Oh the Poor Rich...

[miloblithe]

Ellen Parnell and her husband, Donald Parnell Jr., seem like the kind of well-off couple President Barack Obama has in mind when he suggests raising taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year. A surgeon at Fort Sanders Sevier Medical Center in Sevierville, Tenn., he drives an Infiniti. They vacation at a beach resort every year.

Yet, right now he is working seven days a week. The car is more than a decade old, the vacation home in Sandestin, Fla., comes at a moderate weekly rate because members of Ms. Parnell's extended family own it. Her family of five would like more room than they have in their 2,500-square-foot home, yet they can't afford anything larger. The downturn has them skittish about paying for renovations.

"I'm not complaining, but the reality is Obama may call me wealthy, but I thought we were just good old middle class," says Ms. Parnell. "Our needs are being met, but we don't have a load of cash to cover wants."

...

For the Parnells, their perception of themselves is based on the math. The value of their house is down $60,000. Ms. Parnell says the couple's gross income last year was about $260,000. Taxes, premiums for medical care and deductions for Social Security and their 401(k) contributions cut the gross to about $12,000 per month. The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church. Their mortgage, second mortgage and payment on land they bought is nearly $4,000 a month. Other expenses, including their family car payment, insurance and college funds, as well as basics like food, utilities and donations to charities, leave them with about $1,200 left over each month.

"I'm not after sympathy. We are blessed. What I want is a reality check on what rich means," Ms. Parnell says. "I can pay my mortgage and I can buy some clothes. I'm not going without, but I'm not living a life of luxury."

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/106934/Wealth-Less-Effect-Earning-Well-Feeling-Otherwise

So wait, they tithe $1300 a month, own land other than their home and a share in a vacation home, and have $1200 a month left over after food, utilities, charity donations, mortgages, car payments, retirement investments, college funds, insurance, etc. are covered. So in other words, after every single one of their expenses are covered, including investments for the future, they have at least $2500 a month left over to do anything with they please, and think that they are not living a life of luxury?

Some people just really, really, really don't understand what's going on in the world. These people are rich.

[gauchogolfer]

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/106934/Wealth-Less-Effect-Earning-Well-Feeling-Otherwise

So wait, they tithe $1300 a month, own land other than their home and a share in a vacation home, and have $1200 a month left over after food, utilities, charity donations, mortgages, car payments, retirement investments, college funds, insurance, etc. are covered. So in other words, after every single one of their expenses are covered, including investments for the future, they have at least $2500 a month left over to do anything with they please, and think that they are not living a life of luxury?

Some people just really, really, really don't understand what's going on in the world. These people are rich.

Agreed. I'd love to have this 'dilemma'.

[chrmjenkins]

Minor point, but it says they have only 1,200 a month left over.

edit: I see that you're factoring in the tithe now.

[Sun Baked]

Minor point, but it says they have only 1,200 a month left over.

And don't forget the week at the beach resort in the time share or whatever they share with the rest of the family.

Though it does say how much people were stretching with their home, at least these people left something in the tank at the end of the month.

[AP_piano295]

I wouldn't say these guys are exactly rich but they are weathy (any I with 14,000 excess cash from the income of one parent just from income. And I fail to see anything wrong with the people who have gotten so much from this much from the country giving a little back in a time of need.

[Gelfin]

What I want is a reality check on what rich means

And yet it seems you refuse to listen when people try to give you one.

Besides, it should not go unnoticed that at $260,000, the church donations alone move their taxable income comfortably underneath the $250,000 threshold. A "family of five," suggesting three children, will knock another 10,500 off that taxable gross. They're paying two mortgages, which means interest on two mortgages. The 401(k) contributions are pre-tax.

These people should probably have a quiet word with their H&R Block guy before making a big scene in the media. Even as well as they are doing, and however they "seem," mathematically they are not "the kind of well-off couple President Barack Obama has in mind" for tax increases. As well as they're doing, to be hit with that deeply burdensome 3% marginal tax, they'd have to be making substantially more.

[hulugu]

On the question of who is wealthy, there's I think a simple statistic which gives a sense of it. The median family income (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html) in the United States was ~$50,000 (2006-2007).

So, if you're making essentially five times the *median* income, you should probably stop talking about your middle class status.

Of course, there are levels of wealth going into the stratosphere, but for most comparing oneself to outliers like Bill Gates is disingenuous at best.

The people cited in the article may have a liquidity problem, but compared to people who have to choose whether to pay the gas bill or the electric bill, their problems seem rather minor.

[Abstract]

They still have $2500 per month after they have already saved towards their retirement, and paying for a vacation home? How can they not afford a larger home, afford a newer car, or pay for renovations? The house must be in a really expensive area that's a bit out of the "middle class" price range. And the car they can't afford to upgrade must be due to the high price of the cars they want. Those two things put them beyond middle class, doesn't it?

[hulugu]

They still have $2500 per month after they have already saved towards their retirement, and paying for a vacation home? How can they not afford a larger home, afford a newer car, or pay for renovations? The house must be in a really expensive area that's a bit out of the "middle class" price range. And the car they can't afford to upgrade must be due to the high price of the cars they want. Those two things put them beyond middle class, doesn't it?

