If I won the lottery would the Church accept tithing on that?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I am loudly proclaiming that the church has zero processes or policies in place to stop anyone from paying tithing, no matter what the source.  The church will continue to be against things like gambling, sex work, the illicit drug trade, trafficking in slavery, embezzlement, and the like.   But the church doesn't have any way of knowing where anyone's tithing money comes from, so there's nothing stopping Walter White from paying tithing on his drug money if he wants. 

I mean, if the church actually learned of such a thing, they might take action of some sort.  But there are no proactive measures available to any bishop, counselor, or clerk that would allow us to deny tithing.   

Source: Me and my 5+ years as a financial clerk.  Training every 6 months, being audited every 6 months, and doing tithing weekly.  For all I know, those jingly-jangly envelopes with change from young 8 yr old Bobby, is coming from his protection racket at the local elementary school.

Source: Rational maturity.  Who out there is going to make an argument like "if you can pay tithing on it, that means the church approves of it"?

Source: Common sense.  Who out there is gonna pay tithing on their gambling winnings?  Are there any non-urban-legend verified stories of people playing the lottery, winning, and being active LDS to the point where they pay tithing on their winnings?

100% this

[Doctor Steuss]

Sitting here, thinking about the stock market (since it was brought up), and outside of initial, or new offerings, you’re essentially just stealing people’s unrealized wages if the company pays a dividend.

The company doesn’t use your money to invest.  If I buy 100 shares of a long-standing stock, the company isn’t getting that money -- whoever previously owned the stock is.  Then, when I get paid dividends, it isn’t because I earned it, or contributed anything.  It’s because the company has excess earnings, which are essentially unpaid wages.  The value of the work done by employees exceeded their compensation, and instead of the compensation to be fairly adjusted to reflect the true value of the work, the excess value of their work was taken from them and given to a bunch of people who did nothing more than park money they weren’t using.

Investing in the stock market is ultimately just a form of wage theft.  You’re profiting off someone else’s work while contributing absolutely nothing.  Seems incredibly unethical, and antithetical to any individual or organization which claims to be morally just.

(On that note, I’m going to go look at my current 401k balance, and all the dividends I was paid last quarter, and just ignore that I posted the above... because living consistently ethically is more work than just being an opining hypocrite.  Le sigh.)

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Sitting here, thinking about the stock market (since it was brought up), and outside of initial, or new offerings, you’re essentially just stealing people’s unrealized wages if the company pays a dividend.

The company doesn’t use your money to invest.  If I buy 100 shares of a long-standing stock, the company isn’t getting that money -- whoever previously owned the stock is.  Then, when I get paid dividends, it isn’t because I earned it, or contributed anything.  It’s because the company has excess earnings, which are essentially unpaid wages.  The value of the work done by employees exceeded their compensation, and instead of the compensation to be fairly adjusted to reflect the true value of the work, the excess value of their work was taken from them and given to a bunch of people who did nothing more than park money they weren’t using.

Investing in the stock market is ultimately just a form of wage theft.  You’re profiting off someone else’s work while contributing absolutely nothing.  Seems incredibly unethical, and antithetical to any individual or organization which claims to be morally just.

(On that note, I’m going to go look at my current 401k balance, and all the dividends I was paid last quarter, and just ignore that I posted the above... because living consistently ethically is more work than just being an opining hypocrite.  Le sigh.)

We own no stocks and have no investments so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I always thought that when you buy stocks you essentially become a percentage owner of that company, and that the money you get back is essentially the same as what any owner receives from a privately owned business when they pocket some of the net income rather than adding it to the employees wages.

Are owners of privately held businesses committing wage theft when they profit off of the company making an income above what it costs to run the business?

What am I misunderstanding?

[Doctor Steuss]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We own no stocks and have no investments so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I always thought that when you buy stocks you essentially become a percentage owner of that company, and that the money you get back is essentially the same as what any owner receives from a privately owned business when they pocket some of the net income rather than adding it to the employees wages.

