I don't know much about bankruptcy, but it seems that someone who is in bankruptcy should be required to pay off his creditors before he contributes to his church.
Following a recent court case in which the judge declared that a person in bankruptcy could not continue to pay tithing to his church, Senators Orrin Hatch and Barrack Obama sponsored a bill that would allow such payment of tithing to continue. The bill was recently also passed by the House of Representatives.
Congress has the authority, under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution, to set the laws governing bankruptcy. Hatch and Obama's bill was inititated, because, according to Obama, "in a country where 37 million citizens live in poverty, we should be encouraging charitable giving, not limiting it."
I'm glad that Congress is in this case performing a clearly delineated role, but I'm not sure if I agree with the outcome.
From what I understand about bankruptcy, the bankrupt party is allowed by the court to exempt certain of his assets, but the remainder are to go to pay off creditors. I think, therefore, the solution should be that the bankrupt party should be able to pay tithing on that portion of his income that has been declared exempt by the court.
But I think that the debtor should not be able to pay tithing on the rest of his "non-exempt" assets, including income, because, since the go directly to pay off debts, they should not be considered as income.
This compromise view leaves some ability of the debtor to pay tithing, but in addition the encumbered debts are payed off in as expeditious a manner as possible. A hopefully sooner rather than later the debtor can return to full financial status and will then be able to pay tithing on all of his income assets.
Like the title says, mine are Simple Utah Mormon Politics, so there may be flaws with this argument. After all I don't know much about bankruptcy. So what do you think? Will my idea work?
No, it won't work. The Law of Tithing is based on one's increase. How do you define increase? I define it as the money that I get to use. For that reason I personally don't pay on the taxed portion of my income, but only on the take home pay.
ReplyDeleteNow you've described a situation where a person in bankruptcy does not pay tithes on the portion of their income that goes to pay off debt.
Well, how was that debt acquired. IF it is a legitimate debt, then it was acquired by choice. The debtor had to agree to the terms of the debt before it was accrued. That applies to utilities, consumer debt, student loans, etc.
Just because that portion of his/her income is being used to pay for life already lived doesn't mean it isn't by his/her own choices. It is his/her income, and tithes should be paid on it accordingly.
Having spent a period of time unemployed and on Church welfare (storehouse and rent assistance for a period of 4 months) I am familiar with the Church's standards on tithes and fast offerings. Tithes are ALWAYS to be paid. Fast offerings are not to be paid when you can't pay rent or buy food. (It would be like a highway patrolman paying for the registration on his/her official vehicle out of state funds. It's pointless. That's why their tags are exempt to registration laws.)
The worst move a person in or potentially facing bankruptcy could make is to stop paying their tithes.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYour definition of the tithing is completely not in compliance with the Doctrine. First of all the Doctrinal definition of tithing is the 10% of ones interest annually. Notice, not INCREASE, but rather interest. let's say you had 100 sheep in the end of last year. In the end of this year you had 130 sheep. How much must be your tithing? Must it be the 10% of the 130 or the 10% of 30? The answer is the 10% of 30, which is 3 sheep. Notice that the increase was higher (maybe 50 sheep). You used 20 of those 50 sheep to take care of your family's necessities. So, before calculating the tithing one needs to take out the portion of increase spent on necessities. God does not tithe necessities. Even the governments of Babylon do not tax necessities.
Coming to our reality, first to working class people. Those who are working for someone else, are receiving compensation, rather than making money, moreover any interest. Compensation is a self explanantory term meaning exchange. In other words, the worker sells his health and his physical and mental energy while receiving goods (including its monetary equivalent) in return. It is illegal to tax a worker's compensation in the Babylon in general. Taxes in Babylon are normally imposed on interest of a business. It is not right to tax compensation in Babylon. If it is not right to tax compensation in Babylon, why would God tithe it? Would God require something that is not right? He would not, and He did not. When speaking of tithing He meant only the interest of businesses rather than compensation of workers working for those businesses. That is why He defined tithing as 10% of interest, of a business, of course. It is heinous to interpret interest as income, income as wages or compensation, and declare wages and compensation subject to tithing, while declaring that interest of a business in not. By doing so the LDS Church has put God's definition of tithing upside down, has reversed it by applying it to the compensation of a worker rather than to the interest of a business. By doing so the LDS leaders have favored businessmen over the workers. Considering that most of the LDS leaders are businessmen, one should not be surprised on this atrocious shift, of falsification of the Law of Tithing. Again, it was atrocious from the LDS Church leaders' side to dis interpret the Law of Tithing applying it to compensation of a worker rather than to the interest of a business. Because of this wicked interpretation workers are required to pay 10% of their compensation but businessmen are not even required to pay 10% of their interest. The businessmen are only required to pay 10% of any salary they may or may not take to themselves. The final math reveals that workers pay more in tithing than the businessmen. Which, actually, the wicked LDS leaders wanted. That is why they have changed the Doctrinal definition of the Law of Tithing, thus committing pure atrocity, and heinous wickedness.
The D&C teaches that the necessity is not to be tithed. God would never touch the necessity. In many places in the D&C it is stated that only that, whatever is above one's needs and wants (just wants) is subject to tithing.
Now about the case of many who borrow money. Borrowed money is not compensation, moreover income or interest. Therefore it cannot be tithed. No Church member should borrow from Babylon, in the first place. The DC is very clear about it. But returning back to the case of the fallen LDS church, if any Church member truly needs to borrow money (to purchase a house, for example, for a necessity) from the Babylon (although he should be able to borrow it from his own Church, without interest, by the way), he is not supposed to pay tithing on the borrowed money, since no borrowed money is a compensation, moreover interest. If someone is bankrupt, i.e. is unable to return back all the borrowed money, he is not supposed to pay tithing from the assets which he is expected to return back against the borrowed money. Again, because the borrowed money is not income, moreover interest. The borrowed money together with the accrued interest is to be deducted from the borrower's income because it is an expense, because the accrued interest is the price of the borrowed money. After paying back the borrowed money together with the accrued interest, the borrower must spend the remainder of the money to cover his family's necessities. Now, whatever remains after that, that is subject to tithing.