'Nah there's an Infinity in every driveway in my neighborhood. They come with Proof of Purchase with four boxes of Fruit Loops.

[Eraserhead]

Life must be hard for them :rolleyes:.

[Shivetya]

OK, got to love the jealously here... wealth envy reigns supreme. However this guy did spend a long time getting to where he is. It is this type of person who invests much of his life to get something who is being punished by the new taxes.

See, the wealthy like Obama (he paid almost 3 times what these people made just in taxes) are conveniently protected from his new tax the rich schemes. Do you really think Obama is going to get taxes passed that affect him or those in Congress?

No, they are going to play the wealth envy card and rely on the ignorance of the average American of who the rich are. In other words, they are going to bandy about the phrase "rich" expecting you to equate it to the Paris Hilton types while they turn around and soak the working people who make great salaries.

So cherry pick a few stories to show some people who are well off but otherwise have normal lives. The problem is that most who denigrate them for their earned wealth won't invest the time or effort to reach the same plateau and would much rather have the government punish their betters.

Want to stay above water, work just 40 hours a week. Want to get rich, put in sixty or more which can include schooling and other such efforts over a regular work week.

What disgusts me more are those who won't and then vilify those who do.


I guess giving so much to others; their tithe to the church; is somehow bad now? Go figure, real generosity like theirs should be celebrated. How many others contribute over 5% of their GROSS salary? (I only do a little over 1%, just a little less than 2% of my gross)

[Abstract]

OK, got to love the jealously here... wealth envy reigns supreme.

I'm not jealous. I'm simply of the opinion that they're not middle class.


I also don't mind if they get taxed a bit more than they do. It's not because they're rich. It's just my belief that richer people should be taxed more because they have more to gain from supporting the entire social and economic system in place....and have more to lose if the entire infrastructure goes pear-shaped.

[Chundles]

Sounds like poor financial management, 2 mortgages, tithing (really?), vacation home - geeze, somebody needs to tell them that it's easy to save money simply by not spending so much.

Sell the vacation home, the land, get rid of the second mortgage or as much of it as possible.

[hulugu]

...The problem is that most who denigrate them for their earned wealth won't invest the time or effort to reach the same plateau and would much rather have the government punish their betters....

These arguments always seem to go this way. Someone points out that 250,000 is a good amount of money and then the response is always the above. I don't see jealousy, in fact I'd argue that some of these posters could, for all you or I know, be doing as well or better. Rather, the collective eye-rolling is always about the "woe is me" attitude of the people cited in the article. Compared to people who worry about losing their homes, the above problems seem pale and silly. This isn't class warfare, it's the reality of the situation.

I guess giving so much to others; their tithe to the church; is somehow bad now? Go figure, real generosity like theirs should be celebrated. How many others contribute over 5% of their GROSS salary? (I only do a little over 1%, just a little less than 2% of my gross)

I'm very impressed that they give 5%, although I know people who give 7% and 10%, but there are people whose threshold is so narrow that 1% is the difference between economic survival and disaster.

As for the whole 40+ hours argument, I'd agree except that in some markets its impossible to work more than 30 hours because of cut-backs, and working two jobs is very difficult (I've been there).

Life is unfair, but if you've gotten a particularly good hand you should be thoughtful about your position compared to others. Even the poorest Americans can afford things that are luxuries in certain parts of the world and we're all a little spoiled.

[Tomorrow]

So wait, they tithe $1300 a month, own land other than their home and a share in a vacation home, and have $1200 a month left over after food, utilities, charity donations, mortgages, car payments, retirement investments, college funds, insurance, etc. are covered.

Just my opinion, and I'm not trying to start a religious war - but if I were giving away more than 10% of my gross pay each month to church, and I started feeling a financial pinch, that would be the first thing I would cut out of my budget.

I'm not as financially well-off as these people, but I can say that for my family of 3 $1200 will NOT cover a month's worth of food, utilities, car payments, student loans, daycare, and insurance - I spend about 2 1/2 times that much each month on those items.

This family certainly makes much more than my family does, but I still wouldn't call them "rich," I would say "upper middle class." I once heard this analogy: you're rich when your money works for you instead of you working for money.

These people are rich.

I know I'm not going to convince anyone otherwise, but I have to disagree. I think they have more than adequate resources to make a comfortable living for themselves, but I still wouldn't say they're rich.

[Greenhoe]

Everyone works for the life they have. This guy has went to school for years to become a surgeon worked his but off to get where he is at now and paid thousands of dollars to earn his degree.

Most people would not have the intelligence or the work ethic to withstand the schooling to be come a surgeon so he deserves everything he has.

I know most democrats feel that most rich people get rich by luck and they deserve to support the poor, but the truth is majority of the Rich are rich because they are smart and work hard.

I would get upset to after working my butt off 7 days a week knowing most my money is going against things that I'm not for, or going to people who live of the system and just want free handouts instead of going out and working for it.

[rhsgolfer33]

This family certainly makes much more than my family does, but I still wouldn't call them "rich," I would say "upper middle class." I once heard this analogy: you're rich when your money works for you instead of you working for money.

