we’ve always been full tithe payers until recently. my husband switched jobs and we live in a ridiculously expensive area. we don’t have car payments, cable television, internet access, don’t eat out, and don’t go out for movies and the likes. we write the tithing check every month, but never have the faith to hand it over, as each month ends the same… pinching pennies and eating noodles for two weeks without anything to spare to cover that tithing. we sacrifice so much to keep our family afloat and our tithing status is a huge source of concern. hearing the “faith promoting” stories makes it hurt a bit more. i sometimes think i have enough faith to hand the check over, but my husband inevitably nips that because the numbers just don’t add up. we’ve yet to talk to our bishop, out of sheer mortification, though i know we need to go in. i sometimes feel like god understands the sacrifices we’re making and wonder how well that will translate to a mortal man. our bishop is a good man, perhaps i need to have some faith in HIM. sorry for the ramble… something near and dear and painful for us…

I’m not sure if you read all my comment, or if I just wrote it poorly, but this is the exact opposite of what I said, since I explicitly talked about deducting costs of inputs.

“The long and short of the matter is that earning a wage has its own costs and those cost should be deducted from a tithing calculation.”

I understand the argument that labor can be treated as an input to be deducted, but then, so is entrepreneurial ability–should we deduct the return to that from the calculation? IN other words, from my perspecive, all parts of revenue can be thought as going to pay the costs of _some_ kind of input. So that method is not going to solve the problem.

In the end, none of the 1828 definitions specify that one “should” deduct labor income. You can argue that you think you should, if you wish. You can point out that doing so is consistent with the standards put forward in the D&C and the FP letter. But since those standards are incredibly vague, that does not really mean much, does it?

Hellmut seemed to be putting forward the claim that LDS scripture clearly contained an exemption for cost of living? I’m arguing that it is not at all clear that that is the case– either in the 1828 dictionary, the OT, or the FP letter.

Where’s your sword, man?!

He had a six shooter!

I think the 1970 FP letter I cited and Hellmut’s tithing model are perfectly in sync given a labor-wage model. For those who get paid a salary or wage I think tithing allows one to deduct the “costs” associated with their labor to calculate income. The energy I used to perform my labor has a cost (food, shelter, clothing). So does the infrastructure I employ (transportation, government) in order to participate in the economy that allows me to earn a wage. If you want to apply def #3 here then have at it.

Your stance is one typically taken by those who have never run their own business. Given the model you seem to be advocating businessowners would be obligated to pay tithing based on cash inflows and “income” would be entirely irrelevant.

The long and short of the matter is that earning a wage has its own costs and those cost should be deducted from a tithing calculation.

At least the Church is willing and patient enough to leave the punishment in the hands of God. My government may wait a few years before it decides to get serious with me should I be delinquent with my tax filings for whatever reason, but when it does, you can bet that mercy is not going to be considered to be a virtue on its own part. And, as I have found out on my own, the government will be more than happy to file a completely erroneous return for you in order to “prove” that you owe them a sizeable chunk of change rather than a smaller one (even if they are not, in reality, owed anything at all but a completed tax return form that shows that a refund for the year is due).

I was not suggesting any dishonesty on you rpart, just sloppiness .

In that case, my apologies to you, Frank.

Actually, even definition number 5 is too vague to nail it down to income “after needs”. If I produce a good, is my “surplus advantage” how much I sell it for, minus how much it cost to produce? Because that is my income. If I work for hire, my surplus advantage could readily be considered the amount of money I walk away with, i.e. my income.