4 ms·

You said two different things: that tithing is payment for facilities, and then that tithing is a tax. Mormons - all people - have the free choice to pay or n

You said two different things: that tithing is payment for facilities, and then that tithing is a tax. Mormons - all people - have the free choice to pay or not pay the Mormon church. And they do quite well. I would have no issue with a government that said "If you want to use our services, you need to pay. If you want to use roads that we build, you need to pay." And then people could freely choose. I have an issue with demanding that someone else pay for their so-called "freedom".

uxp 15y ago
It's not required, always, to pay tithing to attend the standard sunday services in the LDS faith. But if you wanted to get help from your bishop, who has the ability to grant about $5000 USD to anyone of his choosing (I think per month), he will most certainly note if you are contributing to the church if you ask for help paying utility or medical bills, which is not uncommon. Mormons that wish to be married or sealed in the Temple will also be scrutinized of their contributions. Like you noted, when relating it to Government tax, if you decide to never pay taxes again, you wouldn't get thrown in jail or forced to leave, but you wouldn't get to enjoy the simple things in life, like roads, police, ambulances or the fire department. You could probably live a life like Henry David Thoreau, but it probably wouldn't be very comfortable.
regs 15y ago
Have you considered that stable currency is a service performed by the government? Feel free to accumulate wealth, just don't use government backed currency.
- jerfelix 15y ago
  First, I am not saying that I don't value government services. I am saying that as someone who believes that people should be free, it's disingenuous of me to force someone else to pay for freedom, through the threat of guns. (I am completely willing to pay my "fair share" and more.) Second, if the government provides a valuable service, people should and would WANT to pay for it. So there's no need for me to FORCE someone to pay for it. Third, you named a great DISservice. Currency "stably" heading to zero [1] is really not a valuable service. [1] http://www.profitscore.com/articles/prof_ValueofaBuck_Aug-09.jpg http://www.profitscore.com/articles/prof_ValueofaBuck_Aug-09...
  - pyre 15y ago
    People are usually talking about stability from wild fluctuations when they are talking about stability in currency...
    - jerfelix 15y ago
      Agreed, but it's the same organization that is performing both "services" - providing stability and guiding it "stably" to zero.
pyre 15y ago
> I would have no issue with a government that said > "If you want to use our services, you need to pay. > If you want to use roads that we build, you need > to pay." And then people could freely choose. Just by living in the country you are accessing the benefits of those things though.

uxp 15y ago

It's not required, always, to pay tithing to attend the standard sunday services in the LDS faith. But if you wanted to get help from your bishop, who has the ability to grant about $5000 USD to anyone of his choosing (I think per month), he will most certainly note if you are contributing to the church if you ask for help paying utility or medical bills, which is not uncommon. Mormons that wish to be married or sealed in the Temple will also be scrutinized of their contributions. Like you noted, when relating it to Government tax, if you decide to never pay taxes again, you wouldn't get thrown in jail or forced to leave, but you wouldn't get to enjoy the simple things in life, like roads, police, ambulances or the fire department. You could probably live a life like Henry David Thoreau, but it probably wouldn't be very comfortable.

regs 15y ago

Have you considered that stable currency is a service performed by the government? Feel free to accumulate wealth, just don't use government backed currency.

jerfelix 15y ago
First, I am not saying that I don't value government services. I am saying that as someone who believes that people should be free, it's disingenuous of me to force someone else to pay for freedom, through the threat of guns. (I am completely willing to pay my "fair share" and more.) Second, if the government provides a valuable service, people should and would WANT to pay for it. So there's no need for me to FORCE someone to pay for it. Third, you named a great DISservice. Currency "stably" heading to zero [1] is really not a valuable service. [1] http://www.profitscore.com/articles/prof_ValueofaBuck_Aug-09.jpg http://www.profitscore.com/articles/prof_ValueofaBuck_Aug-09...
- pyre 15y ago
  People are usually talking about stability from wild fluctuations when they are talking about stability in currency...
  - jerfelix 15y ago
    Agreed, but it's the same organization that is performing both "services" - providing stability and guiding it "stably" to zero.

pyre 15y ago

> I would have no issue with a government that said > "If you want to use our services, you need to pay. > If you want to use roads that we build, you need > to pay." And then people could freely choose. Just by living in the country you are accessing the benefits of those things though.