I know I'm not going to convince anyone otherwise, but I have to disagree. I think they have more than adequate resources to make a comfortable living for themselves, but I still wouldn't say they're rich.

I tend to agree with you on this, they're certainly not rich, but they definitely should be doing better than they are. They're living in a state that isn't terribly expensive and they have an income that is substantially higher than most, from reading the article it seems like they mismanage their finances somewhat. Tithing $1200 a month is definitely a little excessive.

[hulugu]

....

This family certainly makes much more than my family does, but I still wouldn't call them "rich," I would say "upper middle class." I once heard this analogy: you're rich when your money works for you instead of you working for money....

I wouldn't say "rich" necessarily either. Good line about being "money works for you" that seems about right.

[CalBoy]

OK, got to love the jealously here... wealth envy reigns supreme. However this guy did spend a long time getting to where he is. It is this type of person who invests much of his life to get something who is being punished by the new taxes.

Conversely, one might say that he is also the type of person who benefits enormously from a healthy government and social infrastructure, as he has decidedly more to lose in anarchy than one who possesses few skills or assets.

See, the wealthy like Obama (he paid almost 3 times what these people made just in taxes) are conveniently protected from his new tax the rich schemes. Do you really think Obama is going to get taxes passed that affect him or those in Congress?

Obama's wealth in 2008 was primarily the result of his book sales; prior to that, the Obamas together, while high earners relative to the average American, were not earning vast amounts of money.

What's more, the largest tax scheme that benefits the wealthy is the varying rate of investment taxation. Warren Buffet famously lamented the fact that his secretary paid more of her income to taxes than he did, and that was largely the result of the lower tax rate we have on certain investments. This tax scheme is not enshrined so much to protect members of Congress as it is meant to appease their most vocal constituents: the wealthy.


I guess giving so much to others; their tithe to the church; is somehow bad now?

A tithe is not giving to others as there is no guarentee that the money is actually going to be helping anyone in genuine need. If it that was the case, ACLU and Greenpeace donations should also be considered helping others, and hence charitable acts.

The only real difference is that the tax code values Christianity more than it does civil liberties or the environment.

More to the point, it isn't really "bad" to tithe, but you can't complain about not having enough money to go around if you give away $1,300 every month. In tough times we all cut back, and this family clearly has the capability to do so without making any real lifestyle adjustments.


" I once heard this analogy: you're rich when your money works for you instead of you working for money.

IIRC, that was Claire Huxtable on The Cosby Show when Vanessa complained about being labeled the "rich" girl at school. :)

More to the point: this family isn't "rich" but they have more than enough money to handle paying an extra 3% on their income above $250,000. Even if we pretend that their taxable income is $260,000 (I believe Gelfin already noted that with their children, interest deductions, etc, it is far lower than this), the total tax on this would only be an additional $300 per year. That's only $25 per month. I'm sure their church isn't going to care if their tithe drops from $1,300 to $1,275 (oh the horror!).

Everyone works for the life they have. This guy has went to school for years to become a surgeon worked his but off to get where he is at now and paid thousands of dollars to earn his degree.

Most people would not have the intelligence or the work ethic to withstand the schooling to be come a surgeon so he deserves everything he has.

I know most democrats feel that most rich people get rich by luck and they deserve to support the poor, but the truth is majority of the Rich are rich because they are smart and work hard.

Of course then we ignore the bitter reality of generational inertia. A hispanic child with two working parents that don't speak much English can work just as hard as a white suburban child and still not get as far in school. In fact, he will have to work even harder to get to the same place as that suburban child. Should he then earn even more money in his profession and pay less in taxes compared to his suburban counterpart (since he did after all earn that right)?

Moreover, why do we reward intelligence if what we want is a meritocracy? Intelligence is largely the composite of genetics and the developmental encouragement you received as a child. You have control over neither of these factors, which means your IQ isn't in fact something that we can value in a meritocratic way. Should we then only reward hard work? And if we do that, how do we measure who is working harder? I might graduate this spring with a GPA that is better than some of my classmates, but I can bet that many worked harder than me. Do they deserve lower tax rates?


I would get upset to after working my butt off 7 days a week knowing most my money is going against things that I'm not for, or going to people who live of the system and just want free handouts instead of going out and working for it.

What, pray tell, are those things you so abhor? Perhaps you should have a realistic idea of how the Federal budget is distributed before you make the claim that your tax dollars are going to "handouts."

[apsterling]

What is there to abhor?
There's the needless war in the middle east
There's expenditures on dead end public works programs from decades ago
There's redistibution of the tax money with no plans set in place

Throwing money at a problem does nothing but waste it unless there's a structure upon which you're building and planning.

[rhsgolfer33]

What is there to abhor?
There's the needless war in the middle east
There's expenditures on dead end public works programs from decades ago
There's redistibution of the tax money with no plans set in place

Throwing money at a problem does nothing but waste it unless there's a structure upon which you're building and planning.

Not to mention social security, medicare, and medicaid programs that are budgeted at about $1.4 trillion of spending in 2010.

