Tithing - Gross, Net, Or Leftover

[The Nehor]

I don't.  SS doesn't stretch too far and we have paid for two funerals in the last nine months.

I avoid this expense by living near a dumpster.

[ERayR]

I avoid this expense by living near a dumpster.

 

I told them that when I go to put me in a Glad bag and set me on the curb on trash pickup day.

[mnn727]

I would prefer a system where we give because we love God.

I have tried bartering with God. It does not work. I have tried buying God off. Did not work. I have tried earning things from God. Still no go. I have decided to just take the punches and love God regardless.

I wish I could give this more than one 'Like"

I think many of us have tried all these at one time or another

 

I'll be honest here, I would be a much more cheerful giver using the 'after expenses' method, my fast offering and outside charitable contributions would also increase.

But I am curious what the Bishop would say when I went in for tithing settlement and a Temple recommend when my tithing dropped to 1/4 or less than what it has been.

Edited April 15, 2015 by mnn727

[The Nehor]

I wish I could give this more than one 'Like"

I think many of us have tried all these at one time or another

 

I'll be honest here, I would be a much more cheerful giver using the 'after expenses' method, my fast offering and outside charitable contributions would also increase.

But I am curious what the Bishop would say when I went in for tithing settlement and a Temple recommend when my tithing dropped to 1/4 or less than what it has been.

I am a net payer. I used to pay on gross but someone pointed out that it was not specified so I decided to pray about it and was shocked to get the answer to pay net rather than gross. I still check every so often to see if I should change that up.

[DBMormon]

But you would love it if they officially crossed out every definition but yours. Right?

no, I am happy giving every member enough information that they can make their own choice knowing all three options are viable.  I have taught all three options on my podcast and in my blog posts.  

[DBMormon]

It wasn't I who started this thread.

and with a question on the thread title, I have always taken the position that the answer is all three are viable and it is between the member and the Lord.  Others however seem uncomfortable allowing the general membership to be informed enough to even know they have more than one option and very likely, have 3

Edited April 16, 2015 by DBMormon

[The Nehor]

and with a question on the thread title, I have always taken the position that the answer is all three are viable and it is between the member and the Lord.  Others however seem uncomfortable allowing the general membership to be informed enough to even know they have more than one option and very likely, have 3

 

They actually have more then three options including not paying at all but without the Lord's approval I would not consider any of them valid. The gospel is not a buffet. While everyone's path is different the Lord sets that path and not our whims or even our consciences.

[Robert F. Smith]

I wish I could give this more than one 'Like"

I think many of us have tried all these at one time or another

 

I'll be honest here, I would be a much more cheerful giver using the 'after expenses' method, my fast offering and outside charitable contributions would also increase.

But I am curious what the Bishop would say when I went in for tithing settlement and a Temple recommend when my tithing dropped to 1/4 or less than what it has been.

Doesn't he only ask whether you have paid a full tithe?  I have never experienced a bishop asking whether I pay on the gross, net, or after expenses (the "increase").  The same applies to Temple Recommend questions.  Moreover, the Brethren have discouraged inquiring into such matters.

 

God owns ten percent of whatever it is being tithed and he doesn't like to be robbed (Malachi 3:8-10), but ten percent of what?

[Robert F. Smith]

I am a net payer. I used to pay on gross but someone pointed out that it was not specified so I decided to pray about it and was shocked to get the answer to pay net rather than gross. I still check every so often to see if I should change that up.

If that is the case, can the gross payers among us coast for a while on the deep credit we have engendered?

 

Or should we pay based on our tax returns each April 15?

[The Nehor]

Doesn't he only ask whether you have paid a full tithe?  I have never experienced a bishop asking whether I pay on the gross, net, or after expenses (the "increase").  The same applies to Temple Recommend questions.  Moreover, the Brethren have discouraged inquiring into such matters.

 

God owns ten percent of whatever it is being tithed and he doesn't like to be robbed (Malachi 3:8-10), but ten percent of what?

 

Your surplus which has been defined by the brethren as income. You're on your own after that.

[The Nehor]

If that is the case, can the gross payers among us coast for a while on the deep credit we have engendered?

 

Or should we pay based on our tax returns each April 15?

 

I wouldn't dare generalize something God told me alone.

 

I do try to coast on credit though. I started paying my tithing for the year in advance and tacking on the raise I want to get. That way if I lose my job or don't get the raise God owes me a refund payable in whatever form he wishes.

[mnn727]

If that is the case, can the gross payers among us coast for a while on the deep credit we have engendered?

