- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I would like to start this discussion with two disclaimers: 1) I am a lifetime full tithe payer. I have done this mostly with a willing heart, and I feel blessed to have had the ability to pay.
2) I understand the idea of a principle with a promise.
With these two disclaimers out in the open, I would like to discuss what I call the ‘Economics of Tithing’.
Back in my college days, one of the first things we learned about in my Economics 101 Course were ‘progressive taxes’ and ‘regressive taxes’.
Progressive taxes are taxes whose rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases. Our federal income tax is an example of this. In theory, those with more money, and thus are better able to pay, have a higher tax rate.
A regressive tax is just the opposite; the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. A regressive tax is onerous and burdens those with the least ability to pay.
Now for the trick question: Is a flat tax, i.e., a tax with a single rate progressive, or regressive or neither? The answer, according to my college professor, is . . . regressive!
Examining a flat tax, say someone is making $200,000 a year, and the government imposes a 10% tax. This person then pays $20,000 in taxes, and has $180,000 to spend on probably every thing that person wants. In other words, the 10% tax at that person’s income rate is no sacrifice, because the citizen gives up nothing of consequence. The remaining income is able to meet all of that person’s needs and there is likely money to spare.
In the next case, consider a person who makes $20,000 a year. For a 10% tax, the person pays $2000 in taxes, and has $18,000 a year left for all of his or her expenses. The truth is, in current dollars, that person is required to give up food, or health care or transportation costs in order to pay that tax, because his income does not support his needs.
Now, this discussion relates directly to tithing, and, setting aside for a moment the idea that blessings will come to recompense the payer, the level of sacrifice at the point of making the decision to pay tithing varies greatly from individual to individual for the very same reasons described above.
The thing that really bothers me is to hear the $200k scenario types smugly declaring that tithing is fair, because everyone pays 10%. It is inherently unfair for that very reason. I have also heard those same $200k types looking down on the $20k types who struggle to pay their tithing. I also know some $20k types who go to church and hear their $200k leaders preaching to them the importance of not being worldly, which rings rather hollow.
I am not arguing God’s law, but I am arguing our judgmental look at those who are unable to keep the law. I also struggle with the idea that the $20k-ers who cannot live the law of Tithing are kept from the highest blessings, the temple ordinances. Why do church’s paths to salvation always come with an admission price?
I share your views, and feel the teaching of tithing can many times be very insensitive. I like the “regressive tax” comparison, because some times those who are paying their 10% do not feel the same pinch that others do, and because of that are not sympathetic to some who really wonder if they can afford to pay 10%. It simply isn’t the same for everyone just because the % is the same for everyone. Having said that, I don’t think the church seems to care to try to make it “fair”. Instead, it is a spiritual law and if paying 10% leaves a family destitute, the church has fast offering funds to help out, at the descretion of the bishop.
Is that fair? No. But neither is the plan of salvation. Tithing is simply one way God can teach us sacrifice.
To your other point, the view by many that if I can pay it you can pay it is insensitive. It reminds me of my bishop who was in his 60’s with his children all grown up and out of the house lecturing me and my wife about being on time to sacrament meeting and warning us against bringing cheerios to feed them, since that makes a mess in church. We should just discipline our kids and discipline ourselves to be on time. Well, that is easy for a 60 year old to say who has no children…and not very sympathetic to me and my wife that it isn’t so easy to just do it. It wasn’t that I disagreed with him…just that I felt his attitude was unsympathetic to how hard it was for us with young kids in church. What seems easy for him, in reality is not easy for us.
Sometimes tithing isn’t as easy as “just pay it and you’ll be blessed”. It is a law of sacrifice and should be viewed that way by those asked to pay it, and those who are teaching it.
One important clarification, imo: NOBODY should be deprived of temple attendance for being too poor – and it doesn’t happen if the Church’s own teachings are followed. Those who can’t pay their bills and tithing, if they are being frugal and not wasting money on non-necessities, can pay their tithing and receive fast offering assistance for food and other bills to offset the tithing they pay. Generally, the fast offering assistance is FAR more than the tithing paid – which is overlooked usually in these discussions.