[CalBoy]

What is there to abhor?
There's the needless war in the middle east

One which was not started by a Democrat, but one which is expected to be solved by a Democrat. And yet, when a segment of that solution is brought forth, the ones who got us into that particular problem protest (and quite loudly).

There's expenditures on dead end public works programs from decades ago

Which isn't a handout. Greenhoe doesn't want to give money to those people who don't merit it; he hasn't said anything about public works projects.

There's redistibution of the tax money with no plans set in place

What redistribution is that exactly? And what do you call a plan for universal health insurance and energy modernization? Or do they not fall into the narrow band of "plan" you find acceptable?

Throwing money at a problem does nothing but waste it unless there's a structure upon which you're building and planning.

I consider investing in our human capital to be an immensely positive structure on which we can build and plan.

It certainly beats out the "plan" of killing and demonizing of the previous administration.

[Don't panic]

by any reasonable definition these people are rich.
look at the number, they still make 12000/month AFTER all taxes, medical care and the pension fund.
with that 12000/month thy have to pay their mortgage, car, food and "regular" living expenses. plus the charity donations and the church contributions. That is a lot of disposable income. that they chose o dispose it so that they are left with around 1200 dollar is their choice, but certainly they are a far cry from 'middle class'

[.Andy]

Surely this article is from The Onion?

[imac/cheese]

Just my opinion, and I'm not trying to start a religious war - but if I were giving away more than 10% of my gross pay each month to church, and I started feeling a financial pinch, that would be the first thing I would cut out of my budget...

Biblically, it should be the last thing to go. Christians acknowledge that everything belongs to God and we are just stewards of what he entrusts us with. A tithe is a reminder of that stewardship and if we are faithful with a little, God will entrust us with more.

I tend to agree with you on this, they're certainly not rich, but they definitely should be doing better than they are. They're living in a state that isn't terribly expensive and they have an income that is substantially higher than most, from reading the article it seems like they mismanage their finances somewhat. Tithing $1200 a month is definitely a little excessive.

Actually giving $1200 isn't even tithing for this family. Tithe literally means a tenth so tithing in their case would be $2,166.67 per month.

A tithe is not giving to others as there is no guarentee that the money is actually going to be helping anyone in genuine need. If it that was the case, ACLU and Greenpeace donations should also be considered helping others, and hence charitable acts.

The only real difference is that the tax code values Christianity more than it does civil liberties or the environment.

Giving to the ACLU Foundation or to the Greenpeace Fund is completely tax-deductible.

More to the point, it isn't really "bad" to tithe, but you can't complain about not having enough money to go around if you give away $1,300 every month. In tough times we all cut back, and this family clearly has the capability to do so without making any real lifestyle adjustments.

I agree that they shouldn't be complaining. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...

[miloblithe]

Sent to me as a private message:

thread response
because i cant respond to the thread you have posted in the PRSI forum about the doctor and being 'rich' ill just tell you here...my father is a surgeon too and he has worked his ass off for every penny he has earned. he grew up on welfare in the streets of new orleans supporting 4 siblings b/c his alcoholic father could not. if you mean to tell me people like him (he earns ~450k/year) do not deserve what they earn then you are wrong. perhaps youre not aware of the **** surgeons have to put up with. you could argue that comes along with the job but my God...give the doctors what they deserve. they shouldnt go through 10 years of extra schooling only to have more money taken away by taxes. my fathers been a doctor for 28 years...he does it for love and not for money...but he should still get what he deserves...especially while having to raise 5 children. i dont see why you think these hard working people should have to pay more. it boggles my mind. i dont expect you to respond back and i wont go out of my way to check for a reply b/c i rarely post but i just wanted you to have a look at the other side of the coin. thanks.

I fully agree that hard work should pay off and that doctors should make a lot of money. I work with a lot of doctors (I work in healthcare). They make a lot more than I do, as well they should.

To me, the point is that raising the marginal tax rate above $250,000 from 33% to 36% will not change, at all, the fact that people who make over that amount are still making a lot of money. Assuming that your father has no tax deductions from his $450,000 income, that means that under Obama's plan he'll be paying an additional $6,000 in taxes. Of course, I'm sure your father has many deductions, so the actual tax increase will be significantly less than that. This will still leave him with over $300,000 to cover the bills.

There's a more important point here in your personal story. Your father grew up on welfare? So he's actually a prime example of why we should help out people at the bottom and tax people at the top. There are many welfare recipients, like your father, who have limitless potential and can give back far more than we give them if given support when they need it. Are you telling me that after being a recipient of the system, your father refuses to give back to the system?

And if your father is a doctor for love not money, as you say, if he would like to quit his job and work on a voluntary basis for my company? :)

[yg17]

Biblically, it should be the last thing to go. Christians acknowledge that everything belongs to God and we are just stewards of what he entrusts us with. A tithe is a reminder of that stewardship and if we are faithful with a little, God will entrust us with more.

And if I'm struggling to put food on my table and have half a brain, the tithe would be the first thing to go. If this god is a loving god, I think he'd understand using the money for groceries instead of tithe. If they're still tithing despite being in such financial dire straits, then it just shows that they have been completely brainwashed by religion.

