It was in the news recently that a man in Finland was fined $129,000 (US) for driving 20 MPH over the speed limit. In Finland their fine is calculated in proportion to their annual income. Basically, the more money you make, the higher your fine is. Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland also utilize this payment method.
I have read stories of wealthy people parking illegally and just paying the fine as the cost of doing business. It is not a deterrent. A lot has been written about the regressive nature of traffic fines and civil penalties, that really hurt low income individuals, but is not even felt by the rich.
This got me to thinking about the Mormon Church’s current implementation of tithing. It is hugely regressive. A single parent with three jobs to make ends meet feels the pain of paying 10% much more that Mitt Romney. In fact, it does NOT hurt Mitt at all to pay $1 Million of tithing on a $10 million gain in a given year.
So what would be a fair way to pay tithing? Lets forget about the $100 billion (or more) the church has for the purpose of this discussion. Lets pretend the Church actually needed the money. Could a compassionate God actually reveal a progressive tithing system? My proposal would be something like this, based on yearly income.
- $0-$10,000 = zero tithing owed
- $10,000-$25,000 = 1%
- $25,000-$50,000 = 2%
- $50,000-$100,000= 4%
- $100,000-$200,000 = 6%
- $200,000-$500,000= 10%
- $500,000-$1,000,000 = 12%
- $1,000,000-$10,000,000= 15%
- Above $10,000,000 = 20%
Or, maybe we could just go back to the original implementation of tithing, and only pay 10% on the surplus after all your bills were paid.
Your thoughts? How would you implement a fair tithing system, assuming the money was needed?
Image by Nicky ❤️🌿🐞🌿❤️ from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
If tithing is based on income because increase is hard for one to measure, it should be income as defined in the not-to-recent past, and as still used in business on annual SEC reports: revenue (gross receipts) minus necessary operating expenses equals income, and from income one pays investments, improvements, rewards (dividends), and tithing.
The progressive tithing system, just like the tax code, on paper seems fair overall, but then the questions and the complaints arise . A surplus system, can be better than the progressive system, but what is “surplus”? Is a cell phone, a dishwasher, a SUV, a necessity or a luxury.? Living in NYC vs Utah vs Sweden. Then we get into a system of inspectors and auditors. Any time you design a system with humans there will always be inequities. Look at communism, in theory it is more fair than capitalism, but in the end it fails all citizens, except for the decision-makers who do not abide by its’ rules anyways. Then capitalism works, until it does not. Every society will have rule followers, rule avoiders, and rule breakers. Systems usually harm the “rule followers” more than the rest.
A church needs tithing dollars to run its’ system, just like the Priest in the OT needed a sacrificial lamb for his meal.
However, in the case of the LDS church, the parishioners have been more generous (guilted) with donations and the system has more funds than needed, in 2023. The Priest is FAT and needs another diet. Why do you think the LDS church never defines tithing gross vs net? What about members who pay > than 10%, for the extra blessings?
With Q15 professional experience with Bednar in organizational management, 6 businessmen, and 3 attorneys, you would think they could figure this out. But when working with the public at large it is easier to take a hard-liner approach, like any dictatorship, than have a do what is best for individuals.
Do the Q15 pay tithing? We KNOW the mission Presidents do not pay a tithing.
The fair system for the LDS church is to fulfill the prophecy of Joseph F Smith and state for the next 250 years, tithing dollars are not needed and we will revisit this issue in the year 2273. If not then reimburse, us all for our sacrifice and the intense sacrifice in my family for the past few generations. We went without, so they could have remodeling kitchen budgets, and gifts for their grandchildren as allowable expenses. Instead, they are burdening its’ members by burning through the money to minimize IRS audits and bad press.
Until the turn of the century, the RLDS ( Community of Christ) tithing was based on increase; described as total income minus necessary living expenses equals 10% of the balance. A person could tithe total income if they wished. In addition, you were expected to contribute local offerings to maintain the house of worship (operating fund and a building fund for future projects).
“Necessary” expenses was an ambiguous term. Food, clothing and shelter were obvious, while some included vehicle payments/maintenance, insurance premiums, and telephone bills. Even with this lax system, more than half of the membership chose not to participate, despite a revelation that it is “required alike of all those who seek to build the kingdom” (April 1964)
The situation worsened by the 1990’s. Many conservative members withheld tithing as a form of protest, while many liberals regarded tithing as “old fashioned”. So the church altered its system; and it became 10% of total income. Your tithing could include all charitable donations; religious, humanitarian, etc.