If fast offering assistance wasn’t available, or if individual Bishops aren’t doing what they are supposed to be doing, then this becomes a serious issue – and, frankly, the inclusion of fast offerings into this discussion (the phrase is “tithes and offerings” after all) changes it from a “regressive tax” to a true “progressive tax”.
ss, a sincere, non-combative question:
How would you propose to finance the Church and all it does differently than through a “progressive tax” system like tithes and offerings?
We just joke about just having a 5% social pass to the temple that would just get you into family weddings. I’m not advocating anything else. It really couldn’t be anything else and anything else would be a nightmare to administer. The tithe is scriptural. There is nothing more clear.
I know someone who has been denied help (working poor) from the bishop, at least on an ongoing basis. He’s raised four girls on a very low salary. I think that without ongoing assistance, he is not able to pay tithing consistently. He has loads of debt and has basically paid for life by refinancing his house over and over. He got church assistance for a short period once while he was out of work. I know the principle is to pay your tithing first and everything else will take care of itself, but it hasn’t seemed to work out that way in practice.
I guess my point, aside from the fact that we shouldn’t be judgmental, is the idea that nothing is as simple as it seems. We love to put things in neat little packets in the church.
As always, I appreciate the insights.
I would like to respectfully submit that the problem with tithing is not tithing, the problem is that us darn Mormons are not living the United Order and the Law of Consecration. Certainly, as long as there continue to be rich and poor among us then there will continue to be problems like this.
When we all progress to the point that we’re living the higher laws and have lost/conquered our selfishness, then tithing will not be a hardship on anyone. Until then, there will be these extreme social inequalities.
Fundamentalist ramblings…
Disregard at will…
Usual disclaimers…
Yada, yada…
Touche’. I love hearing the viewpoint of someone with your leanings. Without this forum, I would never get that chance! Thanks.
And who knew fundamentalists have humor. They never show that on the news!!!!
We just had a talk in Sacrament Meeting yesterday from the High Councilor about tithes and offerings. Frankly it sounded like a plea for more money rather than discussing eternal principles. Old-Timer wrote:
If fast offering assistance wasn’t available, or if individual Bishops aren’t doing what they are supposed to be doing, then this becomes a serious issueThis is one of the difficulties with including imperfect men in charge of administrating God’s laws. My parents must have paid $100,000s in tithing over their lifetime and have always been generous with other offerings as far as I know. However, when my father was laid off from his job and my parents used up all of their savings and humbled themselves to the point that they asked for help from the church, the Bishop refused them aid and they felt shamed for asking for help. They were made to grovel for help and still refused aid. 2 1/2 years later my dad is still out of a job and my parents don’t feel comfortable asking for church aid because of how they were treated.
Old-Timer wrote:
– and, frankly, the inclusion of fast offerings into this discussion (the phrase is “tithes and offerings” after all) changes it from a “regressive tax” to a true “progressive tax”.This is hardly a “progressive tax” because it is a goodwill offering and there is not a set amount you are expected to contribute if you have higher income. Additionally, if you give enough tithes and offerings, you are then able to claim them as deductions on your government taxes and reclaim some of that money.
Old-Timer wrote:
ss, a sincere, non-combative question:How would you propose to finance the Church and all it does differently than through a “progressive tax” system like tithes and offerings?
I don’t have an answer to this question, but it seems like 10% is a little steep to just finance church programs, considering a single middle-class family likely pays enough in tithing to finance the entire ward budget for the full year (let alone all of the other middle class families in the ward paying tithing).
This conundrum sums up the reason so many wealthy members (probably) believe in the “prosperity gospel.” The wealthier you are, the more your burdens are lifted. MisterCurie, that situation with your parents simply should not be – ever. It hurts my heart just to read it. Remember, I am talking of the ideal as it should be when I mention tithes and offerings being a “progressive tax”. The burden is supposed to be carried by those who can help (“comfort those who stand in need of comfort”), meaning the rich are supposed to take care of the poor. Again, it’s the “natural man” conflict between the ideal and the practiced that gets in the way.
hawkgrrrl wrote:This conundrum sums up the reason so many wealthy members (probably) believe in the “prosperity gospel.” The wealthier you are, the more your burdens are lifted.
