Is tithing feasible in modern society?

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

What?! It’s easier today to tithe than ever.
Do you know how much easier it is to live today than in the past? If you make 30,000 dollars a year, you are in the top 1% of income earners in the world. You are trying to say it’s difficult to do this with a 6 figure salary?! Let’s say you have 30,000 dollars to buy food and stuff. If you think that’s not enough I reccomend remortgaging or getting cheaper residence. Ok, now take 10 K off. That’s 20,000 dollars. Divide by twelve. That’s over a thousand dollars a month for food and gas. That’s not a little, but plenty enough.

But let us not forget that no one said tithing is supposed to be easy or just for “extra” money left over.
Jesus told the poor woman who gave two coins that she gave more than all the others, for she needed those coins much more than the others who gave their extra money they didn’t need.

You fail to calculate housing. Financial experts say that you cannot be considered financially stable unless your housing costs are 33% or less of your income. If my husband and I tried to find a place that was 33% of our income, we’d be living in a studio slumlord apartment.

In many areas of the US, housing is astronomically inflated. Because we have chosen to live outside of town our housing costs are about 45% vs 60%. But then we must own and maintain cars.

And I’m talking about a salary that is above poverty level and any government helps, but not truly high enough for the expenses of the area.

 

[Kei]

I was using the calculation of the OP’s post which granted about $30,000 per year after everything was taken out.

Trust me, I know how much housing matters. We’re about to foreclose on our house because it was just so expensive we stopped paying. And we had to pay 2 mortgages because we were tying to sell this other house when we moved, but it never sold. Luckily it didn’t, now we moved back to that other house.

But let me give you some advice this financial adviser we got to see for free gave us:
You want to pay the least amount you can. This means, paying loans that last for the longest amount you can. He reccomended a mortgage that was like 1% of our annual income per month. That might be worded poorly, so to elaborate, it would be more like 12% of your annual income. This is possible through cheap housing and extending the paying period for everything as much as possible(Ps, we didn’t listen to his advice and it didn’t go well), even if this means the interest you pay increases. Instead, you get to save more and then can invest the extra money or save it so as to pay off the remaining amount you owe after enough years have passed. In the past, you wanted to pay off your house as soon as possible. This is not what you want to do nowadays.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I was using the calculation of the OP’s post which granted about $30,000 per year after everything was taken out.

Trust me, I know how much housing matters. We’re about to foreclose on our house because it was just so expensive we stopped paying. And we had to pay 2 mortgages because we were tying to sell this other house when we moved, but it never sold. Luckily it didn’t, now we moved back to that other house.

But let me give you some advice this financial adviser we got to see for free gave us:
You want to pay the least amount you can. This means, paying loans that last for the longest amount you can. He reccomended a mortgage that was like 1% of our annual income per month. That might be worded poorly, so to elaborate, it would be more like 12% of your annual income. This is possible through cheap housing and extending the paying period for everything as much as possible(Ps, we didn’t listen to his advice and it didn’t go well), even if this means the interest you pay increases. Instead, you get to save more and then can invest the extra money or save it so as to pay off the remaining amount you owe after enough years have passed. In the past, you wanted to pay off your house as soon as possible. This is not what you want to do nowadays.

That is nuts unless you have no interest rate loan. Even the rock-bottom mortgage APR is 4% or higher today. Interest rates on investments are even lower than that even with high-risk junk stocks you’re looking at maybe 5% and that’s high risk. You cannot invest money as fast as you are losing it owing money.

I would recommend getting a new advisor. He’s selling you a load of dung.

Also, there IS NO cheap housing in my area. NONE. Unless you want to rent from a slum lord.

 

[Seeksadvice]

Interesting, isn’t it? The number of people who would tell our hypothetical person how they should be living, and what housing choices they should make, etc. Some of the posters are the very same ones who take issue with “teetotaler’s” being overbearing and judgmental.

As far as top %1 of income earners in the world goes…that’s not even comparable. There are a lot of places in the world where people make a tiny amount of money, but they also don’t have high costs of living either. Eritrea, Somalia, Haiti, a good chunk of China, a good chunk of India, etc. aren’t exactly Manhattan in costs of living.

Xanthippe: Eeew, 5% return on investments? Who are you investing with? That’s just terrible. Also, junk bond funds, and “non-junk” bond funds are doing terribly (I have a couple of municipal bond funds that I’m going to be purging after waiting to see how the bond market was going to do under Trump). This year, so far, I am seeing returns of ~22%, 11%, and 15% (including the “dog” bond funds) on various accounts.