Are owners of privately held businesses committing wage theft when they profit off of the company making an income above what it costs to run the business?

What am I misunderstanding?

To me, it'd depend on the work the owner did.  Does the owner contribute to the business, or are they just profiting off the work of others solely because they had the initial capital?  I have a friend who owns a pair of very successful restaurants.  He works well over 70 hours a week.  As the head chef, and business owner, I'd imagine that a six figure income would be very justified.  If he was merely an owner, and only invested the capital, while another chef created everything, and another person designed everything, and another person ran all of the day-to-day operations, and another person handled investor/customer/media relations... well, then it starts to beg the question, what exactly is the owner doing to "earn" what they are paid for being an owner.  Other than blindly profiting off of people who are contributing more than they are being compensated (i.e. wage theft).

As a part owner of Altria, I contribute absolutely nothing, and do absolutely nothing to earn the wage they give me through dividends.  

Edited May 28, 2024 by Doctor Steuss

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If a friend or family member won the lottery and gifted you money from it, would you accept it?

I don’t know- it’s never happened.  But I do know for sure if someone embezzled money or stole it I wouldn’t except a gift from them. I also know if a hitman offered to pay for my dinner  from their earnings I would decline.

That said,  I have allowed my friend who does not pay fair taxes to pay for my lunch.   Life is so rarely black and white. 

[blackstrap]

If I personally contract with a business owner to do a specific job for X dollars and I am paid that amount there is no wage theft on the part of the owner. There IS wage theft that happens between the gross amount and the net amount  which someone else contracted for without my personal involvement. 🙄

[CV75]

Some replies I've been waiting to use but unfortunately haven't been set up:

1. "You bet!"

2. "Chances are..."

3. Games of Chance or the Golden Ratio?

4. I did get baby a new pair of shoes

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I wonder if the first edition of the GHI had something on gambling/ tithing ,  as back then gambling was illegal in most places.?

Also, iirc, back in the 80 or 90s the Church used (I say “used” because I am not sure it was Church produced, they used to use/allowed in the ward libraries a few nonChurch produced video series, one I remember was a Bible reenactment series) a series against things like Pornography and Gambling focusing on the social side of it and being civicly active in trying to discourage them (I think, I never watched them, just read the summaries as a ward librarian).  

Also when the lottery came to Alberta, I remember there being a big push from church leadership (local at least, possibly with direction from Salt Lake as that was my understanding at the time, but I can’t remember why and I was probably more likely to assume SL leadership back then over locals deciding on their own to get involved in a politics cause).

I see the Church as having been much more outspoken about gambling in the past.  It is possible in my view the handbook has changed on this.

[Calm]

I googled it and on quora someone said they remember it being in the Miracle of Forgiveness (God through the Church not accepting what amounts to filthy lucre).  No other sources were given.

[Calm]

Quote

Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior’s teachings of love and service and toward the selfishness of the adversary. It undermines the virtues of work and thrift and the desire to give honest effort in all we do.

Still teaching it as a desire to get something for nothing (I am not sure that is completely true as some I know feel they deserve winning, they have earned winning because of hardships, suffering in their lives, they see it as only fair if the universe is going to shaft them at some time, they get really lucky as well).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/gambling?lang=eng

Quote

8. Lotteries are now becoming government-operated entities across the United States and in many other countries. Does the Church have a position on this matter?

I have my own feelings concerning them.

I am advised that some twenty-two states in the United States now have state lotteries. Proposals have been placed before Congress for a federal lottery.

There can be no question about the moral ramifications of this practice. A lottery is a form of gambling, regardless of the high-sounding purpose it may be advocated to meet. Lottery fever recently peaked when New York State announced that three winning tickets would split $41 million. People lined up to buy tickets. One winning ticket was held by 21 factory workers, with 778 second-place winners, and 113,000 who received token amounts. That may sound pretty good.

But there were also 35,998,956 losers, each of whom had paid for a chance to win.

