San Antonio Stingiest City in the Country

[101A]

I never said the benefit was purely and immediately financial. It might be a social benefit or a financial benefit that is realized somewhere down the road (e.g., the "corporate citizen" creating a good image to advertise to clients).

Well, from a utilitarian perspective, that's fine, isn't it?

[Mr. Peabody]

Well, from a utilitarian perspective, that's fine, isn't it?

It's fine by me, but as I stated, it's a problem if you are supposed to be acting out of love for your fellow man (or whatever reason the church uses to convince people to give up 10% of their incomes). Admittedly, I am not a Christian, but I think Christianity is all about the intent.

[tlongII]

I got an explanation from him and I can understand what he's saying... maybe if people would stop bashing and listen there'd be an interesting discussion going on.

EDIT: Extra Stout, I don't mean you were bashing.

Maybe you could explain it for him then? I'd rather look at your avatar anyway.

[101A]

It's fine by me, but as I stated, it's a problem if you are supposed to be acting out of love for your fellow man (or whatever reason the church uses to convince people to give up 10% of their incomes). Admittedly, I am not a Christian, but I think Christianity is all about the intent.

You're gonna get Phenomanu in here, and this thread is going to go 17 pages with questions like that.

Intent is important, yes.

[LuvBones]

Maybe you could explain it for him then? I'd rather look at your avatar anyway.

Yeah I was trying to get him to explain it in here but oh well... I think he just started off saying the wrong thing with "it's a slap in God's face".

[Mr. Peabody]

You're gonna get Phenomanu in here, and this thread is going to go 17 pages with questions like that.

I won't say anything else on the subject. I don't want to tangle with him on religious issues.

[Spurminator]

Probably not many people out there give their entire refund to their church. The point is that by refusing to claim a tax credit for your giving on moral grounds, you reduce your giving potential with your church. Now, if you feel those dollars will be better used by the US Government, that's one thing, but objecting on strictly moral grounds is flawed considering you are not obligated to keep your refund.

[Extra Stout]

I actually somewhat understand what VLE is saying. There is no doubt that many people he, volunteer, or give charity for reasons other than pure altruism. It certainly doesn't change the effect of the act, but if you are acting to fulfill some religious or spiritual doctrine, the intent should be there as well.

I have read the argument that you should claim the donation and give the money saved to the church, thereby increasing the donation. How many people actually do this? I am sure that it's not many.

It kind of reminds me of these large companies that do charity work and then, list all of their charity work on their website or include information about their "community citizenship" in their brochures. Did they really act out of a sense of charity or out of an obligation to appear charitable?

I don't really understand how ulterior motives play into this particular scenario. No doubt there are people who give in order to have means to exert control over other people. There are people who volunteer for appearances. Und so weiter.

I don't see how there is an ulterior motive in deciding not to pay Uncle Sam more than what he says I owe him.

Jesus' very words about paying taxes were, "Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's, and give to God what it God's." They are separate. Now, in this country, we have a law that says I don't owe taxes to Caesar on the income I give to God. Well, thanks, Caesar. I don't see how this is a slap in the face to God.

The key principle here is to understand giving in terms of what one gives, not how much one has left over.

There is a principle of hing, based upon the story of Jacob. The New Testament doesn't really have a hard and fast rule, but the general idea is that 10% would be a meager amount to give. Zacchaeus gave like 50%. Paul exhorted the churches to give everything they possibly could to support the less fortunate.

But people tend to be exceedingly stingy if the giving is left up to them, so the tradition is to follow what the Jews did and give the he, since anything below that probably goes against the spirit of the New Testament.

Any giving greater than 10% is considered an "offering." Thus, you might hear the term " hes and offerings." An offering can be a donation to any charity, not just the church.

Now, there is some discussion about whether people should he on their gross income or their net income. I don't know; let the person decide for himself. If a person meets the he on their gross income, then they have fulfilled their obligation already, no matter how much or how little a tax refund they get. Any giving from that refund would be considered an "offering."

If a person chooses to he on their net income, then a tax refund would cons ute part of that net income, and in order to be faithful to their commitment, they should pay 10% of that refund.

If a person really doesn't need the refund money, it is stil more fruitful to collect the refund and give that as an offering to whatever charity or charities the person likes, than to let Robert Byrd use it to fund research at the University of West Virginia on squirrel mating habits.

[MannyIsGod]

Does Viva work for Verizon? There's a difference between dollars and cents?