[leekohler]

And if I'm struggling to put food on my table and have half a brain, the tithe would be the first thing to go. If this god is a loving god, I think he'd understand using the money for groceries instead of tithe. If they're still tithing despite being in such financial dire straits, then it just shows that they have been completely brainwashed by religion.

Exactly- that was another thing I never understood about organized religion. You're not "giving money to God", you're giving money to people. It's dues you pay to belong to a club. The money goes to keep up the property and pay the pastor.

[imac/cheese]

Exactly- that was another thing I never understood about organized religion. You're not "giving money to God", you're giving money to people. It's dues you pay to belong to a club. The money goes to keep up the property and pay the pastor.

It really is not surprising that being non-religious, you would feel this way. Tithing is not about paying dues to belong to some club because I don't know of any church that requires tithing to be a member. Tithing is an act of obedience to God and trust in the fact that He will provide for us. It is also part of the financial mindset laid forth in the bible of living within your means.

[edesignuk]

Tithing is an act of obedience to God and trust in the fact that He will provide for us. It is also part of the financial mindset laid forth in the bible of living within your means.It's nice you believe that.

Honestly, I cannot believe any one in their right mind would be handing over $1300 per freakin month to a church then complaining that they don't have enough money. HELLO!!!??

No one provides a cash stock pile to the church like Americans. It's crazy.

[djellison]

Tithing is an act of obedience to God and trust in the fact that He will provide for us. .

So basically, it's the entrance fee for this particular God's heaven.

Wow - this God's, well, in marketing terms... a GOD.

Superlatives aside, that's two threads in the past few days where Tithing has been mentioned, and it worries me hugely.

No religion worth subscribing to, nor any God worth giving attention to would want money to be given to a 'church'. If you want to be charitable, be charitable. It's such a pity to see people fall foul of the worlds greatest confidence and fraud act.

[iBlue]

It really is not surprising that being non-religious, you would feel this way. Tithing is not about paying dues to belong to some club because I don't know of any church that requires tithing to be a member. Tithing is an act of obedience to God and trust in the fact that He will provide for us. It is also part of the financial mindset laid forth in the bible of living within your means.

God, all knowing, all powerful - just not so good with money. PAY UP, suckas.

[Ugg]

In response to the PM received by miloblithe, this part caught my eye:

but he should still get what he deserves...especially while having to raise 5 children

He had to raise 5 children or he chose to raise 5 children? If they were quintuplets conceived without fertility treatment, then yes, I can understand having to, if not then your parents made choices that would only add to their financial burden. Just like the couple who donate $1,300 a month to their church, whinging about expensive lifestyle choices is hardly going to endear you to the general public.

miloblithe also made a good point, if it weren't for government assistance, your father would still be on the streets of New Orleans. You can't have it both ways.

[Rt&Dzine]

Does anybody remember televangelist Robert Tilton? He took tithing to a new level. His whole schtick was getting people to give "vows" ($$$) to his ministry. Basically God will help you if you give me money.

[yg17]

Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good ************ story. Holy ****!

That last paragraph seems very relevant. RIP George :(

[leekohler]

It really is not surprising that being non-religious, you would feel this way. Tithing is not about paying dues to belong to some club because I don't know of any church that requires tithing to be a member. Tithing is an act of obedience to God and trust in the fact that He will provide for us. It is also part of the financial mindset laid forth in the bible of living within your means.

It's exactly what I said it is. Ask your pastor/priest for a breakdown of where that money goes. They may not "require" it, but I guarantee you, they're gonna start looking at you kinda funny after a while if you don't.

[chrmjenkins]

So basically, it's the entrance fee for this particular God's heaven.


No, as imac/cheese clearly stated, no church requires it as that's a reflection of the fact that there's no "entrance fee" to heaven.

[edesignuk]

No, as imac/cheese clearly stated, no church requires it as that's a reflection of the fact that there's no "entrance fee" to heaven.Not required, but we'd be awfully grateful if you did *nudge, nudge*.

[Tomorrow]

No one provides a cash stock pile to the church like Americans. It's crazy.

I'm not sure I go along with that. Tithing has been around LONG before America was even founded. Its basis is in Christianity as an organized religion, and being American has nothing to do with it. I would actually suspect that there's a higher percentage of people who tithe in other countries, not the U.S. (I don't have any statistics to back this up.)

[edesignuk]

I'm not sure I go along with that. Tithing has been around LONG before America was even founded. Its basis is in Christianity as an organized religion, and being American has nothing to do with it. I would actually suspect that there's a higher percentage of people who tithe in other countries, not the U.S. (I don't have any statistics to back this up.)I can't prove anything one way or another, but I would say I don't see organised religion taking in the kind of money I believe American churches do. You have preachers travelling round making millions, and apparently a good number throwing thousands of dollars monthly at their local church.

Where else does this happen?

[Rt&Dzine]

I'm not sure I go along with that. Tithing has been around LONG before America was even founded. Its basis is in Christianity as an organized religion, and being American has nothing to do with it. I would actually suspect that there's a higher percentage of people who tithe in other countries, not the U.S. (I don't have any statistics to back this up.)