 

[Kei]

We don’t see him anymore…we bought a house very much out of our range.

But, the point is to pay as little as you can per month, stretching out the loan payments so that you have more money to spend per month, which to me makes sense.
Why do you live in a place that is so expensive? Is it for a job? Is it worth it if you can still barely afford anything? Is it family?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe: Eeew, 5% return on investments? Who are you investing with? That’s just terrible. Also, junk bond funds, and “non-junk” bond funds are doing terribly (I have a couple of municipal bond funds that I’m going to be purging after waiting to see how the bond market was going to do under Trump). This year, so far, I am seeing returns of ~22%, 11%, and 15% (including the “dog” bond funds) on various accounts.

Depends on what you’re investing in and for how long. If you’re also calculating inflation and whatnot. Long-term will net you more, but you’re going to need to take more than the life of a 10 or 15-year mortgage to do so. Investing when taking on debt just isn’t worth it.

We do get better returns, but they are on long-term investments and non-liquid assets. A house, in my area, is more or less a liquid asset.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

We don’t see him anymore…we bought a house very much out of our range.

But, the point is to pay as little as you can per month, stretching out the loan payments so that you have more money to spend per month, which to me makes sense.
Why do you live in a place that is so expensive? Is it for a job? Is it worth it if you can still barely afford anything? Is it family?

Buying a house out of your range is a big issue. My husband purchased a house that was about 60% of what he was approved for loan-wise.

Paying as little as you can make sense in a scenario where you’re overstretched but not in a normal, well-thought-out scenario.

I do not ever tell people on the internet where I live.

However, I have to say that we are relatively able to be mobile should something happen. Most people are not able to live in LCOL areas because there aren’t many jobs or there are jobs and cheap housing but the tax burden is inordinately high. Vibrant cities spur HCOL areas and something like 70% of Americans live in or within 1.5 hours of a major city. But look at NYC vs Buffalo. NY is the #1 state for tax burden at nearly 13% for state and local (including property) nevermind federal income tax. In NYC where wages and salaries are high, this carries a lot less meaning than in Buffalo where a salary is incredibly low. Still, nearly 20% of the states in the US carry a state and local tax burden that is near or above 10%—and again that’s BEFORE federal taxes.

So there’s a combination of factors which make for a HCOL area…and many places in the US that have work are simply HCOL…between housing costs and tax burdan.

 

[Kei]

Also, I noticed you are saying a 10 to 15 year mortgage. You would in my scenario NOT have a 10 or 15 year mortgage, but no less than a 30 year mortgage.
You also should be able to turn a 10% profit in investing.

But if really cannot afford to give money for Church or Charity, give your time. But I really think most people can afford to give a lot more money. It might involve eating less good food and what not, but it certainly is probably doable. But, time is more important than money anyway.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Also, I noticed you are saying a 10 to 15 year mortgage. You would in my scenario NOT have a 10 or 15 year mortgage, but no less than a 30 year mortgage.
You also should be able to turn a 10% profit in investing.

But if really cannot afford to give money for Church or Charity, give your time. But I really think most people can afford to give a lot more money. It might involve eating less good food and what not, but it certainly is probably doable. But, time is more important than money anyway.

My point is investing when you have debt is a very flawed proposition. A 30-year mortgage is necessary in some cases but due to compounding APR even at 4% you’re going to wind up paying nearly twice your initial investment.

And for the love of mike, stop trying to assert monetary value into things and “suggest” people do things differently.

Like this gem"

less good food.

Yeah, I feed my family on 20-40% of a food stamp budget…that’s around 40-50 cents per person per meal. There’s not too much further down to go unless I got food bank food that I didn’t pay for. Less money for food is NOT doable. Not unless I take from people who are needier than I am.

You’re simply being judgmental. Time isn’t something I have much to give, either. I have small children. If I am not caring for them, my husband is. I work part-time, he works full time. We are raising children. We are doing our best and giving our best.

The church does NOT require us to do the impossible. It does not say we must give what we don’t have—time or money. When we were younger and had less responsibility it was not uncommon for us to volunteer for hours–or even entire weekends. But at this point in our life, it’s very limited…like going to a nursing home with the children for a couple hours a month. Or maybe he fixes the computer of an NPO or I give away some freelance writing work. I am the emergency contact for quite a few friends with children in school…so while it’s rare simply being available on the drop of a hat is voulenteering of sorts.