Since I converted to LDS in 1999, tithing has become more automatic, with less thought behind it for me. I am thankful that enough members participate so that many projects have ample resources. I would be interested in knowing the percentage of our membership that tithe.
One final note. As I grew up in the RLDS, I heard that in the “Mormon” church, if you didn’t pay your tithing, they would come knocking at your door!
@Bishop Bill. I think you are overcomplicating something that should be a good faith relationship between a person and their faith organization. I won’t say between them and God because I am not sure that God really gave that as a commandment. Generosity and offerings, yes, a tithe as the exact amount? I don’t know.
But if the older definition of tithing being on surplus is used and you stop tying temple entrance to being a “full tithe payer”, and people are taught that they need to generously provide for family needs including food, shelter, transportation, education, medical bills, etc and also pay taxes , etc, and only then is it surplus, then tithing is no longer regressive. It becomes more good faith support of the institution in the sense that one is not excluded from participation if one’s definition of surplus differs from one’s local leadership.
Interesting. After reading the post I find myself leaning toward the idea that fines based off a set percentage of income would be a much better way of dealing out justice.
When the church has 100 billion plus in investment firms that have been fined for their inappropriate reporting and the church’s inadequate statement on how that money got in the firms it’s hard to want to pay tithing at all. Doing what the scriptures says and that is paying 10% on your increase seems to be the most fair.
There’s a world of difference between “paying your tithing” (whether it’s using net or gross income) and “giving a generous offering.” While my RLDS upbringing causes me to be biased in favor of the net method, I have to admit it required considerably more bookkeeping on my part. I have grown much more comfortable with the much more recent emphasis on generosity in Community of Christ. It reflects a movement from Law to Grace, from primarily funding the institution to a spiritual discipline reflecting God’s generosity (although the former is still needed, of course).
President Joseph F. Smith said that the 10% tithing was a temporary measure until the Church got back on its feet. I think having a stock portfolio worth $150 billion is back on its feet enough. We don’t need anyone paying tithing, but if some rich person wants to donate, fine with me.
You miss the whole point about the widow’s mite. If you miss that story, you might as well not speak about tithing.
The church doesn’t need any more tithing ever. That is the truth. The amount the Ensign Peak Fund will grow assuming the stock market doesn’t just implode will be more than the 7 billion per year the church brings in.
The church reports is by unit donations and expenditures from the budget in the Netherlands because the government forces them to. Most wards bring in 100-250,000 euros per year in tithing and spend 3-5000 per year on budgets. More for the stakes and the wards near The Hague that must have very expensive real estate.
There is not local reporting laws so I don’t have data for US but I used to be financial clerk. The US ward where I was the financial clerk regularly deposited 3-5000 dollars a week. Plus 2-3000 in online donations. That ratio has shifted I am sure since then. But assuming that number was minimum 5k a week x 52 weeks that is 250,000 for our ward that had a ward budget of 8ooo. The church literally doesn’t need your money ever.
If my donations went to ward budgets or for something good then maybe I would keep donating but I have found better places to donate my money including Partners in Health, UN food and refugee funds, Nature Concervancy and local charities that do some good.
This is an excerpt from a local news story about a document that was found dated to the original tithing revelation. Tithing should be based on net worth, not income.
“Bishop Partridge understood ‘one tenth of all their interest’ annually to mean 10 percent of what Saints would earn in interest if they invested their net worth for a year,” Harper wrote. He cited an example from Partridge who was reportedly in the room when Smith received the revelation.
How many of us have grown up in the church and taught that if we paid a full tithe, we would reap the blessings? As I have slowly been decompressing from the church and its doctrine, it has been difficult to pay less than an honest 10 percent. But it also feels right. I pay what I want. I support other causes. I have a special needs granddaughter and I donate to research and benefits specific to her. Bottom line, my donations to the church and elsewhere are as I choose.
@Paul Mero –
Exactly. While the parable of the widows mite is often used as an example of praiseworthy selfless sacrifice, Jesus was actually condemning exploitative religious systems that would compel and coerce a destitute elderly woman into giving away her last dime. The other lesson from that parable: in this world, the rich get to play by a different set of rules than everybody else. And we all know how Jesus feels about that.
Knowing this, the principle of tithing (as presently constituted and practiced by the COJCOLDS) is more and more repulsive by the day. Bracketing, as proposed in the OP, is a noble attempt to make the practice less regressive, but that comes with a whole host of unintended consequences (loopholes, gaming the system, creative interpretations, etc), as it does with federal income taxes. Add my voice to the chorus calling for the Church to abolish the practice of tithing completely. They can collect voluntary offerings from those who wish to contribute, but they shouldn’t make it a condition of good-standing membership or temple access. Many, many Church members are already doing this quietly; might as well make it official.