Well, the wealthiest pastor and largest church building in the world is in Africa.

[iGary]

I can't prove anything one way or another, but I would say I don't see organised religion taking in the kind of money I believe American churches do. You have preachers travelling round making millions, and apparently a good number throwing thousands of dollars monthly at their local church.

Where else does this happen?

The Vatican (http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=407). :D

[miloblithe]

While there are countless examples of corrupt excess in organized religion, I think a lot of people here are barking up the wrong tree if they want to criticize those who want to donate money to churches. Sure, sometimes church funds go to make sure the pastor has an opulent private residence, a solid cache of automatic weapons, or other such nonsense, more often than not they go to pay for the church, the modest salaries of the clergy and staff, and some manner of good works in the community. Now, I personally don't think much of some of those good works, I'm sure, as they support a position or employ a strategy I disagree with, but more often than not, churches are trying to help people.

My only point was that tithing is essentially disposable income.

[djellison]

but more often than not, churches are trying to help people.
.

Themselves, mainly. It's utterly corrupt, and certainly should not be tax deductible. Religion is a business model, formerly trading in souls and morals, now trading in cold hard cash.

[imac/cheese]

So basically, it's the entrance fee for this particular God's heaven.

Wow - this God's, well, in marketing terms... a GOD.

Superlatives aside, that's two threads in the past few days where Tithing has been mentioned, and it worries me hugely.

No religion worth subscribing to, nor any God worth giving attention to would want money to be given to a 'church'. If you want to be charitable, be charitable. It's such a pity to see people fall foul of the worlds greatest confidence and fraud act.

Actually the entrance fee into heaven has already been paid. Jesus died on the cross to pay our sin debt and those who accept that sacrifice, will be saved no matter if they tithe or not.

In Christianity, the church is considered the Body of Christ. It is an idea that the church is the tool God has chosen to use to carry out His will on earth. To those that truly believe that, of course we want to fund it.

It's exactly what I said it is. Ask your pastor/priest for a breakdown of where that money goes. They may not "require" it, but I guarantee you, they're gonna start looking at you kinda funny after a while if you don't.

I have been quite familiar with all of the finances of the churches I have attended. Yes a lot of the money goes to pay for the church facilities and the salaries of the staff, but a large portion goes to caring centers, local charities, national and international missions, and various other functions of the church.

Themselves, mainly. It's utterly corrupt, and certainly should not be tax deductible. Religion is a business model, formerly trading in souls and morals, now trading in cold hard cash.

There are churches that are completely corrupt, but that doesn't mean all churches are or even anywhere near a majority of them. There are many many churches that make a huge difference in their community and I have never been a part of a church that is corrupt or not willing to share their finances with its members or even potential members.

[Desertrat]

As near as I can tell from looking at the price of coffee or cars in the marketplace, these folks aren't rich nor are they wealthy. Well off, yeah, but I'd say upper middle-class. Gross income doesn't really count, IMO: It's what you have left after taxes that oughta determine the percentages on things like house payments.

The lady actually sounds as though she doesn't really understand all the ramifications of the American Dream. Granted, I'm a cheapskate, but no way would I commit $4K a month to real estate.

But, they've worked along busily, doing what middle-class folks do--at least, I'd bet real money they've always thought of themselves as middle-class--and all of a sudden they're labelled as "rich". And the implication is that they're somehow bad folks for being rich. That would be off-putting for anybody.

CalBoy, intelligence in and of itself is not rewarded. Meritocracy only rewards accomplishment. Hey, test scores showed that my IQ is north of 150--but I've always been too lazy to try to get into any high-dollar income effort. No great ambition to be another Trump or whatever. My financial rewards haven't been such a much--but I'm not envious of those who make it big. What I wanted was the personal freedom that this doctor doesn't have. Freedom ain't free, but I've been willing to pay the price in foregone income.

One thing I have noticed, though: It takes no talent whatsoever to be poor or live poor. To get to be well off takes time and effort, long hours of hard work and smart work. Those who make it big, hey, more power to them!

[yg17]

There are churches that are completely corrupt, but that doesn't mean all churches are or even anywhere near a majority of them. There are many many churches that make a huge difference in their community and I have never been a part of a church that is corrupt or not willing to share their finances with its members or even potential members.

And how do you know their finances are accurate and truthful? I bet if you looked at Enron's books everything would've been in perfect order.

[imac/cheese]

And how do you know their finances are accurate and truthful? I bet if you looked at Enron's books everything would've been in perfect order.

You are right; they could be falsifying their books and skimming off the top. No different than any other charity or business that I might donate to or inverst in. Of course, I know the financial ministers personally and their is quite a bit of transparency with the budget. In addition, you can rest assured that in a baptist church, if there was one drop of rumor of anything fishy, it would sweep through the congregation like wildfire.

[MacNut]

He had to raise 5 children or he chose to raise 5 children? If they were quintuplets conceived without fertility treatment, then yes, I can understand having to, if not then your parents made choices that would only add to their financial burden. Just like the couple who donate $1,300 a month to their church, whinging about expensive lifestyle choices is hardly going to endear you to the general public.Can't the same argument be made for a family on welfare that still decides to have more kids? Are they not fleecing the system to pay for their bad choices?