The question of lotteries is a moral question. That government now promotes what it once enforced laws against becomes a sad reflection on the deterioration of public and political morality in the nation.

President Brigham Young spoke out against gambling. President Lorenzo Snow spoke against it. President Joseph F. Smith spoke very strongly against it; and, in 1925, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors said, “The Church has been and now is unalterably opposed to gambling in any form.” (Improvement Era, Sept. 1926, p. 1100.)

Lotteries are advocated as a means of relieving the burden of taxation. That may be a political matter. But a tax by any other name is still a tax, except in this case the burden usually falls on the poor who can least afford to pay it. As an editorial in USA Today stated recently: “Lotteries aren’t painless—the overwhelming majority of players always lose. The game takes bread and money from the poor. And it is one more temptation for the compulsive gamblers who ruin careers and families with their addiction.” (USA Today, 26 Aug. 1985.) In this context, it becomes a moral question.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1985/10/questions-and-answers?lang=eng

[ttribe]

On 5/25/2024 at 8:01 PM, nuclearfuels said:

Hypothetical here; just curious.

I like the idea of buying land in countries the Church doesn't yet own land and donating it anonymously to the Church - if I couldn't pay tithing on winning the lottery. 

If the Church doesn't accept tithing money on lottery or gambling winnings, what creative ways would you use to still comply w/ the 10% commandment?

Ask Andy Biggs. He won the lottery and became a congressman with his winnings. No idea if he paid tithing on his winnings.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

To me, it'd depend on the work the owner did.  Does the owner contribute to the business, or are they just profiting off the work of others solely because they had the initial capital?  I have a friend who owns a pair of very successful restaurants.  He works well over 70 hours a week.  As the head chef, and business owner, I'd imagine that a six figure income would be very justified.  If he was merely an owner, and only invested the capital, while another chef created everything, and another person designed everything, and another person ran all of the day-to-day operations, and another person handled investor/customer/media relations... well, then it starts to beg the question, what exactly is the owner doing to "earn" what they are paid for being an owner.  Other than blindly profiting off of people who are contributing more than they are being compensated (i.e. wage theft).

As a part owner of Altria, I contribute absolutely nothing, and do absolutely nothing to earn the wage they give me through dividends.  

I get what you are saying, and it makes sense.  Especially considering some big companies that bring in millions or billions a year with owners that are sitting around on their jets super wealthy.

Also want to say that we own a couple of businesses but we work more than 40 hours a week at each one (and will continue to do so) so I'm not feeling personally convicted or judged by anything you've said. I just want to put out some of the things that owners have to sacrifice and risk that should be an aspect of their compensation that not everyone thinks about or realizes.  It sounds like you have a good idea of what it takes, being friends with business owners but in my experience some people assume things about private business ownership that aren't always true.

One thing to consider is that the owner holds all or the majority of the risk, and is tied to the business whether it makes a profit or not.  That risk should be worth something, in my way of thinking (in a private small private business at least, where there are no shareholders or private investment firms carrying the weight).  If the business can't make ends meet, it's the owner that will be liable, not the employees.  They can walk away when the owner can't.  Risk/reward analysis should be taken in consideration when talking about fair owner compensation.  This is especially true when losing the business can sometimes mean losing your home as well because it was used as collateral. 

Another issue that people don't always understand is that though we own one business that my husband has built from the ground up and is in its 5th year, working 40 hours a week doesn't mean he makes anything. He rarely gets to take home pay.  His employees are currently making more a year than he is though they put in much less time.  Hopefully that will change eventually, but if it does (no guarantee it will anytime soon) that should be taken into considering for the money that he's ethically allow to profit in the future (because working that much for nothing-especially more than 8 hours a day consistently-takes a huge mental and physical toll, and not just on him but on his family as well).  Ownership can also make it hard to do normal things like buy a home, even if the business being bought is well established with a consistent profit margin.  There have been times when we've had to pay more taxes than we've owed so that a business could look viable in a form a lender will accept.  Making a business look as profitable on paper as it is in your bank account isn't a given, and even when you can some lenders require years worth of proof before they will allow you to count that income.  W2 wages are much easier for lenders to work with.