We should have a giving spirit…but we should also be generous and never, ever criticize or poor 'splain on how others make their lives work. Right now it’s all we can do to stay afloat and not be “takers”…ie on the receiving end of charity. I’m pretty sure that pleases God a great deal.

 

[Kei]

That’s why I said “most people”, so as to avoid covering every single person.

You don’t have to do what you can’t. Perhaps if you have any savings give 10% of the savings or so? So, say one month you have $5 left. 10% of that is 50 cents. There are 1.2 billion or so people in the Church (or so they say). Imagine if 50 cents more was given by everyone every month. That’s a lot of money! Or even 1 cent would be nothing to scoff at.

In the past, it would not be a good idea to invest while still having to be “in debt”. Not nowadays, was his point.

I also think we can get much more time out of our time than we think. For instance, every Sunday we can go to Mass. In fact, we aren’t supposed to work on Sundays unless it is a job that is necessary on all days like a doctor.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

’t. Perhaps if you have any savings give 10% of the savings or so? So, say one month you have $5 left. 10% of that is 50 cents. There are 1.2 billion or so people in the Church (or so they say). Imagine if 50 cents more was given by everyone every month. That’s a lot of money! Or even 1 cent would be nothing to scoff at.

In the past, it would not be a good idea to invest while still having to be “in debt”. Not nowadays, was his point.

I also think we can get much more time out of our time than we think. For instance, every Sunday we can go to Mass. In fact, we aren’t supposed to work

Going to Mass is a given…and “working” is not something avoidable with small children. They produce messes, laundry and a myriad of other things regardless of the day of the week.

But I think that there are many people in my same situation—if not most.

We give a set dollar amount because we budget ahead. If we “save” money–by using less electricity or the like that goes into a “rainy day” fund. And it’s almost always used. within a couple of months. This, again, prevents us from needing to rely upon charity. Sometimes it is something to make our life easier–like a rubbish bin with a tight lid so that the toddler doesn’t get into the trash.

I HATE the “if everyone gave X” scenarios. One, among many, reasons I left my old parish. The pastor has NO idea (and no outsider does) of your finances and what we can and can’t give. Or how we do or don’t choose to spend what extra we do have. We often choose to use our extra money in a giving way–I’m an excellent cook so I invite over friends who have less. This doesn’t mean less money–but it could be someone who is single and lonely or a priest or someone with less time. But it’s still my choice in my conversation and relationship with God.

Trying to say that I would need to give a penny more is just petty.

 

[Kei]

Of course, taking care of children is a necessary thing and is allotted. However, more doubtful would be freelance work or such.

I feel like you keep taking what I am saying as personal when it is just to give an idea as to what can happen.
I’m not saying you need to give a penny more, I’m just giving an idea of what would happen if everyone considered Catholic gave just a little bit to charity/Church.

It would be a lot of money to do a lot of good.

 

[Seeksadvice]

With credit card stuff, of which I’m guilty of having some hanging around, you’re really hard pressed to get better returns than the interest they charge.

Here’s the thing about investment/debt: I have sub 4% APR on my mortgage. I have a choice: do I pay an extra $18,000.00 per year toward the mortgage (and get taxed on the $18,000), or do I take $18,000.00 in deferred compensation and invest it in funds that historically return 15-20%APR (and get tax benefits due to the deferred compensation)? Assuming that things don’t go completely to hell in a handbasket, at the end of the day, by taking the deferred compensation, I’m well ahead of where I’d be putting that money toward the mortgage.

In and of itself, debt isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Stupid debt, like high credit card balances, are bad. However, things like mortgage interest and even student loan interest isn’t that bad compared to what you can make through investing. At the current rate of return, I’m expecting to double my investment every 7-8 years. If we keep numbers simple, and start with $10,000, that’s: $20,000 in 8 years; $40,000 in 16 years; $80,000 in 24 years; and probably ~$130-140,000 in 30 years. If you make that $10,000.00 every year, it starts adding up fast.

I’ll gladly take that over paying “double” at the end of thirty years on my mortgage, I’ll gladly take that over paying even “triple” at the end of thirty years on my mortgage.

 

[DarkLight]

And of course there’s those of us on the other end. 30k a year isn’t exactly comfortable in many areas, and it’s often made worse by the lack of decent benefits at low-end jobs.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

With credit card stuff, of which I’m guilty of having some hanging around, you’re really hard pressed to get better returns than the interest they charge.

