4 ms·

Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. 10% of one's earnings is extremely difficult if you make $20K a year, while if you make 10 million a year, 10% is b

Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. 10% of one's earnings is extremely difficult if you make $20K a year, while if you make 10 million a year, 10% is barely noticeable.

eadmund 3y ago
> Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. No, it’s not: regressive would be if the poor had to pay a larger percentage than the rich. They don’t. Progressive indicates that the rich must pay a larger percentage than the poor. Meanwhile, a flat fee would be the same number for everyone. I get what you’re trying to say: folks’ utility functions may be different, and a rich man may possibly miss his 10% less than the poor man. But ‘regressive’ and ‘progressive’ have specific meanings in this context.
tcbawo 3y ago
I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. It might increase hardship in a poor person, or increase inconvenience in a richer person. There is no “right” amount. The fact that people are willing and able to give any significant amount of their wealth to improve the world is cause for celebration.
- SeanLuke 3y ago
  > I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. This is simply untrue. 10% of a $20K income is the difference between your baby having healthcare or not. 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. The value of money is nonlinear. And furthermore most religions (in the US) position the percentages as pretax, so wealthy people actually pay rather less in percentage tithing than poor people do. If religions wanted people to donate to the degree they were capable, the percentage function would be exponential. If you make $20K you donate $200. If you make $1 billion you donate $950 million.
  - eadmund 3y ago
    > 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. That seems obviously untrue: $100 million could hire a thousand employees at $100,000/year (I am ignoring payroll taxes and benefits). Hiring that many additional people to do one’s bidding would have a noticeable influence on one’s lifestyle, and losing that many would as well. Hey, if I had $1 billion a year I would have teams of artisans, craftsmen, authors, poets, tailors and the like at my beck and call. My mansion would be a work of art. My parties would be experiences. I’d build a cathedral. … there’s probably a reason that I don’t make a billion a year!
  - tcbawo 3y ago
    I agree that the utility of money is nonlinear. However, donating $100 million of $1 billion income seems pretty not insignificant to me. Like, it’s significant enough that they’d probably want to make sure it’s spent wisely. Also, I don’t imagine many people with that kind of income will see it consistently. Debating the significance of 10% seems philosophical and academic. Talking a billionaire out of donating $100 million because it’s not enough would be counterproductive.
lusus_naturae 3y ago
I don't understand why there is a need or requirement to induce any kind of suffering.

Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. 10% of one's earnings is extremely difficult if you make $20K a year, while if you make 10 million a year, 10% is barely noticeable.

eadmund 3y ago

> Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. No, it’s not: regressive would be if the poor had to pay a larger percentage than the rich. They don’t. Progressive indicates that the rich must pay a larger percentage than the poor. Meanwhile, a flat fee would be the same number for everyone. I get what you’re trying to say: folks’ utility functions may be different, and a rich man may possibly miss his 10% less than the poor man. But ‘regressive’ and ‘progressive’ have specific meanings in this context.

tcbawo 3y ago

I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. It might increase hardship in a poor person, or increase inconvenience in a richer person. There is no “right” amount. The fact that people are willing and able to give any significant amount of their wealth to improve the world is cause for celebration.

SeanLuke 3y ago
> I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. This is simply untrue. 10% of a $20K income is the difference between your baby having healthcare or not. 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. The value of money is nonlinear. And furthermore most religions (in the US) position the percentages as pretax, so wealthy people actually pay rather less in percentage tithing than poor people do. If religions wanted people to donate to the degree they were capable, the percentage function would be exponential. If you make $20K you donate $200. If you make $1 billion you donate $950 million.
- eadmund 3y ago
  > 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. That seems obviously untrue: $100 million could hire a thousand employees at $100,000/year (I am ignoring payroll taxes and benefits). Hiring that many additional people to do one’s bidding would have a noticeable influence on one’s lifestyle, and losing that many would as well. Hey, if I had $1 billion a year I would have teams of artisans, craftsmen, authors, poets, tailors and the like at my beck and call. My mansion would be a work of art. My parties would be experiences. I’d build a cathedral. … there’s probably a reason that I don’t make a billion a year!
- tcbawo 3y ago
  I agree that the utility of money is nonlinear. However, donating $100 million of $1 billion income seems pretty not insignificant to me. Like, it’s significant enough that they’d probably want to make sure it’s spent wisely. Also, I don’t imagine many people with that kind of income will see it consistently. Debating the significance of 10% seems philosophical and academic. Talking a billionaire out of donating $100 million because it’s not enough would be counterproductive.

lusus_naturae 3y ago

I don't understand why there is a need or requirement to induce any kind of suffering.