taxes, and government waste, but I see it as quite unrealistic to say you get <no> benefit.

By far, the bulk of my taxes go to state and local government. I'm not at all certain the proportion of benefit I get from state and local as opposed to federal government is commensurate with what I pay.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

By far, the bulk of my taxes go to state and local taxes. I'm not at all certain the proportion of benefit I get from state and local as opposed to federal is commensurate with what I pay.

 

Can you hook me up with your accountant?  I'd be ecstatic if I paid more in local and state taxes than in federal.

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you hook me up with your accountant?  I'd be ecstatic if I paid more in local and state taxes than in federal.

Well, it helps to have four young, dependent childern (though we did lose the tax credit on one of them last year, after he became "of age," darn it), to carry a home mortgage, to transfer ownership of basement and garage contents to Deseret Industries, and to pay a full and honest tithe (on the gross, not the net, and certainly not on the (ahem) "surplus").

 

And I do bracket social security, which I don't consider a tax in the conventional sense.

 

But my only accountant is TurboTax.

[mnn727]

So you derive no benefit from national defense, protection from or prevention of terrorism, consumer protection, federal law enforcement (FBI, U.S marshals, etc.), insurance against bank failures, federal aid to education, relief from natural disasters, care of elderly family members, the federal judiciary, the interstate highway system, aviation protection and regulation, disease control and prevention, scientific research, space exploration, national parks and monuments, national forests, administration of national currency, postal service, funding of art and humanities, etc.?

I know everybody complains about paying taxes, and government waste, but I see it as quite unrealistic to say you get <no> benefit.

By far, the bulk of my taxes go to state and local government. I'm not at all certain the proportion of benefit I get from state and local as opposed to federal government is commensurate with what I pay.

Nope, Unjust wars and past foreign policies going back centuries have caused the terrorism. Consumer protection would be served by the free market system (if it were truly free) Interstate highways, I might give you if  my own state of Texas hadn't proven that toll roads pay for themselves. Aviation protection, again, airlines pay for most of that through the fee's they are charged. Space exploration - private companies are handling that these days. National Parks should be paid for by those that use them. National currency -- perhaps  (how much of my taxes go to that?) postal service - do away with it (besides by law they pay for themselves) Art and humanities -- if an artists can not make it on their own, why should I be forced to pay for their incompetence?

[ERayR]

Well, it helps to have four young, dependent childern (though we did lose the tax credit on one of them last year, after he became "of age," darn it), to carry a home mortgage, to transfer ownership of basement and garage contents to Deseret Industries, and to pay a full and honest tithe (on the gross, not the net, and certainly not on the (ahem) "surplus").

 

And I do bracket social security, which I don't consider a tax in the conventional sense.

 

But my only accountant is TurboTax.

 

Tithing on Social Security can be paid upon receipt of the benefits.

 

Turbo Tax is a poor accountant.

[thesometimesaint]

Nope, Unjust wars and past foreign policies going back centuries have caused the terrorism. Consumer protection would be served by the free market system (if it were truly free) Interstate highways, I might give you if  my own state of Texas hadn't proven that toll roads pay for themselves. Aviation protection, again, airlines pay for most of that through the fee's they are charged. Space exploration - private companies are handling that these days. National Parks should be paid for by those that use them. National currency -- perhaps  (how much of my taxes go to that?) postal service - do away with it (besides by law they pay for themselves) Art and humanities -- if an artists can not make it on their own, why should I be forced to pay for their incompetence?

 

Texas is a welfare queen state.

[The Nehor]

Nope, Unjust wars and past foreign policies going back centuries have caused the terrorism.

 

Are you arrogant enough to believe that U.S. foreign policy causes all the problems that prompt terrorism?

 

 

Consumer protection would be served by the free market system (if it were truly free)

 

Consumers are not nearly as smart as they think they are and do not have access to information to make the decisions without consumer protections. Federal law requires food sellers to tell you what the food is and test it to make sure it is reasonably accurate. How will the individual consumer make choices if there were no such labeling standards. Why not sell white water as milk. People imagine they want to live in a total "Buyer Beware" society. We will probably need to bring back vigilante justice with it so we can lynch the cheats.

 

Space exploration - private companies are handling that these days.

 

No they aren't.

 

National Parks should be paid for by those that use them.

 

We must abolish free recreation.

 

Art and humanities -- if an artists can not make it on their own, why should I be forced to pay for their incompetence?

 

Let's abolish the study of history that does not result in immediate economic benefits. Same with science. Pure science is unnecessary unless it can make money.

