moksha wrote:I don't understand this technical. The gross is not yours to access. You are obligated to pay the earnings deduction, social security, insurance and other deductions. What appears on your paycheck, that you can take to the bank, is your increase.
'what you can take to the bank' isn't really the measure. What if you have your mortgage withdrawn automatically? What about a car payment? Maybe some savings too? Even if it's in your bank account, some HAS to come out for bills - electricity, gas, water, etc.
What about a sole proprietor? All his money goes directly to his bank account. But then he takes some out to pay his tax bills. Does the money that he takes to the bank (remember - pre taxes, business bills, etc.) qualify as his increase?
You can get an employer to withdraw for your mortgage, car payment and bills? That would really be rather a full service employer, eh? Perhaps I am talking about the amount you can take to the bank.
Let me pose this question: Do you suppose if the Church had to pay taxes, that they would gladly pay on their full revenue before their obligated business expenses such a payroll? Of course the Government would never ask such a thing, but do you suppose an appeal to heightened patriotism and the blessings of liberty would help?
You can't really compare businesses to personal income. They're 2 totally separate issues.
I guess, unless the businesses want Heavenly blessings as well.
Actually, the comparison was to make a point that taxes are derived on what the profit or increase is after necessary obligations are deducted.
When I used to pay tithing I always did it on my gross salary. I usually gave additional money to the humanitarian section each month too. Some friends told me they deduct Social Security from their gross before they pay tithing since they will never see that money. I think most members pay on their gross.
Now I take my tithing money and donate it to various charities, like Tapestry of Polygamy.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
moksha wrote:Doesn't paying 10% of gross, mean you are paying on an amount that you do not actually have? By not actually having it, how can it be an increase? If it is based on a potentiality, have you even considered that there for the Grace of God, you could either be a potential billionaire or a pauper? If a billionaire, those who like to overdo things better pony up big time.
The argument they gave me was that we all benefit from taxes through roads, military defense, and I guess limiting theft through prison systems and welfare handouts.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
The general handbook of instructions says increase is defined as income and that nobody is justified in giving any other definition.
I think this becomes a bigger issue as gas prices, car insurance etc. go up. For some WalMart employees, going to work simply wasn't worth it anymore.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
I know someone who made a deal with God: That God would go ahead and keep the 10% up front, then send him the remaining 90%.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Dr. Shades wrote:I know someone who made a deal with God: That God would go ahead and keep the 10% up front, then send him the remaining 90%.
I wonder about this sort of thing. Not about your friend, but about people who would object to this (most likely, your friend's bishop). Why is it that LDS assume God is involved in covenants in the temple, yet very likely they will discount this person's covenant with God regarding the 10%? Unless your friend isn't being facetious (always a possibility), does the church think only the temple covenants are binding, and that God recognizes no other agreements? From an outside perspective, your friend's covenant is as binding as the temple covenants.