Utah and Massachusetts are basically the steel-man versions of their respective ideologies. But Utah doesn’t have the benefit of Harvard and MIT, major Pharma companies, etc. It’s surrounded by desert and has no natural resources to speak of.
A lot of that is due to the Mormons. While they tend to vote Republican, they are some of the biggest socialists out there. They believe in giving 10% of their income to the church (and enforce it!).
Then they redistribute to their poorest members in the form of free private education at all pre-college levels and highly subsidized college as well. And with food banks, free or subsidized medical services, and whole bunch of other things the government doesn't provide.
They've essentially traded one government for another, but theirs requires belief in their religion and only applies to their believers (who happen to concentrate in Utah).
That’s the steel-man version of (american) conservatism: civic institutions provide the safety net instead of the government.
And in terms of aggregate outcomes, Utah’s results are impressive. The LDS apparently does a better job teaching kids to read than the government here in Maryland.
Utah has less money to start with, though. It doesn’t have big industries or things like that. Median income is $40,000 versus about $50,000 in Maryland and Massachusetts.
Yeah, but extremely regressive views on equality and women's rights come along with it....
You can get a lot done when you establish regressive control structures for enforcement. Generally speaking, most people usually don't want that trade-off.
> and only applies to their believers (who happen to concentrate in Utah)
Worth noting here that the church additionally spends north of $1 billion annually on humanitarian aid across the globe [1] (separate from the redistributions to the poor mentioned by OP). Aid is provided independent of religious affiliation.
Al Capone ran soup kitchens. He seemed like a good dude. What percentage of their global wealth is $1 billion? I wish I knew but for some reason they keep that a secret. And don't leave or they'll expect your family to cut you off.
*: searches suggest the wealth of the church to be around $265 billion. So their members give 10% annually to the church and the church gives less than 0.5% of their total wealth to the poor (but mostly to other Mormons or prospective converts). If you're wondering why they keep this massive horde of wealth, it's because they think it'll be needed for the apocalypse. Yes, it's for the apocalypse.
> [The Mormons] believe in giving 10% of their income
Is that income before tax or after tax?
"After tax" seems like it should be obvious, but then wouldn't that require tax specialists to decide how to deal with tax exceptions (retirement taxation incentives, donations, etcetera).
If the 10% donation is tax deductible, doesn't that require some mathematics to work out the 10%?
Irrelevant aside: I think the efficient altruist 10% is "We're often asked how exactly to calculate income — should it be pre-tax or post-tax? Generally, we recommend choosing the option that makes most sense to you, though we think it makes sense to choose pre-tax if your donations are tax-deductible (for example, GiftAid counts towards your Pledge!) and post-tax if they're not.". https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge
It’s up to personal interpretation. Some do before tax, some do after. Some only pay tithing on their regular income (i.e. from a normal job) but not on “already tithed” income (e.g. birthday money from parents), while others do it differently.
The church’s stance is that they say you should pay 10% tithing on your income. They don’t define income. And all they do is ask “do you pay a full tithe?” And it’s up to you to decide if you do or not based on how you view what “income” means.
There are endless debates about gross vs net and as with many things in the CoJCoLDS it is left up to the members to decide/define and to self-certify their compliance. Welfare programs are financed via a separate donation program via a monthly fast where the skipped meals expenses are donated to the program.
I'm not Mormon, so I don't know for sure, but what I hear from people are or were Mormon, the enforcement is a combination of social pressure and the Church demanding you provide them with a copy of your taxes to remain a member. I assume it's pretty loose from there.
I can't speak to how enforcement was in the past (I haven't researched it enough to say), but the way it currently stands is there is a yearly "tithing settlement". No tax documents are requested, all that our church has is the amount I donate. The bishop asks if I'm a full tithe payer, and accepts my answer.
Social pressure perhaps? But at least where I've been it's appeal to morality as taught in our canon.
Membership is not rescinded for not paying tithing, but a temple recommend requires being a full tithe payer (as reported by me).
No. I've been a member all my life in several U.S. states and internationally, and I've also been a volunteer finance clerk at church for many years. I've never been asked for tax forms, or even heard of anyone being asked for tax forms. It's not a thing.
Also, there's no prescriptive guidance on pre-tax vs. post-tax, or how to handle many edge cases, such as capital gains, tax deductions, etc. The church's stance is that it's between you and God to figure out how to apply the "pay 10%" guidance.
“...the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.”
The quote you provide is grossly misleading, as that isn’t what tithing meant in the early days of the church. The church just says “which is understood to mean income” so causally that it’s essentially a lie. They say that to get more money. They hold peoples salvation at gun point to make sure it gets paid. And then they use their wealth and influence to drive state policy. It’s all very gross.
Not quite following your point? What about that is a lie?
At the beginning of The Church of Jesus Christ, saints were asked to consecrate all that they had to the bishop. Legally they signed away all rights to their property and the bishop leased it back to them.
They found that that wasn't sustainable (due to debts and disputes) and switched to 10% of interest (see Section 119 in D&C, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-test...). While tithing was paid in the past with animals, food, etc, that just doesn't scale beyond local communities.
Yes, our church does use funds for advocacy, but it's hard to ascribe pure malice to a church that spends $1 billion annually on humanitarian aid every year, and is expanding affordable education to tens of thousands of people in developing countries.
Not all of us agree with how much money is being held in reserve, but it's important to understand that we don't have a testimony in the church because of what we get from it, or even agree with all policies, but rather because of a personal witness of its truth. It is true that some stay in our church because of social pressure, and I'm not going to defend that practice. But, that's not what our core doctrine teaches.