…and the poorer you are, the more you just need to be faithful and pay tithing and you’ll be more prosperous.I don’t think that always works.
Tithing helps you keep priorities straight and keep a heart willing to sacrifice. The problems of life still remain…you just may have a different way of facing them and valuing them.
Old-Timer wrote:How would you propose to finance the Church and all it does differently than through a “progressive tax” system like tithes and offerings?
Does the church need to continue to finance itself like it did in the past? When they have full coffers and are buying up malls, but I’m struggling to pay my mortgage…is there not some consideration on the NEED for continuing to give despite my personal needs?
Like Bruce said, the breakdown of the system creates problems that perhaps a higher law than tithing is needed.
If we, the people, were willing to take care of ourselves, I have no doubt that tithing could be modified significantly. I don’t view tithing as a celestial law; I see it as no more than a terrestrial law, at best. Otoh, I am VERY glad that the Church is debt-free right now. I know personally of other denominations that are closing buildings for purely cost-saving reasons, and other denominations and churches that are mortgaged to the hilt and paying lots of interest to lenders who really do “grind the faces of the poor”.
It is my understanding that the law of tithing is a preparatory law for the law of consecration. So maybe from that standpoint it is somewhat flawed or maybe incomplete. It’s funny to me all the recent tithing and consecration posts lately. Bruce, since you’re a fundamentalist, I thought you might be interested in my 3 posts on Consecration and Tithing. The most recent one is http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/09/13/successors-of-consecration-tithing-and-fast-offerings/ I have to say that I always thought learning about the Law of Consecration was boring until I read “Great Basin Kingdom” by Leonard Arrington. I must say that I am truly impressed by the people who tried valiantly to live the United Order in the 1870’s-1880’s. It does seem that it was a real economic blessing, until the anti-polygamy raids shut it down in favor of US style capitalism. I think Brigham Young’s desire that there be no poor among them is his greatest attribute as a prophet. It’s too bad that we don’t seek to end poverty as Brigham Young did. Even still, I think consecration or the United Order were extremely difficult principles to live, and I marvel as the spirituality and idealism these people exhibited. I know I’m too selfish to try to live this voluntarily.
The fundamentalists that I associate with practice a form of a United Order, albeit rather watered down. They are trying, however, and strive to do better all the time. Tithing is still the economic base for the priesthood work though. An interesting example of how a united order might function properly, IMHO, can be found among an Anabaptist group called the Hutterites. There are many here in the West and they seem to pull it off pretty good. I’ve never known any personally but from the ones that I have met and see in public, they seem like healthy, happy folks. From what I have read on the internet about them, their economic system seems very close to what we would call the Law of Consecration. I don’t know if they tithe as well but I’m going to guess, no.
EDIT…
I know, I know….
There is a knee jerk reaction that seems to be inherent in us Mormon-types that cringes at the thought that some other group might actually be living a gospel principle better than we are.
I would much rather people alter their interpretation of a “full tithe” or “full tenth” than to have the Church create a tithing system that looks anything like the IRS Code. To me, the current system can be as simple and “fair” as we want it. The request is to pay a tithe of our increase. That is what it says in the scriptures, and I see the Church leadership backing off from always making sure to say that means 10% of gross revenue. It could be seen like any other religious doctrine, having levels of practice. Who actually obeys the Word of Wisdom as it is written? Anyone eat meat when it isn’t the winter season on the calendar? There are levels of devotion that each of us decide. If we acknowledge that to ourselves or not is another question. Is everyone perfectly honest in their dealings with their fellow man? Does everyone obey the Law of Chastity by never having an impure thought?
10% of net income after expenses is more devotion than nothing (still something good)
10% of gross revenue is more devotion than 10% of net income
10% of gross revenue + giving generously to other funds is more devoted than simple 10%
Law of Consecration is more devotion than tithing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.