Tithing on children paying board for living expenses


rustyoz
 Share

Recommended Posts

So my wife has her adult son living with us, eating food, using water, using electricity, using gas, using the washing machine etc etc etc.  For this he pays $50 per week.  My wife then puts $5 into the bank to cover tithing on the $50 paid by her son.  I cant seem to help her understand that this is not an increase in our income, it is simply her son paying for living expenses that we have already spent on food, water, gas, electricity etc etc etc.  After all, I would like to see an adult pay less than $50 for everything he uses.  Any idea on how to explain it.  I do have a finance/accounting background but for some reason she still argues the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome, rustyoz!

There isn’t a lot of doctrinal specificity here; your wife is following the Spirit as she understands it.  Would you take that away from her for an extra $5 a week?

My anecdotal experience is that men who try to “explain” away the spiritual experiences their wives think they’ve had, tend to wind up out of the Church—and/or, divorced.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rustyoz said:

So my wife has her adult son living with us, eating food, using water, using electricity, using gas, using the washing machine etc etc etc.  For this he pays $50 per week.  My wife then puts $5 into the bank to cover tithing on the $50 paid by her son.  I cant seem to help her understand that this is not an increase in our income, it is simply her son paying for living expenses that we have already spent on food, water, gas, electricity etc etc etc.  After all, I would like to see an adult pay less than $50 for everything he uses.  Any idea on how to explain it.  I do have a finance/accounting background but for some reason she still argues the point.

I'm not certain I understand.  Is this $50 you are giving him and then he is paying back, or is this $50 extra that he earns on his own?

For example, if I was paying a worker to live in the home and I was paying them $200 a week, and deducted $50 from their pay to pay for expenses, I suppose that could be debatable on whether that is tithed or not as it was actually paid on already before but on the otherhand is technically his.

Another analogy would be giving the kids an allowance.  Even if I paid tithing on it already, they paid tithing to learn the principle typically.  However, some would question whether the kids actually need to pay tithing on money their parents have already paid tithing on and are giving them for an allowance.  Our kids paid on their allowances, but there are homes where children did not.

On the otherhand, if I had someone paying rent...let's say $50 a month, to live in an extra room, that would absolutely be extra income.  It is not income I had already earned.  Even if they are paying on utilities and food I had already paid for, the $50 is extra and beyond what I have earned on my own.

If we expand that, let's say I own an apartment building and lease out 100 apartments.   They each pay $100 a month giving me a monthly income of $10,000.  I still pay utilities on it, and it is on my property, but as I did not earn the money itself, and they are paying me this money, is it technically already paid for and not to be tithed...or is it income?

If it applies to 100 rooms/apartments, it probably applies to the single room or apartment.

I cannot answer the question you ask on this specifically.  There are several unknowns, but also, tithing can be a personal choice for each of us to decide upon.

With the information you've given, which is scant, I'd probably lean more towards your wife's take on things (it sounds as if the son is paying money they earned outside of the home and paying rent as a renter...even if it's minimal, and thus extra and beyond what you'd normally have coming in if you didn't charge him anything, though it may also be more of an allowance thing instead), but in the end, it's up to you to decide on the matter, at least from the tiny bit of information you've given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh.  So hi and welcome rustyoz.  I notice you're getting basically the same answer to your question - folks seem to be in agreement with your wife here, and are cautioning you against standing against her.  You can accept, ignore, or pick apart, but that seems to be the going response to your question.

Anything else we can do for you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have a decent stance, and I wouldn't argue with your logic.  It's how I would probably handle it.

It seems though, that your wife has other thoughts and you might be close-minded as to her reasons.  

$5 a month seems like straining at a gnat.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rustyoz said:

So my wife has her adult son living with us, eating food, using water, using electricity, using gas, using the washing machine etc etc etc.  For this he pays $50 per week.  My wife then puts $5 into the bank to cover tithing on the $50 paid by her son.  I cant seem to help her understand that this is not an increase in our income, it is simply her son paying for living expenses that we have already spent on food, water, gas, electricity etc etc etc.  After all, I would like to see an adult pay less than $50 for everything he uses.  Any idea on how to explain it.  I do have a finance/accounting background but for some reason she still argues the point.


I believe you are looking at this in a different way than your wife. 
 

 

You seem to look at this from this accounting standpoint: 

You spend $200 (?) a month for goods and receive only $50 a month for those goods. That is a negative balance of $150, so why would you pay tithing on a negative balance? 
 