That is an interesting interpretation of the widow’s mite…as if Jesus was somehow transactional about it. He was praising her, and yes, much to the condemnation of those whose hearts were not right…kind of like yours, in this case. Probably not a great idea for the Church to institutionalize apostasy. The commandment to tithe did not mean tithe to whatever cause you choose (i.e., the Jana Riess approach). The commandment was to build the kingdom of God on earth by giving to the kingdom of God.
OK, let’s say that a family of four makes $100,000 per year (just so the math is easy):
* Paying on gross: $10,000 in tithing
* Paying on net: $7,000 in tithing
* Paying on increase: $750 in tithing (ballpark estimate)
Now, if I am paying anywhere from $6250-9250 less per year in tithing, I am probably going to be fairly generous with my fast offerings and other charitable donations (LDS or not)…and may even pay more in tithing and still be OK financially. The principle of sacrifice is still being met (that $750 could go to replace a broken down dishwasher, for example), we are still giving back to the Lord, and nobody is taking food off of my family’s table. Given the Church’s resources, this would make a lot of sense–especially in areas of the world that are not as well off as the Mormon corridor. Plus, all of those “widow’s mite” talks in General Conference would end, which would be a nice side benefit.
If that change did occur, there would be no need for lawyering what “increase” might mean or to what it might equate. Tithing settlement is a yes/no question (well, it is supposed to be…but leadership roulette–I have stories), so your definition of “increase” would be determined by you just like your definition of a full tithe is determined by you now.
Paul Mero–Jack Hughes is likely correct. If you look up the widows mite is not about giving here is what you find:
“The context of the Biblical account of the widow who gave her last two mites is not meant to teach sacrificial giving. In fact, the Lord’s real point is virtually the antithesis of how the passage is usually treated. The Lord here teaches the crime–one of which any false religious system is guilty–of having no particular interest in the welfare of the individual, but a great deal of interest in exploiting the giver for the system’s own gain. A brief exposition of Mark 12:38-44; 13:1-2 will demonstrate the point. The context is critical to a correct interpretation of this passage. Jesus was in the Temple teaching. He had been discussing the character and the conduct of the scribes. The scribes mentioned in the gospels were the professional scholars of their day in the interpretation of the Old Testament. (It is well to note that they had no role during Old Testament times having come into being during and after the Babylonian captivity.) They were usurpers who took upon themselves the responsibility of interpreting the Old Testament for the people. Since the priests from the tribe of Levi were God’s ordained teachers of Israel (Deuteronomy 24:8; 33:10), the scribes of Jesus’ day were self-appointed leaders of a superficial and apostate religion: superficial in that it emphasized only the external show of religion and apostate because it had long since left the true purposes of the Word of God.
Jesus’ opinion of the scribes can be seen in His own discourse concerning them:
Mark 12:38-40, “And He said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplace, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these shall receive greater condemnation”
Two important points need to be made from the above text. The Greek words blepete apo ton grammateon are literally translated “you see from the scribes,” interpreted: “you see with understanding by the way they dress, want to be noticed, how self-centered, and self-important the scribes are.” The Greek word apo from which the word “from” is translated means “away from,” “turn your backs on them.” This is the alternative to practicing their religion. Our Lord was teaching that God’s people should not follow the way of the scribes and their teachings. The authority of the scribes should be rejected. In addition, they were guilty of shameful conduct: “They devour widow’s houses.”
Jesus continued His condemnation of the scribes by the graphic illustration which follows in verses 41-44. Jesus was sitting opposite the trumpet-shaped chests into which the people threw their Temple offerings. He observed how the people cast money into the treasury, and the “rich cast in much.” Then Jesus continues, “And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing” (v. 42). The text continues to detail the financial condition of the widow and to show the difference between the offering of the rich and her offering.
Mark 12:43b-44b, “Verily I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast more in than all they which have cast into the treasury…all her living”.There is an unfortunate chapter break at this point in the narrative, which interrupts the thought both here and in Luke’s gospel. (Chapter breaks are not in the original text but placed by the translators.) The context continues in Mark 13:1-2 as one of the disciples, obviously not understanding Christ’s lesson, urged the Lord to observe the impressive outward appearance of the Temple buildings surrounding them. And at that point, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the false religious system to which the poor widow had given her all. The rich would not miss what they gave, but the poor widow had given away all her living.
