The answer to the yes/no question is “wrong” but the worthiness and character of the member is right. The wrong answer leads to a discussion in which right principles are taught and the best possible behaviour in that situation is accepted.

This makes great sense to me.

Also:

I’ve seen it put that in agricultural communities, “increase” was what was left after running the farm and living for the end of the year. This arguably means it did not include the cost of living, but possibly did include some luxuries.

I’ve also come across the idea that income is not traditionally the same as wages, but generally unearned and the result of investments or property rents.

Members don’t pay tithing on fast-offering support they receive and so one wonders if they are obligated to pay tithing on similar social security support.

So it is NOT clear cut.

I’ve known members who give a reason for feeling that they do not need to pay tithing on social security payments (which are often calculated to be the minimum needed to survive) and the bishop has not disputed this.

I’ve also known members who do pay tithing on social security payments, and the bishop has not disputed that.

As Gramps says; do you have a clear conscience because you are doing your best to do what you think is right? (This is different to you trying to cover all the combined various demands of multiple other people (including me) who have no business in your affairs).