 

Your wife seems to see it in an overall budgetary way:

She has automatically written off the expense of $200 for the further raising of her child just as all other expenses she expects to pay. She is willing to pay ALL of his expenses because she loves him. Period. The extra $50 she receives from him is an increase to your overall budget in her view because she views his expenses as any other bill that simply has to be paid. 
 

 

I’m not saying who is right or wrong, but I do tend to lean towards your wife’s way of thinking. I believe she views it this way out of great love. 

 

As for those who are saying the amount is only $5, the amount is irrelevant to the conversation. The widow’s mite was a tiny amount, but was worth more than the buckets of money being poured into the coffers in a spiritual sense. In this case, the conversation is a question of obedience, not financial convenience. 
 

Edit: Just to be clear, I understand you are mentioning the $5 as an amount not worth causing contention. In such, you are encouraging him to be a peacemaker, which is great. But this is clearly an issue for them or else he wouldn’t have posted the question. 

Edited by Colirio
Clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your accounting. However, the fact that your wife is willing, nay eager, to pay tithing, even to the extent that she "overpays" by $5 per week, is wonderful. I'd leave it alone if I were you. Write it off to an extra $20/month fast offering. This is definitely a battle not worth fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Colirio said:

As for those who are saying the amount is only $5, the amount is irrelevant to the conversation. The widow’s mite was a tiny amount, but was worth more than the buckets of money being poured into the coffers in a spiritual sense. In this case, the conversation is a question of obedience, not financial convenience. 

It is the OP that is having the problem with $5 a month... Not the other posters...  The other poster are pointing out quiet correctly that odds are $5 a month is not worth the fight to be "proven right"

As for being obedience the OP's wife is being obedient as best she knows how.  The OP is also being obedient as best he knows how.    But instead of seeing his wife as also being obedient he is complaining that she is being overly generous to the Lord. 

The million dollar question is how is being overly generous to the Lord a bad thing?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, estradling75 said:

It is the OP that is having the problem with $5 a month... Not the other posters...  The other poster are pointing out quiet correctly that odds are $5 a month is not worth the fight to be "proven right"

 


I already edited for clarification. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to be that detailed on calculating your increase as to worry about $5, then you're going to have to calculate your son's additions to your expenses, subtract it from the $50 and pay tithe on the difference.  Just assuming that "an adult pay less than $50 for everything he uses" is not right.  We're not talking about any adult's consumption.  We're talking about the additional load on your expenses caused by your son.  After all, you're still paying all the extra lines on your electric and water bill regardless of the downtick in meter reading, etc.  The only way I know to figure it out is to compare your expenses - food, electricity, etc. etc. - without your son living in the house to your expenses after he moved in and determine the uptick.  Then you subtract that uptick from the $200/month that he's giving you then pay tithe on the difference if there's any.

Personally, I think this is too much effort to have to figure out so I'd go with just taking the $200/month and pay $20 tithe on that just to alleviate the worry that your son is only adding $40/week on your expenses instead of $50 and having that on your mind when the Bishop asks you the question.  Easy peasy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rustyoz said:

So my wife has her adult son living with us, eating food, using water, using electricity, using gas, using the washing machine etc etc etc.  For this he pays $50 per week.  My wife then puts $5 into the bank to cover tithing on the $50 paid by her son.  I cant seem to help her understand that this is not an increase in our income, it is simply her son paying for living expenses that we have already spent on food, water, gas, electricity etc etc etc.  After all, I would like to see an adult pay less than $50 for everything he uses.  Any idea on how to explain it.  I do have a finance/accounting background but for some reason she still argues the point.

You're right.  But it doesn't matter.  You're not going to be able to explain it to her.  $5/wk is worth the marital harmony.  Just let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pam said:

If it makes your wife feel better about it then what's the problem?  Are we really going to debate $5?

I absolutely would debate. Not for the $5 but for the sake of teaching the principle of what is happening with the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Fether said:

I absolutely would debate. Not for the $5 but for the sake of teaching the principle of what is happening with the money.

There's a reason the bishop doesn't ask for your tax returns when you answer the tithing question or even when you ask him a question about your tithes.  And there's a reason the IRS could audit you if you don't report that income you're getting from AirBnB... Cesar's to cesar, God's to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have talked to a number of Saints about their tithing.  If this was not such a serious thing - I think I would write a tongue in cheek joke book titled "Tithing Strategies".   The book would have 3 sections.  Section 1 would be tithing strategies for the rich,  section 2 would be tithing strategies for middle class and section 3 would be tithing strategies for the poor.

