Tithing question

[nuclearfuels]

I think I know the answer but...

Let's say a guy invested $100 after paying tithing on that income.

May years later, he sells that $100 that became $800.

He is supposed to pay tithing on the $700 increase, right?

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I think I know the answer but...

Let's say a guy invested $100 after paying tithing on that income.

May years later, he sells that $100 that became $800.

He is supposed to pay tithing on the $700 increase, right?

I think so 🤔....

If you already have $800 in your bank account you don't pay tithing on the cumulative amount when you get paid.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I think I know the answer but...

Let's say a guy invested $100 after paying tithing on that income.

May years later, he sells that $100 that became $800.

He is supposed to pay tithing on the $700 increase, right?

I've done that calculation in real life and think it valid, but sometimes it became so complicated I erred on the side of just paying on the whole post-investment amount that comes back to me (i.e. lands in my bank account as discretionary funds). Tithing could also take the form of a massive retroactive settlement in my will for anything that does not hit my spending account, but that would only still be part of what is "due" the Lord and not exactly current, which I think is an important factor in observance, worship and discipleship.

Do whatever feels right!

Edited March 26, 2025 by CV75

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I think I know the answer but...

Let's say a guy invested $100 after paying tithing on that income.

May years later, he sells that $100 that became $800.

He is supposed to pay tithing on the $700 increase, right?

Correct. Upon selling your investment you would then have $700 in new income that you ought to pay tithing on.

Though, if you have other income, you might technically be better off donating part of your investment to the Church directly as tithing because that will result in you having to pay less in capital gains taxes while simultaneously allowing you to claim the entire amount of the donation as a charitable deduction, thus reducing your overall tax burden while maximizing your contribution to the Church at the same time, as they can sell the investment without having to pay taxes.

 

[Silently Observing]

The concept is more easily understood when we move from dollars, back to commodities.

 

Year 1 inherit 10 cows/bulls. I tithe either 1 cow to the Church, or its value.

 

Year 2 my 10 have become 15. I tithe to the Lord the increase of the 5, not the 15, because I’ve tithed them the prior year.

 

Year 3 my cows and bulls now total 25. I tithe off of the ten new, not the total 25, and so on…

 

When we move these things into digital numbers or even cash. People often err and over tithe, just to “be safe”. What they don’t account for is the Lord desiring us to be “wise stewards.” It benefits the Church, because it accumulates far more wealth, & we can all attest to receiving blessings for being full tithe payers, but how many of us receive the special blessings for being both full tithe payers AND wise stewards?

 

hmm…

[blackstrap]

Let's see if I can simplify it. You made $700 on your investment , but during the same period you broke your leg and went in to the hospital. That cost you $ 15000 in medical expenses, but fortunately you have insurance which paid $ 14000 on the hospital bill  and you paid $ 1000 out of pocket. What was your increase and how much tithing should you pay ?  It gets even simpler if you have a farm or a business. Hope that helps. 😁

[Rain]

2 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Let's see if I can simplify it. You made $700 on your investment , but during the same period you broke your leg and went in to the hospital. That cost you $ 15000 in medical expenses, but fortunately you have insurance which paid $ 14000 on the hospital bill  and you paid $ 1000 out of pocket. What was your increase and how much tithing should you pay ?  It gets even simpler if you have a farm or a business. Hope that helps. 😁

I'm pretty sure you figured that wrong.  10-20% copay is more than $1000 plus you have a deductible. 😁

[Rain]

On 3/26/2025 at 9:50 AM, nuclearfuels said:

I think I know the answer but...

Let's say a guy invested $100 after paying tithing on that income.

May years later, he sells that $100 that became $800.

He is supposed to pay tithing on the $700 increase, right?

 “The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one-tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this” (First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970).

[JVW]

I like the simple statement quoted above, because if it is "increase" instead of "income" most people would not be paying tithing. If I make 50,000 in a year but spend 100,000 buying a bunch of stuff with credit cards then my increase is -50,000 and therefore I have nothing to pay tithing on.

[2BizE]

On 3/26/2025 at 10:50 AM, nuclearfuels said:

I think I know the answer but...

Let's say a guy invested $100 after paying tithing on that income.

May years later, he sells that $100 that became $800.

He is supposed to pay tithing on the $700 increase, right?

According to the tithing lawsuit against the church, the invested gains of tithing are no longer considered tithing unless they think they should be. In your case, I think it is up to you to determine, as you have already tithed on that increase.

[webbles]

19 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

According to the tithing lawsuit against the church, the invested gains of tithing are no longer considered tithing unless they think they should be. In your case, I think it is up to you to determine, as you have already tithed on that increase.

That's not what the lawsuit was about.  The church doesn't pay tithing.

[The Nehor]

On 3/28/2025 at 2:17 AM, Rain said:

 “The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one-tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this” (First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970).

Why is it understood to mean income though?

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why is it understood to mean income though?

Don't ask me.  I didn't write the letter.