And then there's the issue of not making money if you aren't there.  When we take a vacation I have to consider the cost of the actual vacation as well as the loss in income that will happen when my husband isn't working that job.  In terms of his contract work, missing one day equals a loss of over $600.  If you want to go away for a 5 days (or get sick or have a family emergency, etc.) that's thousands of dollars in loss.  Paid vacation and sick leave are perks that owners don't always get.  There were many years where my husband had to work even on vacation because we either couldn't afford for him not to or the work needed to get done and the buck stops with him.  Ethic debates about compensation should include that.

Also, just because an owner has the initial capital doesn't mean that money was easy, simple, or quick to get.  It also doesn't mean that the owner didn't have to leverage their home or other personal property to secure the loan.  Even the time spent buying a business can be massive (we are buying one right now and it's been an 6 month process that has required probably 15-20 hours of work each week to get this far, and that's on top of the hours he's working at his other businesses).  None of that is compensated of course.  It's the cost of ownership that doesn't trickle down to the employees.  Neither should it in my opinion.  But it should be a factor when ethics and compensation are discussed.

Business ownership can be a real blessing and there are a lot of people who would be rockstars at it that won't ever get the chance because life isn't fair and just sucks sometimes.  And it's got perks that employment doesn't.  It can be a devastating too sometimes though, and there's no way to know how it's going to play out until you risk a lot to find out.  

 

 

[blackstrap]

I'm old enough to remember when the Relief Society would have raffles for nice quilts they had made to raise funds for activities the Church didn't cover. No longer allowed or needed for that matter. 

[Calm]

Seen one person claims he knows some professional gamblers, including members who aren’t allowed to pay tithing on winnings. No source save his own experience.

Perhaps he lives in Las Vegas or Monaco.
 

I have seen several online claiming it used to be in the handbook.

[Calm]

Quote

This illustrates that the Lord has always required his people to pay a tithe, 10% of their gross income, whether that be in chickens, grain, animals, or cash. Everything we receive during the year is titheable. The only kind of increase the Lord wants nothing to do with is the kind that comes from forbidden places, like gambling (lotteries included), extortion, etc. The Church will not accept money from these sources. Everything else is fair game.

https://www.ldsliving.com/teachings-of-howard-w-hunter-lesson-9-the-law-of-tithing/s/81898

Added:  Misled!!!!

Quote

would like to start this lesson’s article by saying that everything in here is a commentary on what President Hunter says in the lesson manual.

Gambling is not mentioned in the actual lesson…another source less claim.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-9-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng#title3

Edited May 29, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

My guess is if it was an official policy, it would be mentioned in this talk where he slams the lotteries.

https://stoppredatorygambling.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Dallin-Oakes-of-LDS-Church-Predatory-Gambling-is-Wrong-and-Politically-Unwise.pdf

Also not in the EoM:

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/EoM/id/3717/rec/1

Edited May 29, 2024 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

5 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

you’re essentially just stealing people’s unrealized wages

5 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

excess earnings, which are essentially unpaid wages

5 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

The value of the work done by employees exceeded their compensation, and instead of the compensation to be fairly adjusted to reflect the true value of the work, the excess value of their work was taken from them and given to a bunch of people who did nothing more than park money they weren’t using.

5 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Investing in the stock market is ultimately just a form of wage theft.

 has entered the chat.

 

Thread being locked for violating the no politics rule in 5...