 

There are nations that operate by these standards. Haiti is a good example. Why should we expect different results if we apply the same system here?

[Scott Lloyd]

Tithing on Social Security can be paid upon receipt of the benefits.

 

 

I look upon Social Security as being more than an old-age savings account. I regard it has having helped fund my aged parents' survival prior to their demise, my older siblings as they have passed into retirement, and other needy people.

 

I'm not endorsing Social Security here, but as long as it's the law, I can't deny there is some value received from it.

 

And the moment I start getting picky about deducting this or that so as to reduce what I'm paying in tithing is the moment the red flags go up. I will not be stingy with the Lord. As I said, I can never get Him in my debt.

 

Turbo Tax is a poor accountant.

 

Individual people's circumstances vary, I suppose, but it has worked well for me for the several years. It's convenient: I don't have to make an appointment and go see somebody. All I have to do is gather my records (or carefully keep them in a file throughout the year), which is what I would have to do anyway if I were paying somebody to do the math or enter the numbers into his computer.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

I look upon Social Security as being more than an old-age savings account. I regard it has having helped fund my aged parents' survival prior to their demise, my older siblings as they have passed into retirement, and other needy people.

 

I'm not endorsing Social Security here, but as long as it's the law, I can't deny there is some value received from it.

 

And the moment I start getting picky about deducting this or that so as to reduce what I'm paying in tithing is the moment the red flags go up. I will not be stingy with the Lord. As I said, I can never get Him in my debt.

 

Individual people's circumstances vary, I suppose, but it has worked well for me for the several years. It's convenient: I don't have to make an appointment and go see somebody. All I have to do is gather my records (or carefully keep them in a file throughout the year), which is what I would have to do anyway if I were paying somebody to do the math or enter the numbers into his computer.

 

But often it is knowing where to enter the numbers.

[thesometimesaint]

I look upon Social Security as being more than an old-age savings account. I regard it has having helped fund my aged parents' survival prior to their demise, my older siblings as they have passed into retirement, and other needy people.

 

I'm not endorsing Social Security here, but as long as it's the law, I can't deny there is some value received from it.

 

And the moment I start getting picky about deducting this or that so as to reduce what I'm paying in tithing is the moment the red flags go up. I will not be stingy with the Lord. As I said, I can never get Him in my debt.

 

Individual people's circumstances vary, I suppose, but it has worked well for me for the several years. It's convenient: I don't have to make an appointment and go see somebody. All I have to do is gather my records (or carefully keep them in a file throughout the year), which is what I would have to do anyway if I were paying somebody to do the math or enter the numbers into his computer.

 

I have an outside accountant do my taxes. Not because I can't do them. I did them myself for many years. It just became a bigger headache to me than it was worth. Plus if I provide all the necessary documentation it is my accountant that deals with the IRS.

[mikegriffith1]

In theory you receive value for the taxes you pay. Likewise for the health insurance and other deductions from your paycheck.

This value received is theoretically part of your income (the Church's definition of "increase").

But if there's a question in your mind, why not choose the more generous route and, if erring at all, err on the side of generosity? After all, can you ever get the Lord in your debt?

 

Value from taxes and health insurance is indirect and sporadic and even sometimes negative, and I don't think that's what was meant by "increase" anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

But often it is knowing where to enter the numbers.

Well, that's why I use TurboTax. The program walks me through the whole process, asks me relevant questions and tells me precisely what I need to do with each step.

[Scott Lloyd]

Value from taxes and health insurance is indirect and sporadic and even sometimes negative, and I don't think that's what was meant by "increase" anyway.

Value from a lot of things can be sporadic. And often we feel we have been overcharged or haven't gotten all we paid for.

 

I've never seen that as an excuse to reduce the tithing I pay.

[HappyJackWagon]

Wow. This thread is still ticking. Amazing!

[Scott Lloyd]

I have an outside accountant do my taxes. Not because I can't do them. I did them myself for many years. It just became a bigger headache to me than it was worth. Plus if I provide all the necessary documentation it is my accountant that deals with the IRS.

Doing taxes to me used to be a headache. It continued to be so after I got married, because my wife wanted us to have her accountant do them. I didn't like setting the appointment and then driving in to Salt Lake and spending an hour with some guy as he went through my personal affairs.

 

Doing taxes became quite painless -- even rather fun -- once I got into the habit of buying TurboTax on sale every year and having my computer do the heavy lifting.

 

But I certainly didn't intend for an offhand comment to turn into an advertisement for TurboTax. In fact I'm rather dismayed it has carried on this long.

 

Incidentally, TurboTax will represent you in an IRS audit if you opt for that service.