I understand that it's easy to think that we are all a homogenous group that all thinks the same, but peek under the surface and you'll find many of us who find the core doctrine so compelling that we are willing to stick with the church and to enact change in constructive instead of destructive ways.
Bing says as of 2023, the church's net worth is estimated to be around $265 billion which would be income of $16 billion (assuming a conservative 6% annual ROI). I'm unsure how correct those numbers are since the article says (US$15.7b land and US$100b investment fund).
The Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing. Even if humanistic aid were $1 billion - it is a relatively poor percentage.
Let's consider healthcare to be humanitarian aid (yeah, obviously not external). Governments spend 30% of taxes on healthcare, and people pay 30% in taxes so we might estimate that people are paying appromx 10% on humanitarian aid via their government. Although perhaps that is just a form of insurance you've paid in and you get paid out. I'm unsure of the statistics but my guess is that most people pay a lot in and get a little out due to skewed distribution of sickness costs. With health insurance the best deal is to never get sick and never claim (and your premiums help the poor bastards that do get sick - the best outcome a society could hope for). Note that health insurance in New Zealand is wildly different from the US model.
I've had a little experience watching how the Mormon church acts in Samoa which is definitely not a wealthy country. I would be interested to know how much of that humanitarian aid was paid for by countries that needed the humanitarian aid? The equivalent to paying in and getting paid out (with the church claiming doing good with the paying out, but not talking about what it keeps).
I'm a little cynical that there's some dissimulation by the LDS church - they are not well known for frank openness.
Hi! Yes, I believe that is correct for 2015. It's been fairly recent that the amount spent has ramped up a lot[1].
A lot of money also goes towards subsidizing education (All the BYUs, including the online classes that are targeted towards developing countries), building churches and temples, supporting local congregation budgets, and supporting church members who are financially insecure (I'm not sure if they counted that last part in the 2024 summary though).
> I've had a little experience watching how the Mormon church acts in Samoa which is definitely not a wealthy country.
> I'm a little cynical that there's some dissimulation by the LDS church - they are not well known for frank openness.
Yeah, it would be nice if they were more transparent here. I understand the legal reasoning--essentially security by obscurity--but it's frustrating to only get peeks and glimpses. I don't blame you for some healthy cynicism.
Not that I know of? I double-checked the handbook and there's nothing in there that mentions requesting tax forms, so it's certainly not official policy and if it did happen it should be reported. (We're very bureaucratic, lol)
The only tax form I can think of is a form they send me so I can deduct it from taxes (as it's legally a tax-deductible donation).
EDIT: Section 34.4, 34.5.2, and 34.5.6 are applicable.
34.4:
> Confidentiality of Tithing and Other Offerings
> The amount of tithing and other offerings paid by a donor is confidential. Only the bishop and those who are authorized to handle or view these contributions should have access to this information. Stake presidencies, bishoprics, and clerks should never inappropriately discuss a member’s tithing status. Nor should they discuss the total amount of tithing or other offerings received.
34.5.2:
> Receiving Tithing and Other Offerings
> The Lord has given bishops the sacred trust of receiving and accounting for the tithes and other offerings of the Saints (see Doctrine and Covenants 42:30–33; 119). Only the bishop and his counselors may receive tithes and other offerings. Under no circumstances should their wives, other members of their families, clerks, or other ward members receive these contributions. The only exception is when Aaronic Priesthood holders are assigned to collect fast offerings (see 34.3.2).
> Church leaders and members should not leave donations unattended.
34.5.6:
> Donation Statements
> Donor Statements of Contributions are available to all members at donations.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. Leaders should encourage members to regularly review their donor statements. Where applicable, official tax statements are also available at donations.ChurchofJesusChrist.org, from the local unit, or from the area office.
Calling Mormons socialist is inaccurate. Socialism is government-forced redistribution of wealth. A large majority of Mormons, at least in Utah, are very much opposed to that. You are correct that a large majority of Mormons voluntarily share their wealth with the poor and needy.
You are incorrect saying that you have to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the actual name of the "Mormon church") to receive these benefits. In some cases there will be conditions, like if you want to attend one of the church universities you will need to promise to abstain from alcohol (one example), but becoming a baptized member of the church is not required
I would say it's very accurate. They are forced to share their wealth to get into the Kingdom of God. The only choice they have is to not go to heaven. I'd say that's being forced, just by a different power.
> but becoming a baptized member of the church is not required
You don't get the BYU discount unless you're baptized.
That's pretty different than getting arrested and thrown in jail by government thugs for not paying up, whether you believe in the cause or not, but ok?
Even the non-member BYU tuition is subsidized and a much lower price than other comparable colleges. But really, BYU is not the best example of Mormon charity, it can only accommodate a limited number of students.
I think you are missing the key element, that socialism isnt just a structure or institution, but a government policy and applied to all people within a society.
It is neither optional or excludable.
This is why the monopoly man choosing to share caviar with his family or paying dues to a yacht club does not make them a socialist. The monopoly man retains full agency over who they share with.
It also has among the happiest citizens: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/09/09/utah-mental-health-h...
It has the highest economic mobility in the country: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2023/12/22/utah-top...
Despite being filled with guns, it’s got a homicide rate only a little higher than Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
And it’s ranked in the top 10 states for life expectancy: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2022/08/24/utah-t...
Utah and Massachusetts are basically the steel-man versions of their respective ideologies. But Utah doesn’t have the benefit of Harvard and MIT, major Pharma companies, etc. It’s surrounded by desert and has no natural resources to speak of.