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My guess is if it was an official policy, it would be mentioned in this talk where he slams the lotteries.

https://stoppredatorygambling.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Dallin-Oakes-of-LDS-Church-Predatory-Gambling-is-Wrong-and-Politically-Unwise.pdf

Also not in the EoM:

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/EoM/id/3717/rec/1

In the 1944 General Handbook, there's a section on Raffling and Games of Chance where it says that a ward shouldn't raise funds through raffles or anything that includes chance.  The section is shortened in later versions and the last version to have it was in 1968.  I wonder if that idea (wards shouldn't raise funds with games of chance) expanded to include not receiving tithing from lottery winnings.  I couldn't find anything in the General Handbooks that explicitly said no to lottery winnings.

[bluebell]

I bet it's one of those things that was taught over the pulpit for decades or brought up as comments in sunday lessons, member to member (or local leader to member), and people just assumed it was church policy.  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying, and it makes sense.  Especially considering some big companies that bring in millions or billions a year with owners that are sitting around on their jets super wealthy.

Also want to say that we own a couple of businesses but we work more than 40 hours a week at each one (and will continue to do so) so I'm not feeling personally convicted or judged by anything you've said. I just want to put out some of the things that owners have to sacrifice and risk that should be an aspect of their compensation that not everyone thinks about or realizes.  It sounds like you have a good idea of what it takes, being friends with business owners but in my experience some people assume things about private business ownership that aren't always true.

One thing to consider is that the owner holds all or the majority of the risk, and is tied to the business whether it makes a profit or not.  That risk should be worth something, in my way of thinking (in a private small private business at least, where there are no shareholders or private investment firms carrying the weight).  If the business can't make ends meet, it's the owner that will be liable, not the employees.  They can walk away when the owner can't.  Risk/reward analysis should be taken in consideration when talking about fair owner compensation.  This is especially true when losing the business can sometimes mean losing your home as well because it was used as collateral. 

Another issue that people don't always understand is that though we own one business that my husband has built from the ground up and is in its 5th year, working 40 hours a week doesn't mean he makes anything. He rarely gets to take home pay.  His employees are currently making more a year than he is though they put in much less time.  Hopefully that will change eventually, but if it does (no guarantee it will anytime soon) that should be taken into considering for the money that he's ethically allow to profit in the future (because working that much for nothing-especially more than 8 hours a day consistently-takes a huge mental and physical toll, and not just on him but on his family as well).  Ownership can also make it hard to do normal things like buy a home, even if the business being bought is well established with a consistent profit margin.  There have been times when we've had to pay more taxes than we've owed so that a business could look viable in a form a lender will accept.  Making a business look as profitable on paper as it is in your bank account isn't a given, and even when you can some lenders require years worth of proof before they will allow you to count that income.  W2 wages are much easier for lenders to work with.

And then there's the issue of not making money if you aren't there.  When we take a vacation I have to consider the cost of the actual vacation as well as the loss in income that will happen when my husband isn't working that job.  In terms of his contract work, missing one day equals a loss of over $600.  If you want to go away for a 5 days (or get sick or have a family emergency, etc.) that's thousands of dollars in loss.  Paid vacation and sick leave are perks that owners don't always get.  There were many years where my husband had to work even on vacation because we either couldn't afford for him not to or the work needed to get done and the buck stops with him.  Ethic debates about compensation should include that.

Also, just because an owner has the initial capital doesn't mean that money was easy, simple, or quick to get.  It also doesn't mean that the owner didn't have to leverage their home or other personal property to secure the loan.  Even the time spent buying a business can be massive (we are buying one right now and it's been an 6 month process that has required probably 15-20 hours of work each week to get this far, and that's on top of the hours he's working at his other businesses).  None of that is compensated of course.  It's the cost of ownership that doesn't trickle down to the employees.  Neither should it in my opinion.  But it should be a factor when ethics and compensation are discussed.

Business ownership can be a real blessing and there are a lot of people who would be rockstars at it that won't ever get the chance because life isn't fair and just sucks sometimes.  And it's got perks that employment doesn't.  It can be a devastating too sometimes though, and there's no way to know how it's going to play out until you risk a lot to find out.  