There is an unfortunate chapter break at this point in the narrative, which interrupts the thought both here and in Luke’s gospel. (Chapter breaks are not in the original text but placed by the translators.) The context continues in Mark 13:1-2 as one of the disciples, obviously not understanding Christ’s lesson, urged the Lord to observe the impressive outward appearance of the Temple buildings surrounding them. ” At that point Christ prophesied the destruction of the temple to which the poor widow had given her all.”
She did so believing she was serving God. Which is why the Lord said (v. 40) that the scribes were guilty of devouring widows’ houses. The scribes, with no apparent pangs of conscience, actively promoted the kind of extreme sacrifice exhibited by this poor widow. ”
Another link is: https://www.reenactingtheway.com/blog/the-widows-mite-good-or-bad-example-of-giving
Paul Mero,
Jack Hughes is likely correct.
https://www.reenactingtheway.com/blog/the-widows-mite-good-or-bad-example-of-giving
There are a number of moving parts on the matter of LDS tithing. These include (1) A definition of Tithing that is left to members and local leaders to interpret. (2) Recognition that a declaration of a “full-tithing” is only required to obtain a temple recommend and usually does not involve a forensic audit. (3) The various historical teachings on Tithing that examine the obligation of Tithing, the blessings of Tithing and raise questions on how those principles apply in the 21st century.
I personally don’t recall ever being quizzed by a church leader on the “fullness” of my tithes. Funny thing is when I was poorer and owned nothing, it was easy to to pay 10% on my gross. But as I earned more and paid more taxes and gained more dependents, and I needed to put money aside for savings and retirement, 10% of gross became illogical. It did not make sense to pay tithing on money that never passed through my hands or that I would not spend until retirement.
I don’t have regrets that in the past I may have paid more tithing than I needed. I do see reasons for church leadership to be more clear on what is an honest tithe.
Example 1: On my mission I interviewed a single mom for baptism. She asked me what it meant to pay a full-tithe and then she expressed great concern that it was something she could not do. I approved her for baptism but it bothered me that I had to make the determination based on my own sense of compassion – the church / mission leadership had left me wholly unprepared. Why? It would have been nice to have guidance that a person should pay tithing on income left over after paying for necessities.
Example 2: I know retirees who are on limited income and savings who pay tithing on their gross pension and social security income. At the same time they have very high bills for healthcare and assisted living. Church leadership needs to advise retirees that they should not feel obligated to pay tithing on gross income, but rather on their surplus, for which they probably do not have.
To me, an increase is an increase because it’s what’s left after one pays their necessary living expenses.
Bill,
First of all, the church is the Lord’s church and HE gave the commandment for his people to pay tithing. It is not man’s choice to decide what the Lord’s commandments should be. Our choice is to either keep His commandment or to disobey them. If one wants to pick and choose the commandments he or she wants to keep or to modify them to their liking they might do that, but they will not be part of the Lord’s church. Secondly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has no doubt been prosperous. In the beginning of this dispensation, the church was in heavy debt because those early members did not obey the commandment to tithe. It was only after the members honored the commandment that the church began to prosper. Thirdly, how odd it seems that under the Lord’s counsel His church has prospered, while, at the same time, under the precepts of men and women, our nation has incurred massive national debt. Man is not God, nor does any man or woman have comparable wisdom. If anyone thinks they are their own God, or may follow their own wisdom, they will fall short of the glory of God.
What I’d love to see more discussion of (unless there already has been but I haven’t seen anything anywhere) is if “tithing” always refers to money. A few weeks back I was meandering the topical guide with this question in mind. From what I could gather, tithing in the Old Testament refers to produce (either animal or crop yield), the New Testament is virtually silent on the matter (same with the Book of Mormon) and Doctrine and Covenants refers to land. Please do fact check me, I know the TG isn’t exhaustive. But the overall point is that tithing =/= currency. And if the principle behind tithing is sacrifice, what else *could* be sacrificed instead? Because for many tithing is indeed not a sacrifice. It’s a bill to pay when the check comes in. It’s a box to check (not trying to minimize the experiences of those for whom it is a real sacrifice, mind you).
What else could be sacrificed? Could time? 10% of one’s week is 17 hours (16.8 to be exact). Those who couldn’t pay tithing for the Kirtland Temple gave a day of their week, so it’s not completely unprecedented. 10% of one’s week dedicated to the fulfillment of their calling, ministering, temple work, etc. Most people (whom I have observed) don’t actually do their calling. Think of the sense of community we could restore if people took the time to learn about and do their calling.
Anyway, I’m probably pontificating at this point. My main point is that I think tithing probably has a more expansive definition than what we’ve been taught; it’s probably deeper than we realize. We all must sacrifice for the Kingdom of God, and I think there are more ethical ways to do so than to tell poor people to add to a mountain of cash.