[miloblithe]

Themselves, mainly. It's utterly corrupt, and certainly should not be tax deductible. Religion is a business model, formerly trading in souls and morals, now trading in cold hard cash.

Sure there are churches that are profit machines for corrupt people, but to assume that all churches and all church work are likewise corrupt is simply ignorant.


Here's a link to Catholic Relief Services annual report:

http://crs.org/about/finance/pdf/AR_2007.pdf

As far as I can tell, individuals donated about $113.5 million in 2007, which went to such corruptions as training traditional birth attendants, expanding immunization programs, diarrhea case management, food security programs, microfinance, education programs....

truly corrupt and self serving indeed.

And as imac/cheese pointed out, individual churches also often do good work in their community.

I agree churches themselves shouldn't be tax free though, but their non-profit arms (such as CRS above) should be. Churches should be held to the same non-profit qualifying standards as any other organization.

[it5five]

Not required, but we'd be awfully grateful if you did *nudge, nudge*.

It'd be a shame if something happened to your soul. It's a pretty nice soul, we wouldn't want anything to happen to it now, would we?

[Ugg]

Can't the same argument be made for a family on welfare that still decides to have more kids? Are they not fleecing the system to pay for their bad choices?

Have you ever heard of Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Act of 1996? Perhaps you should read up on it before you start blathering about stuff you don't know anything about.

[mactastic]

Does anybody remember televangelist Robert Tilton? He took tithing to a new level. His whole schtick was getting people to give "vows" ($$$) to his ministry. Basically God will help you if you give me money.
There's a whole subset of Evangelicals who put forth the notion that if you give 'till it hurts to them, God will reward you with earthly riches. See Dollar, Rev. Creflo A.

[imac/cheese]

“And he called his disciples to him and said to them,
‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow has put in more
than all those who are contributing to the offering
box. For they all contributed out of their abundance,
but she out of her poverty has put in everything she
had, all she had to live on’” (Mark 12:43-44, ESV).

[Macaddicttt]

There's a whole subset of Evangelicals who put forth the notion that if you give 'till it hurts to them, God will reward you with earthly riches. See Dollar, Rev. Creflo A.

Evangelicals != All Christians

Sure, these guys could be getting fleeced and sending their money to some megachurch, or they could be giving it to a church that barely has enough money to pay the electric bill and provides shelter to homeless people. You have no idea. No one in this thread is in a position to say that they're giving their money to a self-serving "church." It's not helpful to find the worst version of something, lump it in with everything that looks similar, and then say that every thing that looks similar is just like the worst version of it.

Although I do agree that this family has no right to be complaining about the higher taxes (that won't even hit them...; see a couple posts up showing that they certainly don't make $250,000 in taxable income if their gross income is $260,000), since they are doing just fine.

[mactastic]

Evangelicals != All Christians
Please show me where I said that Evangelicals = All Christians.

Hmmm?

Sure, these guys could be getting fleeced and sending their money to some megachurch, or they could be giving it to a church that barely has enough money to pay the electric bill and provides shelter to homeless people. You have no idea. No one in this thread is in a position to say that they're giving their money to a self-serving "church." It's not helpful to find the worst version of something, lump it in with everything that looks similar, and then say that every thing that looks similar is just like the worst version of it.
Please show me where I said these people were giving their money to any specific church.

Also, please show me where I said that Creflo A. Dollar was just like all Christians.

Can you do it? Or are you just getting a little overly defensive of your religion?

[miloblithe]

Evangelicals != All Christians

Sure, these guys could be getting fleeced and sending their money to some megachurch, or they could be giving it to a church that barely has enough money to pay the electric bill and provides shelter to homeless people. You have no idea. No one in this thread is in a position to say that they're giving their money to a self-serving "church." It's not helpful to find the worst version of something, lump it in with everything that looks similar, and then say that every thing that looks similar is just like the worst version of it.

Well said.

[Macaddicttt]

Please show me where I said that Evangelicals = All Christians.

Hmmm?


Please show me where I said these people were giving their money to any specific church.

Also, please show me where I said that Creflo A. Dollar was just like all Christians.

Can you do it? Or are you just getting a little overly defensive of your religion?

Sorry, Mactastic. Didn't mean to rag on you. You didn't say any of those things. I was just responding to the general criticism in this thread, and you post provided a good launching point. My apologies, I should have used someone else's post, someone who was making the assumptions I was trying to debunk.

[mactastic]

Sorry, Mactastic. Didn't mean to rag on you. You didn't say any of those things. I was just responding to the general criticism in this thread, and you post provided a good launching point. My apologies, I should have used someone else's post, someone who was making the assumptions I was trying to debunk.
Ok, no worries. I certainly wasn't trying to equate folks who preach the so-called "prosperity doctrine" with mainstream religious folks.

We can debate whether these people are upper middle class, or lower upper class all day, but I don't think there is any debate that someone with an income 5 times the national median income should be complaining about their lot in life.