Here’s the thing about investment/debt: I have sub 4% APR on my mortgage. I have a choice: do I pay an extra $18,000.00 per year toward the mortgage (and get taxed on the $18,000), or do I take $18,000.00 in deferred compensation and invest it in funds that historically return 15-20%APR (and get tax benefits due to the deferred compensation)? Assuming that things don’t go completely to hell in a handbasket, at the end of the day, by taking the deferred compensation, I’m well ahead of where I’d be putting that money toward the mortgage.

In and of itself, debt isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Stupid debt, like high credit card balances, are bad. However, things like mortgage interest and even student loan interest isn’t that bad compared to what you can make through investing. At the current rate of return, I’m expecting to double my investment every 7-8 years. If we keep numbers simple, and start with $10,000, that’s: $20,000 in 8 years; $40,000 in 16 years; $80,000 in 24 years; and probably ~$130-140,000 in 30 years. If you make that $10,000.00 every year, it starts adding up fast.

I’ll gladly take that over paying “double” at the end of thirty years on my mortgage, I’ll gladly take that over paying even “triple” at the end of thirty years on my mortgage.

Thing is with a house you at least have a house—with an investment you have a promise of money…and no guarantee of protecting the principle. Buying a house that is undervalued in a HCOL area means that you won’t loose that principle no matter what. You’re also looking at reducing your living expenses and overal COL so that’s a big deal.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you make 30,000 dollars a year, you are in the top 1% of income earners in the world.

If you are making that in US and trying to support a family on it, you’re borderline poor.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

My advice: don’t discuss your giving with other people and do for the Church and charity what you feel you can.

Money is such an emotional issue for everybody. If you’re managing to pay your bills, save for retirement, and find a spouse who’s on the same page with you fiscally, you’re ahead of 80 percent of the world.

To throw in my 2 cents on tithing: 10% “off the top” pre-tax made more sense in a world where people were not paying a significant income tax and other taxes to provide benefits to the poor and other social benefits to the community. The tithe was similar to a form of income tax funding the social benefits. I realize you can get income tax deductions for church and charity giving, and I do, but they are not a 1 for 1 exchange.

 

[Seeksadvice]

Who is to say that you are guaranteed to get that principle back with a house, or that you’re even going to have a house forever and ever? Fires and other natural disasters happen. Human made disasters happen too. If the economy truly goes to hell in a handbasket, you think that the housing market isn’t going to collapse too? Houses, like everything else, are worth exactly whatever somebody is willing, and able, to pay for them. Former Pres. O’Bama’s vacation mansion is on the market for ~$17M (that’s some significant “change” for him, that I bet he’s “hoping” to get). But, if nobody’s willing to pay that, it’s not worth $17M.

Also, what’s a “high-end” neighborhood now, may not be so high-end in the future. Urban blight works wonders for killing property values. The ever outwardly expanding circle of blight starts consuming once desirable neighborhoods and turns them into ghetto hell. You too can buy a “house” in parts of Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; etc. for ~$5,000.00. But, you’re going to get a place that’s been looted for copper wire, been used to smoke meth and who knows what, been used by who knows how many whores, and has been vandalized just " 'cause". At one point, these were nice homes, and now they are nothing. Then you have the drug dealer on the corner next to the house, along with the whore, and various other unsavory people.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

are guaranteed to get that principle back with a house, or that you’re even going to have a house forever and ever? Fires and other natural disasters happen. Human made disasters happen too. If the economy truly goes to hell in a handbasket, you think that the housing market isn’t going to collapse too? Houses, like everything else, are worth exactly whatever somebody is willing, and able, to pay for them. Former Pres. O’Bama’s vacation mansion is on the market for ~$17M (that’s some significant “change” for him, that I bet he’s “hoping” to get). But, if nobody’s willing to pay that, it’s not worth $17M.

Also, what’s a “high-end” neighborhood now, may not be so high-end in the future. Urban blight works wonders for killing property values. The ever outwardly expanding circle of blight starts consuming once desirable neighborhoods and turns them into ghetto hell. You too can buy a “house” in parts of Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; etc. for ~$5,000.00. But, you’re going to get a place that’s been looted for copper wire, been used to smoke meth and who knows what, been u

Property values do decrease…but hopefully for the disasters you have insurance.

There’s no urban where I live, so there’s no urban blight.

My point is a house is an asset that also serves a place of living. Part of your costs of living are directly tied into your residence. If one can put oneself into a position where you own your home outright-no mortgage, you’re going to have more flexibility with your money than having to pay a mortgage but investing.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Why are material goods more important to you than spiritual goods?