harmony wrote:Had I not paid all those thousands of dollars (some of which I had to borrow at 24% interest if we were short in December)
Borrowing money to pay tithing? I really don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe if you paid tithing and then borrowed money to buy food, but in that situation you should ask the bishop for help. I have written checks at the Bishop's request for many people who come across hard times.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:As to tithing, it is unlikely I'd be putting more toward retirement without it. More than likely, that money would go to a nice vacation to Europe, a new car, or something like that.
Why do you think so? If you're so good about managing your money right now, what makes you think you'd just suddenly stop being good about it when you stop paying tithing?
Because I don't manage our money--my wife does.
(guess who's gonna sleep in the dog house tonight?)
Actually she's pretty good and almost certainly would continue to save for retirement because she knows that the company match is free money and also that it gets it out of Uncle Sam's grubs. However, any money over from that would likely be spent on things other than retirement: nicer home, college savings, vacations, gifts for friends/family, or maybe other charity. To assume the extra would go to retirement is highly unlikely. Let's face it, I haven't seen my other relatives sell their homes to live off that for retirement. All of them continue to live in those homes even when the kids leave because then there's grandkids and their old friends.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
harmony wrote:Had I not paid all those thousands of dollars (some of which I had to borrow at 24% interest if we were short in December)
Borrowing money to pay tithing? I really don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe if you paid tithing and then borrowed money to buy food, but in that situation you should ask the bishop for help. I have written checks at the Bishop's request for many people who come across hard times.
Well, once was enough for me. I'd go on food stamps before I'd borrow money to pay tithing again.
Who Knows wrote:Why do you think so? If you're so good about managing your money right now, what makes you think you'd just suddenly stop being good about it when you stop paying tithing?
Because I don't manage our money--my wife does.
(guess who's gonna sleep in the dog house tonight?)
Actually she's pretty good and almost certainly would continue to save for retirement because she knows that the company match is free money and also that it gets it out of Uncle Sam's grubs. However, any money over from that would likely be spent on things other than retirement: nicer home, college savings, vacations, gifts for friends/family, or maybe other charity. To assume the extra would go to retirement is highly unlikely. Let's face it, I haven't seen my other relatives sell their homes to live off that for retirement. All of them continue to live in those homes even when the kids leave because then there's grandkids and their old friends.
Bad money management is bad money management - whether you're LDS/exmo/tithe payer/non-tithe payer.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
I think I addressed this. If Mom is stay at home and non member and Dad works and makes all the money and is a member he would be expected to tithe on what he makes, period. Same if it were reverse. A less strict bishop might let the member slide is non member stay at home objects and earning income member does not tithe to keep the peace. My guess is most would consider him a non tither
OMG Jason.. PLEASE tell me this is your opinion and not the policy of the church.
You are saying that whomever makes the money in a relationship owns the money? Are you kidding? So a SAHM has no money? The breadwinner has the right to do with the money as he wishes? And is expected to give their joint money to the church or he can't go to the temple? Please tell me you aren't serious.
I can hardly believe it is possible to hold such a view.
You are suggesting that a believing husband would have to go against the wishes of his non-member wife and give their shared money to the church because the church views the woman as having no money and no say in how their money is spent?
REALLY? And the church claims to be all about family and marriage! Wow!
Ohhh Harmony... I think you are right! :-(
~dancer~
There is no set policy other then tithing is 10% of income. My guess is most bishops would interpret that to mean if you earn it you tithe on it. Some may still give a recommend if the believing earner does not pay 10% because the non believing non earner objects to the earner paying tithing.
I am not sure why this is so shocking. If the believing non earner does not make any income then the bishop does not say "Well your non believing spouse makes money and since it should be at least half your you should tithe on it or no recommend." Rather, they just assume the believing non earner has no money to tithe on.
Do you think in that case the believing non earner should have to tihte on some of the non believer's income to get into the temple? Well I know you do no think tithing should be a requirement to get into the temple, but given that it is do you apply your dismay both ways?
Jersey Girl wrote:Didn't someone say (and if they didn't they should have) that in the case of a non-wage earning spouse (let's take the SAHM partly out of this and include other marriage partners who do not earn income such as the disabled spouse) and wage earning spouse that the income could be considered jointly owned and that the wage earning spouse could rightly pay tithing on one half of the joint income?