Sadly there is a very large section of the world that is determined to spiritually fail G-d "Economics 101".  It always amazes me how so many Saints of our Latter-day make excuses for their love of money.  If someone considers carefully the teaching of Jesus - I believe they will find that the desire for money is at the top of the list for how often Jesus warned his follows of the temptations most likely to threaten their spirituality.   It is the very rare exception of that Saint that would error on the side of overpaying their tithes and offerings - regardless of the economic class they think they belong to.  As a missionary the number 1 problem keeping investigators from conversion was tithing - BTW #2 was the Word of Wisdom.  #3 was the Law of Chasity.   There is no doubt in my mind why these three items are included in Baptism and Temple worthiness.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fether said:

I absolutely would debate. Not for the $5 but for the sake of teaching the principle of what is happening with the money.

Why debate?  There is no right or wrong answer.  Just like some pay on gross some pay on net.  It's your conscience.  It's between the person paying or wanting to pay tithing and the Lord.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point of tithing. It's meant to teach the Saints to rely on faith and mercy more than money.

This arguing about what funds get tithed and which don't is completely irrelevant. I assure you, that no harm will come to you by donating an extra $5 dollars.

No harm will come to you by donating an extra $100 either. You'd just have to learn to do without some things. And is that really so much of a curse that it isn't worth the extra mile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.The whole point of the post, wasn't about the 5 dollars. The money was irrelevant. I understand completely the principle of tithing which isn't about money, it's about faith. The point of the post was about whether or not tithing should be paid on money received which is technically a reimbursement of expenses. It's no different than if someone had·$20 petrol in their shed and you get the petrol from them and give them $20. They wouldn't pay tithing on the 20 because they we're just recovering what was already paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From where I'm standing, the point of your post wasn't about faith, it was about you seeking help in convincing your wife that you are right and she is wrong.

Quote

 Any idea on how to explain it.  I do have a finance/accounting background but for some reason she still argues the point.

You figure reimbursements for expenses doesn't constitute an "increase".  Your wife figures her son is living with her and contributes $50, and that does constitute an increase.  The two of you have a disagreement. 

From my perspective, this isn't about who is right, this isn't about faith, this isn't about tithing.  From my perspective, this is about how you and your wife resolve disagreements.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pam said:

Why debate?  There is no right or wrong answer.  Just like some pay on gross some pay on net.  It's your conscience.  It's between the person paying or wanting to pay tithing and the Lord.  

But my conscience would be more right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rustyoz said:

.The whole point of the post, wasn't about the 5 dollars. The money was irrelevant. I understand completely the principle of tithing which isn't about money, it's about faith. The point of the post was about whether or not tithing should be paid on money received which is technically a reimbursement of expenses. It's no different than if someone had·$20 petrol in their shed and you get the petrol from them and give them $20. They wouldn't pay tithing on the 20 because they we're just recovering what was already paid.

Your wife disagrees with your assessment...  And apparently you have failed to convince her otherwise.  So it is no longer really even about tithing, faith... but how hard are you willing to push the issue over $5.

You've come to us looking for some magic answer... but surprise surprise there is not one.  The only answer is the one the Lord give in section 121(patience, long-suffering, kindness etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rustyoz said:

.The whole point of the post, wasn't about the 5 dollars. The money was irrelevant. I understand completely the principle of tithing which isn't about money, it's about faith. The point of the post was about whether or not tithing should be paid on money received which is technically a reimbursement of expenses. It's no different than if someone had·$20 petrol in their shed and you get the petrol from them and give them $20. They wouldn't pay tithing on the 20 because they we're just recovering what was already paid.

The bolded above is where the issue is.  You're assuming that the money reimbursed expenses.  Your wife doesn't believe it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rustyoz said:

.The whole point of the post, wasn't about the 5 dollars. The money was irrelevant. I understand completely the principle of tithing which isn't about money, it's about faith. The point of the post was about whether or not tithing should be paid on money received which is technically a reimbursement of expenses. It's no different than if someone had·$20 petrol in their shed and you get the petrol from them and give them $20. They wouldn't pay tithing on the 20 because they we're just recovering what was already paid.