 

 

I am always amazed at the business owners out there, that take on what they do and sacrifice. I have primarily focused on those that own a restaurant etc. and look on with awe and the time spent to make a go of it. A few years ago both my husband and my friends, a couple, quit a wonderful job that he would by now have had 5 weeks paid vacation and took most of his 401k funds out to start his own dessert shop that had lunch items too. Both he and his wife were there more than his previous job and she made all kinds of the desserts they sold along with shakes and ice cream cones, etc. They did this for a couple of years and it didn't make it. Now the guy is going through a depression because ever since then he's worked at a couple of jobs that took it's toll on his body. Now he only gets like one week paid vacation and has to work with others on when that vacation can happen. His dream job or business didn't pan out. But he sacrificed so much in hopes that it would. 

I see your family making the same sacrifices. I hope one day you get to breathe easy and not have to stress so much. And sounds like your employees are treated very well too. 

Edited May 29, 2024 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am always amazed at the business owners out there, that take on what they do and sacrifice. I have primarily focused on those that own a restaurant etc. and look on with awe and the time spent to make a go of it. A few years ago both my husband and my friends, a couple, quit a wonderful job that he would by now have had 5 weeks paid vacation and took most of his 401k funds out to start his own dessert shop that had lunch items too. Both he and his wife were there more than his previous job and she made all kinds of the desserts they sold along with shakes and ice cream cones, etc. They did this for a couple of years and it didn't make it. Now the guy is going through a depression because ever since then he's worked at a couple of jobs that took it's toll on his body. Now he only gets like one week paid vacation and has to work with others on when that vacation can happen. His dream job or business didn't pan out. But he sacrificed so much in hopes that it would. 

I see your family making the same sacrifices. I hope one day you get to breath and not have to stress so much, and sounds like you treat the employees very well and they are lucky to work for you.

I don't know how restaurant owners do it!  That is such a hard industry.  My heart feels so much for your friend.  We owned a business years ago that didn't make it and it caused us to file for bankruptcy.  For a solid five years after that life was really hard and my husband especially struggled mentally.  It's not something you easily bounce back from.  I hope your friend can find new success and have hope again in good things to come.

 

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Risk/reward analysis should be taken in consideration when talking about fair owner compensation. 

This risk generally has a physical and mental and possibly emotional stress on owners (such as worrying over what happens to their employees if the company folds even if short term) that has a cost on the person, wear and tear so to speak.  If we can recognize that renting a machine or hiring an employee involves not just the hours that they are occupied, but also the wear and tear on them that also needs to be compensated for, then owners deserve the same sort of compensation for carrying risk even when the risk pays off so the worry ultimately was unnecessary.

I don’t consider the value of the compensation should be millions just because a company makes billions, but neither should it be seen as trivial.

[blackstrap]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Also not in the EoM:

How about ' Mormon Doctrine ' ?  I no longer have a copy. I do remember it spoke about playing-cards . 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

How about ' Mormon Doctrine ' ?  I no longer have a copy. I do remember it spoke about playing-cards . 

I was thinking that was a likely possibility if ever there was, but I would think people would have found it by now if so as I have seen a number of conversations out there asking about where the alleged rule comes from.  No book on my shelf either.  I just kept books I had plans to read.

Edited May 29, 2024 by Calm

[webbles]

32 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

How about ' Mormon Doctrine ' ?  I no longer have a copy. I do remember it spoke about playing-cards . 

It talks against gambling but don't see anything related to lottery/gambling winnings and tithing.  But it did reference Gospel Doctrine and I checked that and there is something there.  Page 327 - https://archive.org/details/gospeldoctrine009956mbp/page/326/mode/2up

Quote

The Church is not to be supported in any degree by means obtained through gambling.

That comes from a letter from the First Presidency that was in the 1908 December Improvement Era, page 143 - https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/00baed38-8049-4d03-8fc0-3b0bd71d4cbc/0/0

The letter is specifically talking about running a raffle to fund ward activities and missionaries but I could see someone read that and think it also is talking about tithing.