I think I addressed this. If Mom is stay at home and non member and Dad works and makes all the money and is a member he would be expected to tithe on what he makes, period. Same if it were reverse. A less strict bishop might let the member slide is non member stay at home objects and earning income member does not tithe to keep the peace. My guess is most would consider him a non tither
OMG Jason.. PLEASE tell me this is your opinion and not the policy of the church.
TD, you know as well as I do that there are no hard and fast policies about tithing in the church. It's left up to the individual bishop. Jason is simply giving his opinion of how he thinks it would work in most wards (and I suspect he's right).
You are saying that whomever makes the money in a relationship owns the money? Are you kidding? So a SAHM has no money? The breadwinner has the right to do with the money as he wishes? And is expected to give their joint money to the church or he can't go to the temple? Please tell me you aren't serious.
He's giving you what he thinks the bishop would do. Don't hold it against him, just because he's probably right. We try to keep the messengers alive, remember?
I can hardly believe it is possible to hold such a view.
Why? Surely you've had bishops who would hestitate to deviate from the standard 10% line?
You are suggesting that a believing husband would have to go against the wishes of his non-member wife and give their shared money to the church because the church views the woman as having no money and no say in how their money is spent?
And this surprises you why? I don't have much problem imagining this at all. LDS husbands preside in their homes, remember? They're told that every Sunday in priesthood. Preside, preside, preside! It's no stretch to think that an LDS husband would make all the money decisions in the home, if he's the breadwinner, and never even blink. Actually, I'd be very surprised if the LDS husband even bothered to consult his non-member SAHM wife. That would surprise me.
REALLY? And the church claims to be all about family and marriage! Wow!
Just don't blame Jason. It's not his fault he's the bearer of an unpopular idea.
Ohhh Harmony... I think you are right! :-(
Even a broken clock is right twice a day (which is better than my average, according to Plu!)
I agree with Harmony accept for this. If it was the wife the earned the money, not the husband, and the wife believed, and not the husband, and the husband did not want the wife to tithe, the same standards would most likely apply. So it is not a man presides thing. If both worked the bishop would most likely look to what the believer earned to determine tithing and expect half of what the other earns.
I consider any money that comes into a family (by the parents) to be joint money.
I don't consider it the sole property of the breadwinner, nor do I consider it half one spouses' and half the others.
in my opinion, it is family money... to be spent as both agree it should be spent.
Your scenario seems to suggest the breadwinner "owns" the money and it is not the wife's as well. What is the wife? Worth nothing?
I think the money is shared and the rules (whatever they are) should apply to both spouses regardless of how the money comes into the family.
Suggesting the breadwinner is the sole owner of the money, and the wife has NO money, comes very close to saying the wife is ... well never mind. :-(
No, I think the money any parent brings to the family is family money and should only be donated to any charity organization that both spouses support, In other words, it should be donated as the couple sees fit.
The thought that the church would make a spouse choose the church over the wishes of one's spouse is pretty sick in my opinion.
I consider any money that comes into a family (by the parents) to be joint money.
I don't consider it the sole property of the breadwinner, nor do I consider it half one spouses' and half the others.
in my opinion, it is family money... to be spent as both agree it should be spent.
Your scenario seems to suggest the breadwinner "owns" the money and it is not the wife's as well. What is the wife? Worth nothing?
I think the money is shared and the rules (whatever they are) should apply to both spouses regardless of how the money comes into the family.
Suggesting the breadwinner is the sole owner of the money, and the wife has NO money, comes very close to saying the wife is ... well never mind. :-(
No, I think the money any parent brings to the family is family money and should only be donated to any charity organization that both spouses support, In other words, it should be donated as the couple sees fit.
The thought that the church would make a spouse choose the church over the wishes of one's spouse is pretty sick in my opinion.
~dancer~
Why do you keep focusing on the wife here? It dostorts what I have said. It is the same if the wife makes all the money and the husband does not. It bothers me that you bring this back to a man vs. woman thing. It is not. It is just that my guess is most bishops operate under a you earn it you tithe it principle. There is nothing malicious or intentional about it at all. I agree that household income should be shared and my wife and I do that and I make 15 times annually what she does. What id I decide not to tithe but she wants to? What if i refuse to give 10% of 50% of what I earn? But she gives 10% of what she earns? Should the bishop not consider her a tithe payor? It works both ways you know.
So, I assume that if a wife does not work and she believes and the husband does not, that you agree her bishop should expect her to pay 10% on half her husbands income or not consider her a non tithe payor.
Or are you ok if it just applies if the one who earns the money does not tithe on it because the one who does not objects. Can be man or woman here so don't hop on the this is unfair to the wife bit.