[Macaddicttt]

We can debate whether these people are upper middle class, or lower upper class all day, but I don't think there is any debate that someone with an income 5 times the national median income should be complaining about their lot in life.

Exactly, and especially when it's in relation to the proposed tax increases that won't even touch them.

[Zombie Acorn]

Once I read 1300 a month for tithing i stopped reading. That is a mortgage payment. I am not in favor of unfairly taxing the rich, but don't expect me to start a sob party when you are giving away 1300 a month.

[CalBoy]

Giving to the ACLU Foundation or to the Greenpeace Fund is completely tax-deductible.

A tithe is not analogous to giving to the ACLU Foundation as the ACLU Foundation is a narrower fund that only goes towards litigation. Tithe money does not need to go to any charitable action at all; it in fact could go exclusively towards the church's other needs like paying a pastor or maintaining property. Donating money to your church's food drive or other targeted program would be more analogous to the ACLU Foundation.

[iJohnHenry]

Once I read 1300 a month for tithing i stopped reading.

That's a lot of money a month for port. (Not mentioning any names.) :p

[djellison]

(Mark 12:43-44, ESV).

Luke 12:33 (NIV) "Sell your possessions and give to the poor... "

Whatever you're using to post to MR...your Bible tells you to sell it. You can't pick and choose. You either believe the Bible, or you don't.

" (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Murder, rape and slavery. That Bible sure is exciting. They should make a movie. It would be HUGE.

[Rodimus Prime]

Once I read 1300 a month for tithing i stopped reading. That is a mortgage payment. I am not in favor of unfairly taxing the rich, but don't expect me to start a sob party when you are giving away 1300 a month.

And to me this post is yet another example of how a lot of people here fail at understanding the people who are much better well off then them.

Some one worked that out to be about 7% of there income. That is not much. Instead they get caught up in the number and not percentages.

People here do not understand that having changes does in taxes or something that dips into ones income heavily hurts no matter how much you make. If for example 5% more of the money was all of a sudden was taken away in taxes that hurts. That means you have to dig for that extra 5% of the money and figure out where it comes from. For a lot of people like that who look fairly well managed that is going to come from savings rate. This puts them at risk later on for when something big hits them and forces them pull off savings because there is less of it.

[mactastic]

And to me this post is yet another example of how a lot of people here fail at understanding the people who are much better well off then them.

Some one worked that out to be about 7% of there income. That is not much. Instead they get caught up in the number and not percentages.

People here do not understand that having changes does in taxes or something that dips into ones income heavily hurts no matter how much you make. If for example 5% more of the money was all of a sudden was taken away in taxes that hurts. That means you have to dig for that extra 5% of the money and figure out where it comes from. For a lot of people like that who look fairly well managed that is going to come from savings rate. This puts them at risk later on for when something big hits them and forces them pull off savings because there is less of it.
Wait, so 7% of your income "is not much"; yet a 3% increase in taxes on earnings above $250,000 is so huge of an amount that it will cause people to lose the desire to work harder?

Something about that doesn't make sense...

[NT1440]

Wait, so 7% of your income "is not much"; yet a 3% increase in taxes on earnings above $250,000 is so huge of an amount that it will cause people to lose the desire to work harder?

Something about that doesn't make sense...

And there lies the entire problem......

Its a certain type of mindset that doesn't make sense.

[yg17]

Wait, so 7% of your income "is not much"; yet a 3% increase in taxes on earnings above $250,000 is so huge of an amount that it will cause people to lose the desire to work harder?

Something about that doesn't make sense...

7% isn't much, but 3% is enough for a bunch of wingnuts to teabag each other :D

[Thanatoast]

We've become too focused on the tithe. Yes it's a lot of money but it's beside the point.

This family makes a ton of money. Not enough to be considered "rich", but if they husbanded their resources better and budgeted differently they easily could be.

If 3% takes down a family making $250,000/yr then they need to hire an accountant or make better choices.

[Gelfin]

I did some rough back-of-an-envelope math on this family.

They say they gross $260,000. Three kids (implied by "family of five") is 10,500 in deductions. Their religious contributions are $15,600 per year. A 2,500 square foot home in Sevierville, TN runs about half a million dollars, meaning on a first and second mortgage it's not too far out of the ballpark to suppose they are paying another $15,000 in mortgage interest annually. Could be substantially more or less depending on how long they've owned the property. Then there are property taxes on the home and extra land, which would run them an additional few thousand dollars.

All told, it would be surprising if their taxable income exceeded $215,000. They will assuredly not be hit by the tax increase. To be taxed on $260,000, they would need to gross an additional $45,000 for a total gross income of $305,000, at which income they probably would have already bought their larger home and be deducting that much more in mortgage interest and property taxes. But let's go with that figure.

That extra $45,000 needed to put them into the bracket they think they're in would, after current taxes, be conservatively around $2250 per month in their pockets, free and clear.

And the horrible tax burden inflicted upon them as socialist punishment for their extra success? Well, that's three additional percent of the ten thousand taxable dollars they would have earned in the top marginal bracket, for a grand total of $300 per year.

Man, that Obama. What a commie bastard. :rolleyes: