| 22 comments ]

Jeff is looking for some ways to reduce his tithing burden. Let us all give him a hand!

First, pay on your net income, not on gross income. If the Fed and State take it out before you ever see it, then it isn't really income after all, is it? I don't think so!

Second, if you're holy enough, say a Levite or Cohen, or the +3rd generation descendent of pioneers, you can get away with the tithe of the tithe, or only 1%, check it out at Numbers 18:28-29 and Nehemiah 10:38.

Third, can't you write off any losses through capital gains and take that as a deduction from your income that you pay tithing on? Hey, the Fed allows it, why not?

What else people? Come on, I am sure we have some creative math people out there.

22 comments

Anonymous said... @ January 11, 2006 at 10:21 AM

Well ...

I suppose I could take out deductions for "business expenses" ... Like that iPod that doubles as a data transfer device!

After all, the money is just going straight into the business anyway, so it's not really income, right? Right?

Now, if I could just manage to get classified as a nonprofit, then we'd really be cooking!

Seth R.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 11, 2006 at 11:01 AM

Oh, yeah, since all of the men in the LDS Church have the Priesthood, shouldn't they be able to file as clergy?

Roy W. Wright said... @ January 11, 2006 at 12:09 PM

If the Fed and State take it out before you ever see it, then it isn't really income after all, is it?

Actually, it's your employer who takes it out, so it really isn't income. I tithe "net" income for this very reason.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 11, 2006 at 12:10 PM

Yeah, Roy, and I guess its your employer whom you file with when its time for your income tax refund, and not the Fed and State.

john scherer said... @ January 11, 2006 at 12:36 PM

If you tithe on your net only, do you then tithe your tax return if you get one? Just curious.

Roy W. Wright said... @ January 11, 2006 at 12:42 PM

I fail to see your point, snarkernacle. The government tells my employer to pay me a certain amount less than it otherwise would. At the end of the year, the government says "Hey, maybe we should have let you make a little more." So I tithe what they give me at that point. Anything else simply isn't income.

Skip Kaminsky said... @ January 11, 2006 at 1:17 PM

My employer can have my mortgage payment deducted from my paycheck.

By Roy's logic, that's saying that I don't have to pay tithing on the amount of my mortgage.

Taxes are a bill like any other, it's simply that the Feds have the ability to enact laws to help make sure they get what's due them.

You want sweeping tax reform? Do away with payroll withholding for one year.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 11, 2006 at 1:27 PM

What Skip said.

The state can also deduct Child Support and a whole load of other things from your paycheck. I guess you don't have to tithe on that either if they do, right? And if you contribute to a 401K, that deduction doesn't count either? Let me guess, just as a 401K is tex-deferred, its also tithe-deferred.

OK, so, Roy, if it isn't part of your salary, then why is it called "Gross Salary" instead of "Gross Dollars you Thought You Earned But Did Not Actually Really Make Because The Facist State You Live In Appropriated It Before You Ever Earned It"?

Whatever bakes your beans, Roy. Live long and prosper.

Roy W. Wright said... @ January 11, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Taxes are a bill like any other...

That's a terrible way to look at it. The difference between taxes and all the other possible deductions you list is that I neither legitimately owe taxes (like a mortgage payment or child support) nor pay them willingly (like a 401K). The money is confiscated from my employer, who therefore can't give it to me. It was never mine. Now, if I were self-employed and had to pay quarterly taxes on my income (or however that works), I would of course tithe it all (the "gross") because I actually earned and possessed it before some of it was stolen from me.

OK, so, Roy, if it isn't part of your salary, then why is it called "Gross Salary" instead of "Gross Dollars you Thought You Earned But Did Not Actually Really Make Because The Facist State You Live In Appropriated It Before You Ever Earned It"?

Gee, I wonder.

I see where you guys are coming from now though, with the idea that the Feds "enact laws to help make sure they get what's due them". Apparently you consider your withholdings to be willing contributions on your part. In my view, they represent money that was stolen from someone else before it could be paid to me. I guess it reflects our diverging views of the legitimacy of theft, so I won't trouble you further with my old-fashioned views.

Good day.

Aimee "Roo" said... @ January 11, 2006 at 4:18 PM

oh snarkernacle, where you have been all this time! finally some snarky fun among the high mucky mucks of mormondom!

Stephen said... @ January 11, 2006 at 5:22 PM

Taxes are a bill like any other.

That isn't strictly true, btw. In some countries, members are expressly counseled that they are expected to pay tithing on after-tax income. Of course many of those countries have tax rates approaching 70% or higher which would give an effective tithing rate of 35% to 50% for many members.

Consider. You are a farmer. Do you pay tithing on your gross or your income after expenses?

Ann said... @ January 11, 2006 at 9:59 PM

Church Handbook of Instruction
Definition of Tithing

The First Presidency has written: "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, 19 Mar. 1970; see also D&C 119:4).

Nobody, not even the Snarkers, gets to define "income" for somebody else.

Anonymous said... @ January 12, 2006 at 3:21 AM

creative math comment:

Well, 10 represents the decimal number 2 in binary, so why not go with 2% instead of 10%?

Snarkernacle comment:

why are people so touchy and take the SN so seriously in the comments, when the object of the SN is clearly to have a little fun? (As explicitly posted recently.)

FHL

Also, why does it choose incredibly long word verification if you decide to post anonymously?

Anonymous said... @ January 12, 2006 at 5:09 AM

The verification is so that machines won't post advertisements on blogs, otherwise known as comment spam. That is why the text is distorted -- so it isn't machine readable.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 12, 2006 at 6:17 AM

ANN!!! We are SOOOOOOO authorative! Come on! The SnarkerNacle is THE LAST WORD on everything! Got it? Fetch, flip, scrud, and hud! What has a chihuahua got to do to make it absolutely clear that he rules the UNIVERSE and knows EVERYTHING! If the chihuahua says tithing is 10% of your gross salary, then it is!!!!!! I hope I have put enough exclamation points on that to make it clear. Don't make me add more.

anonymous, people take us seriously because we take them seriously. So darn serious. Extermely serious. Severely serious. Harshly serious. Mercilesly serious. Serious.

The word verification is for everyone, not just anonymous. Anyone who posts has to do the word verification, so spambots cannot post. It used to be turned off, and then some spambots posted a bunch of junk, so I turned it on.

Sarebear said... @ January 12, 2006 at 8:28 AM

Sounds like you have a Pinky & The Brain complex. You being the Brain. Can I be Pinky? Please? Huh, huh, huh?

And then we can all live in the town of Shiny Pants.

Actually, I think Stephen gets to be Pinky (love ya, Stephen!). Teehee! Wait, did I just do my first snark? EEEEeeeeeeeee

Runs screaming from the mice in the room.

Ann said... @ January 12, 2006 at 10:35 AM

Now we know that Gordon Hinckley, Thomas Monson, and James Faust are in reality - THE SNARKERS. That's the only explanation *I* can see for that little rant.

I'm going to have to start treating y'all with more respect. Or not. Jury's still out on that...

Skip Kaminsky said... @ January 12, 2006 at 1:24 PM

Ann has obviously read the Church Handbook of Instructions very carefully.

Well, except the part about the copyright, the part about not making copies, transmitting content, etc.

Stephen said... @ January 12, 2006 at 6:35 PM

Actually, I think Stephen gets to be Pinky (love ya, Stephen!). Teehee! Wait, did I just do my first snark? EEEEeeeeeeeee

;)

Stephen

Ann said... @ January 12, 2006 at 9:15 PM

[eyeroll]

Ever hear of "fair use," Skip? The bit about tithing is in Book 2, which even women presidents get a copy of. I pulled a short quote out of a copyrighted text to support a point, and cited my source. In academe, that's called "research."

Annoyed that your little "tithe on the gross" pomposity doesn't fit in with actual church policy, or just on being called on it?

Skip Kaminsky said... @ January 12, 2006 at 9:39 PM

I don't believe I said anything about tithing on the gross vs. tithing on the net. That's a personal decision as you have correctly pointed out. However, I did disagree with Roy's logic regarding tax withholdings.

And yes, the handbook quotes are widely available online and are even quoted in conference talks.

Anonymous said... @ January 22, 2006 at 3:14 AM

Oh I read that post at Jeff's site. The question I have about Jeff is why the head tilt? Ever notice that in every picture of him he tilts his head? Like he thinks the camera will not get his enormous head to fit in the frame. Check it out for yourself. Head tilt in every photo.

Jeff, What's with the head??

Post a Comment