 

Or should we pay based on our tax returns each April 15?

Whatever you and the Lord come to an agreement upon

[JLHPROF]

I am a net payer. I used to pay on gross but someone pointed out that it was not specified so I decided to pray about it and was shocked to get the answer to pay net rather than gross. I still check every so often to see if I should change that up.

 

I agree.  I believe in paying 10% of every dime that comes into my hands.

And if God asks for more I would give that too, but he has asked for 10% of my increase, the funds I receive.

I don't see why I need to pay tithing on money I never possess.

 

But I also resent the idea of nickel and diming the Lord (Ananias and Sapphira anyone?).

When Consecration is restored we'd better get used to give our all to the Lord.

Edited April 16, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Buckeye]

^{I agree.  I believe in paying 10% of every dime that comes into my hands.}

^{And if God asks for more I would give that too, but he has asked for 10% of my increase, the funds I receive.}

^{I don't see why I need to pay tithing on money I never possess.}

 

^{But I also resent the idea of nickel and diming the Lord (Ananias and Sapphira anyone?).}

^{When Consecration is restored we'd better get used to give our all to the Lord.}

 

^{So if your employer deducts social security taxes from the check he gives you, then you don't pay tithing on those taxes. But if you're self employed and you pay social security taxes directly to the government then you would pay tithing on those amounts because they were funds that were in your possession. Is that right? I'm just trying to understand the logic of making the decision based on "what comes into your hands."}

Edited April 16, 2015 by Buckeye

[thesometimesaint]

My wife and I pay 10% on net(after taxes), and on any money we get back in our tax return. We've supported our sons and are supporting our grandnephew on his mission. We pay a generous Fast Offering(what it would cost us to go to a nice(upper mid-range) restaurant twice a month, The General Education Fund of the Church, and a sizable Missionary Fund contribution as well. I'm not bragging I am well blessed. "Where much has been given, much is required".

[JLHPROF]

^{So if your employer deducts social security taxes from the check he gives you, then you don't pay tithing on those taxes. But if you're self employed and you pay social security taxes directly to the government then you would pay tithing on those amounts because they were funds that were in your possession. Is that right? I'm just trying to understand the logic of making the decision based on "what comes into your hands."}

 

I know it seems weird, and inequitable.  It probably is if I'm honest.  Your example is quite correct.

I just find the idea of paying tithing on something you never had to be strange.

But if I get a tax refund I tithe that, because I received money to tithe.

Other than the tax issue, is there any other money that you never receive that you would tithe?  I think back to the agrarian societies of the early Church.  They paid their tithing and often received wages in product.  Taxes weren't even a consideration.

 

We recently had my brother-in-law come to live with us.  He is giving me money for rent.  I actually had to stop and think about whether I should tithe that money.  My wife pointed out that it was just his share of the rent, that he was giving it to me to pass along to the landlord.  Therefore it was never my money and didn't need to be tithed.  I agreed but when I deposit one of his rent checks I still have a hard time not wanting to tithe it.  I am pretty careful about tithing every blessing I receive from God.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I know it seems weird, and inequitable.  It probably is if I'm honest.  Your example is quite correct.

I just find the idea of paying tithing on something you never had to be strange.

But if I get a tax refund I tithe that, because I received money to tithe.

Other than the tax issue, is there any other money that you never receive that you would tithe?  I think back to the agrarian societies of the early Church.  They paid their tithing and often received wages in product.  Taxes weren't even a consideration.

 

We recently had my brother-in-law come to live with us.  He is giving me money for rent.  I actually had to stop and think about whether I should tithe that money.  My wife pointed out that it was just his share of the rent, that he was giving it to me to pass along to the landlord.  Therefore it was never my money and didn't need to be tithed.  I agreed but when I deposit one of his rent checks I still have a hard time not wanting to tithe it.  I am pretty careful about tithing every blessing I receive from God.

 

My employer provides health care (I do not tithe on this), life insurance, dental insurance, a 401k match, a pension contribution (all of which I do not tithe). All of these could be considered tithable if you were self employed under your method.

[Scott Lloyd]

and with a question on the thread title, I have always taken the position that the answer is all three are viable and it is between the member and the Lord.  Others however seem uncomfortable allowing the general membership to be informed enough to even know they have more than one option and very likely, have 3

I don't think the Church is obligated to inform people of a definition of tithing that it has never promulgated in the first place. In effect, what you are calling for is a direct endorsement for your own definition. That is what it will amount to, because if people get the understanding that the Church is telling them they don't have to pay on anything other than what is left over after they've paid for all they need and want, a good many will hasten to embrace that, knowing that it will result in them paying little to nothing in tithing.