I felt I was abundantly clear previously, but I will elaborate to try to make it clearer, this time with statements from the Church on tithing.  I'd imagine your wife gets her ideas on what to tithe and what not to tithe from similar sources.

If I had a child or person that I was paying out of my own funds, it MIGHT be seen as such.  This means that you are GIVONG the ADULT step son out of your own funds already and then they are paying you back.  Odd as it may sound to some, that happens.  Many do not, but my children paid tithing on their allowances when they were younger.

IF you are treating the adult step son as a tenet, it is NOT tithed money already and is actually additional income.  IT IS NOT money that you earned already.  You would be treating the son as a tenet, just like any other individual who was a tenet.  You may be charging that tenet at a loss, but it is still acting as a tenet/owner relationship.

This is the SAME as in an apartment complex.  Many people make their living this way.  This is their income.  In the current definition of tithing, the Church says one pays it on ALL their income.  This is not a reimbursement.

If I have a house and I have two extra rooms.  I have paid for the utilities.  I let them eat as I provide board.  I have already paid for the food.  What they pay me to stay in that room and eat is NOT a reimbursement.  The Federal government is NOT going to be happy with me if I try to claim that all they are paying me is reimbursement without further proof.  They are paying me rent.  Rent is NOT a reimbursement. 

If I choose to charge so little rent that it is going into the red (negative compared to the costs) it is STILL rent.

If I had $20 of petrol in my shed, and someone paid me $20 for it, I would consider that income. 

What is the difference between selling someone petrol from your shed, or having an entire tank of it on your property and selling gallons of it to people who need it as they refuel.  Take it a step further and suddenly you are a gas station.  If a gas station just happens to have the petrol already in their tank underground and is selling it to those who want it, would you consider that income...or reimbursement?

I think it appears that your wife sees this as income (and funny enough, if you are selling petrol from your shed, normally the federal government would see it as income as well.  They may not take notice over $20, but if it happened to be $1000 instead of $20, they probably would start to take a LOT of notice.  Complaints that you were simply being reimbursed probably would not sway them from trying to tax over it.  They may agree it is a reimbursement, but they probably would also see it as income).

However, this may not be the situation.  The one you've described sounds like one where you are charging someone (even if it is a relative) rent (even if it is at a reduced rate, or at a negative).  It appears your wife sees it similarly.

I'm not going to say what you should do, but I think my stance is clear on WHAT it appears you are saying.  The church allows one to choose how to pay tithing or what to pay tithing on, but their instructions on what should be tithed is as follows...

Handbook on Tithing

Quote

Tithing

34.4.1.1

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, Mar. 19, 1970; see also Doctrine and Covenants 119:4).

34.4.1.2

Who Should Pay Tithing

All members who have income should pay tithing, with the following exceptions:

Members who are entirely dependent on Church welfare assistance.

Full-time missionaries. (However, missionaries should pay tithing on personal income beyond the amount they receive for their support.)

If mission presidents have income that should be tithed, they generally pay tithing in the ward where their membership records are located (see 33.6.5). However, if they are serving outside their own country and their membership records are in the ward where they are residing, they generally contribute their tithing directly to Church headquarters.

There has been a move recently among some who do not understand what tithing is for to say that interest means paying tithing on the money AFTER all other money is spent for the month/year.  This is after housing, food, utilities, and at times even gifts to others and other items.  I am not of that type of thought.  Elder Oaks many decades ago had this talk...

In it he said..

Quote

In the Lord’s commandment to the people of this day, tithing is “‘one-tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income.” The First Presidency has said, “No one is justified in making any other statement than this” (First Presidency letter, 19 Mar. 1970, quoted in the General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 9-1; see also D&C 119).

Dallin H. Oaks General Conference April 1994 - Tithing

Nevertheless, it is up to you what you determine tithing is, as in the New Era of 2008 they reiterate this

New Era Feb 2008

Quote

The First Presidency has answered this question in this way: “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, Mar. 19, 1970).

In other words, the way you define your income, and consequently your tithing, is a matter between you and the Lord. Prayerfully seek the Lord’s guidance on issues like taxes, gifts, scholarships, and other matters to determine what qualifies as a full tithe.

Bolding various parts for emphasis.

It appears your wife sees it as income.  From what you've described, it appears that way to me as well, especially in light of your petrol example.

However, as per the above, you define your income and consequentially your tithing.  As many have stated, disagreeing with your wife over $5 probably is not worth the effort on this, but that's also up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share