Bruce: Jehovah’s Witness members do tithe their time, just FYI. Their missionary results are much stronger than LDS results, probably because of this practice.
WHAT ABOUT TEACHING OUR CHILDREN THE LAW OF TITHING? I AM A CONVERT TO CHURCH FOR THE PASTED 50 YEARS AND THINGS A RE CHANGING TO FAST FOR FOR ME. I AM CONSIDERING MY MEMBERSHIP IN CHUCH . I Have worked hard for the money I have now. I give to the church my 10%. I have fallen through all the lop holds in system and I am sick and Tried of people taken advantage of now the church system. You better do your homeroom work!
” Thirdly, how odd it seems that under the Lord’s counsel His church has prospered, while, at the same time, under the precepts of men and women, our nation has incurred massive national debt. ”
Interesting observation. What factors have contributed to this state?
-current LDS tithing guidelines expect every person to contribute 10% of their income. Wealthy, poor, healthy, ill, children to adults. This is regressive (as noted in the OP).
-US tax policies have increasingly favored the wealthy (people and corporations). This is considerably more regressive than LDS tithing.
-the LDS Church Corporation has been permitted to amass a massive portfolio, untaxed.
-the US government pays as it goes. It must collect sufficient tax revenue to pay its bills and debts.
-when tax revenue is down (like from low taxes on the wealthy), the national debt increases.
Does anyone want the government to amass a massive portfolio that does nothing for anyone?
Since 1980, the top 1% has become increasingly wealthy, at the expense of the bottom 99%. Even the top 1% of the top 1% is much wealthier than the lower 99% of the 1%. (Not that I feel sorry for them. More like noting how much power a few people have.)
I hope that both LDS tithing guidelines and US tax policy can be moved toward a place that is equitable towards those who work, those who support themselves, those who support their families, those who are disabled, those who are elderly, etc.
Link to follow.
Link with sources at the end:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-23-2023
Here are a couple of paragraphs from the article that mez linked that I thought were particularly good:
Jesus is angry at other Jewish teachers who are persuading widows to give all their money to the Temple bank account. He sees a corrupt religious system that no longer honors God’s heart to care for the needy. Teachers of the Law no longer honor the intent of the Law. Instead, the system has created wealthy religious celebrities who construct lavish buildings and pray in long robes to puff up their public reputation, while the poor go bankrupt. That’s why he isn’t impressed by the “wonderful stones” and “wonderful buildings” in the Temple complex.
The widow is a victim of oppression not an example to follow. We typically assume Jesus said or implied, “Go and do likewise.” But he didn’t. What did he say? He emphasized that the widow “out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.” The repetitive “all she owned, all she had to live on” draws the observant reader to Jesus’ message. This widow no longer had anything left to live on because Temple teachers had convinced her to donate it to their extravagant slush fund.
The widow’s offering is an illustration of injustice not generosity. The widow’s livelihood was being devoured by wealthy religious teachers just like some TV evangelists today convince poor people to send in their money so they can use it to buy private airplanes. The widow may have had an obedient heart, but Jesus cared more about correcting the corruption. God’s people were supposed to be caring for the poor not taking from them.
Most importantly this post brings some badly needed attention to the inequity of our current cultural interpretation of tithing.
The graduated system is still hugely problematic, as it assumes that people within the same income bracket are otherwise evenly situated which just isn’t the case at all. For example, a $60K government job with generous benefits in a tax free state goes much further than $60K and no benefits in a high cost of living area. Cost of living changes from unit to unit as well.
The Church has the right policy in place, with the 1970 First Presidency Statement establishing the calculation of income as a matter between the individual and God.
What the Church gets wrong is that it does not publicize this policy nearly enough, and it does not educate members whatsoever on things to consider in calculating income. It really only allows for messaging that supports the extreme end of acceptable methods (e.g., GQ Cannon story of overpaying tithing based on what you want to make, or choosing tithing over feeding your children).
Paying on surplus is 100% supported by our history, theology, and reason. Imagine how impactful it would be if a conference talk addressed it, and if the Church organized some resources to help people with the math. I think it would really rejuvenate people’s feelings toward tithing, especially after all the hits the Church has been taking on it’s questionable financial practices.
I didn’t think anyone was exempted from paying tithing. Do the apostles not pay it? How is it known that mission presidents don’t pay it?
I take it the mission president isn’t working at his regular full time job and that’s why he doesn’t pay tithing? But he likely has income from investments still coming in that he’d pay tithing on. He has to live on something–or does the church financially support all mission presidents?