 

Edited to add:

 

And the principle of sacrifice that underpins the law of tithing will go for naught.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

My employer provides health care (I do not tithe on this), life insurance, dental insurance, a 401k match, a pension contribution (all of which I do not tithe). All of these could be considered tithable if you were self employed under your method.

 

Yes, the number of potential tithing issues are unlimited. Do you tithe on increases to your 401 due to market changes? If so, do you expect a credit back from the church if the market goes down over a year?  What about money from loans? If you take a $100,000 mortgage for a home, do you pay tithing on that? I've never heard of anyone doing so, but I know members who tithed on student loans they received - which strikes me as just as illogical.

[Buckeye]

I don't think the Church is obligated to inform people of a definition of tithing that it has never promulgated in the first place. In effect, what you are calling for is a direct endorsement for your own definition. That is what it will amount to, because if people get the understanding that the Church is telling them they don't have to pay on anything other than what is left over after they've paid for all they need and want, a good many will hasten to embrace that, knowing that it will result in them paying little to nothing in tithing.

 

Maybe DB has more faith in the saints than you. I'd rather set correct principles and let them govern themselves. After all, the Lord doesn't need the tithing money. He needs our faith.

 

I'm happy that the church is leaving the principle to the saints to decide. I would be worried though if, as you suggest, the church intentionally refused to speak on the acceptability of one form of tithing because of a belief that the saints would try to use that system in order to pay less. To me, that would demonstrate that church leaders do not really believe the saints will pay tithing for the right reasons.

[rpn]

If the revelation is from God, then won't the personal revelation of  interpretation of "income as increase" be the same for everyone?   Of course we could surely think that everyone  else's revelation interpretation of gross is wrong and ours of whatever is leftover from spending for all necessities is right.    But IME, those who actually pay 10% of gross on all of their increase because they choose to, having confirmed that interpretation with God, don't generally pay less thereafter.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If the revelation is from God, then won't the personal revelation of  interpretation of "income as increase" be the same for everyone?   Of course we could surely think that everyone  else's revelation interpretation of gross is wrong and ours of whatever is leftover from spending for all necessities is right.    But IME, those who actually pay 10% of gross on all of their increase because they choose to, having confirmed that interpretation with God, don't generally pay less thereafter.

 

You would think so. The problem as I see it is that the revelation in section 119, which declares itself as a standing law forever, has little to do with how we pay tithing today. We certainly don't require converts to donate all their surplus property at conversion, and while assigning the word "interest" to mean "income" is convenient, it is not a natural use of the word and can't be found in the 1828 dictionary. On the other-hand using interest to mean "any surplus advantage" is found in the dictionary. 

 

For the record I don't advocate paying on surplus (I think the church would not be able to operate if members took this approach). 

[Gray]

For the record I don't advocate paying on surplus (I think the church would not be able to operate if members took this approach). 

 

It might be able to - I think you'd get more tithe payers that way 

[ERayR]

^{So if your employer deducts social security taxes from the check he gives you, then you don't pay tithing on those taxes.}

 

^{But if you're self employed and you pay social security taxes directly to the government then you would pay tithing on those amounts because they were funds that were in your possession. Is that right?}

 

^{I'm just trying to understand the logic of making the decision based on "what comes into your hands."}

 

Nope I pay when I collect Social Security.

 

Same as above.  I pay when I collect Social Security.

 

I don't know what that means either.  When you are self employed all is not interest/increase.  If I grow potatoes I have a lot of expenses involved in growing them.

[Buckeye]

You would think so. The problem as I see it is that the revelation in section 119, which declares itself as a standing law forever, has little to do with how we pay tithing today. We certainly don't require converts to donate all their surplus property at conversion, and while assigning the word "interest" to mean "income" is convenient, it is not a natural use of the word and can't be found in the 1828 dictionary. On the other-hand using interest to mean "any surplus advantage" is found in the dictionary. 

 

For the record I don't advocate paying on surplus (I think the church would not be able to operate if members took this approach). 

 

Sure it could. The operations may be a lot closer to the original intent expressed in section 119 - to pay for the expenses of the FP - than for all the other programs added over the years - BYU, chapel construction/maintenance, disaster relief, missionary expenses, etc - but the church would still "operate."

 

Basing the definition of tithing on whether it would support all the church programs we enjoy places the cart before the horse.