U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-05-2013, 01:32 PM
bUU bUU started this thread
 
Location: Georgia
11,908 posts, read 8,622,386 times
Reputation: 8374

Advertisements

Interesting article in this month's Atlantic Magazine:

Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity - Ken Stern - The Atlantic

Noted as notable in another forum:
Quote:
- Those in the US in the top 20% income bracket give, "on average", 1.3% of their income to charity. Those in the bottom 20% give 3.2%. This is despite the lack of tax advantage for the lower income people, most of whom do not itemize on their tax returns.

- The rich tend to give to institutions that largely serve the privileged and educated, and often reward the donor with high profile name on something-or-other, whereas the poorer givers tend to give to social causes and the needy. The discrepancy is so great that, of the 50 largest donations to public charities in 2012, 34 went to educational institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, prep schools, that "cater to the nation's elite". Nine went to museums and art organizations (like the Metropolitan Museum of Art). The rest were "spread among medical facilities and fashionable charities like the Central Park Conservancy". "NOT A SINGLE ONE (my caps) went to a social-service organization or to a charity that principally serves the poor and the dispossessed".
I think it is rather difficult to assess the worthiness of charitable expenditures given the crude data that we have available. By this I mean that the implication, in the article, that donations to religious organizations (the target of a large portion of the donations by the poor) necessarily "serves society" nor "principally serves the poor and the dispossessed", when the reality is that a significant amount of the donations to religious organizations go toward their own churchly operations, such as the rituals of the religion, religious education/indoctrination, or non-charitable social aims. While every donation is subject to overhead, donations to religious institutions, specifically, are exempt from the kind of scrutiny that would preclude a social services agency (for example) from using funds for principally social purposes.

It would be very interesting to see real data about just what percentage of income the rich versus the poor donate to actually help other people, to directly relieve someone else's suffering, foster their ability to provide for their family better, or otherwise raise them up in a substantive way.

 
Old 04-05-2013, 01:37 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,300 posts, read 7,933,160 times
Reputation: 6464
Just more class warfare.

America’s top 50 donors gave away a total of $10.4 billion in 2011, more than three times as much as the $3.3 billion they donated the previous year, according to a Chronicle of Philanthropy study.

While 47 of Americas 50 most charitable people are men, the late Margaret A. Cargill, an agribusiness heiress, heads the list, with a $6 billion bequest to two foundations: The Anne Ray Charitable Trust and Margaret A. Cargill Foundation. Cargill established these two foundations to support the arts, the environment, disaster relief, and other causes. Cargill died in 2006, but according to The Chronicle, the foundations weren’t able to liquidate her assets until last year.

The Most Generous People in America - Forbes
 
Old 04-05-2013, 01:44 PM
bUU bUU started this thread
 
Location: Georgia
11,908 posts, read 8,622,386 times
Reputation: 8374
The point of the article is percentages. It's easy to give large amounts of money when you have large amounts of money, and indeed less of a burden to given large percentages of money when you have large amounts of money, because you're that much further from the razor's edge. There is indeed an element of class warfare when the rich give so much less by percentage than the poor, and consider "giving" sponsoring their entertainments and passions rather than helping others.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 01:51 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,300 posts, read 7,933,160 times
Reputation: 6464
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
The point of the article is percentages. It's easy to give large amounts of money when you have large amounts of money, and indeed less of a burden to given large percentages of money when you have large amounts of money, because you're that much further from the razor's edge. There is indeed an element of class warfare when the rich give so much less by percentage than the poor, and consider "giving" sponsoring their entertainments and passions rather than helping others.
So they give large amounts of money through taxs, and then even more money through donations and it still isn't enough.
Don't forget about corporate donations as well, this is money that would either be profit or money that would be reinvested into the business.

Total corporate cash donations in 2010 are estimated to be $15.29 billion. Of that, ~80%-85% came from corporate grants and sponsorship of fundraising events while ~15%-20% or $2-$3 billion came from corporate matching gifts and volunteer grants.
Corporate donations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 04-05-2013, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Bangor Maine
3,442 posts, read 5,595,658 times
Reputation: 3980
I have noticed here in my own community that the recent large donors to Medical Center, University and new huge arena gave large gifts but the recipients are obliged to name the buildings after the donor. One exception are the very large donations Stephen and Tabitha King give. It is just incredible what they give and many times no one knows it was them that gave it. Large amounts to public library, a gorgeous lighted ball field with inground watering system and huge bleachers, a beautiful public pool which is now maintained by the city. The list goes on and on. There are some very rich who give anonamously.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:03 PM
bUU bUU started this thread
 
Location: Georgia
11,908 posts, read 8,622,386 times
Reputation: 8374
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
So they give large amounts of money through taxs, and then even more money through donations and it still isn't enough.
"Enough"? Why take such a narrow perspective on the objective of charity? This isn't petty contest - rich people taking their measuring sticks out and measuring how large their charitable donations inflate their ego. The article is talking about the difference between nice-to-have's and must-have's. Be honest: If you read about someone on welfare using their public assistance to buy an MP3 player instead of respectable clothing for the workplace, wouldn't you be upset? Isn't there a qualitative difference between an MP3 player and respectable clothing for the workplace?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Don't forget about corporate donations as well, this is money that would either be profit or money that would be reinvested into the business.
Corporate donations are as much donations by customers as by the owners of the company, since they're often used to enhance goodwill. Regardless, it would be interesting to get a qualitative review of what corporate donations go toward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Total corporate cash donations in 2010 are estimated to be $15.29 billion.
If we consider the GDP the totality of the wealth created, then that's 1/10th of 1%. Since corporations don't create all the wealth, let's just call it "something less than 1%" charitable giving on the part of corporations, unless you can come up with hard numbers showing precisely how much GDP is attributable to corporate wealth.

So: That number you seemed to proudly post seems pretty stingy to me.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:05 PM
 
996 posts, read 1,386,775 times
Reputation: 1136
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Just more class warfare.

America’s top 50 donors gave away a total of $10.4 billion in 2011, more than three times as much as the $3.3 billion they donated the previous year, according to a Chronicle of Philanthropy study.

While 47 of Americas 50 most charitable people are men, the late Margaret A. Cargill, an agribusiness heiress, heads the list, with a $6 billion bequest to two foundations: The Anne Ray Charitable Trust and Margaret A. Cargill Foundation. Cargill established these two foundations to support the arts, the environment, disaster relief, and other causes. Cargill died in 2006, but according to The Chronicle, the foundations weren’t able to liquidate her assets until last year.

The Most Generous People in America - Forbes

How much of that went to churches? Churches aren't charities.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:06 PM
 
996 posts, read 1,386,775 times
Reputation: 1136
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
So they give large amounts of money through taxs, and then even more money through donations and it still isn't enough.
How is a tax giving anything? As it is, the rich pay far less in taxes as a percentage of their income than the considerably less wealthy do.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,098 posts, read 4,298,052 times
Reputation: 4204
The wealthy buy buildings for schools and fund the arts that the rest of the unwashed masses attend. The next time you get a nice park in your town, thank a rich person for donating the land and the money to create it.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:19 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,300 posts, read 7,933,160 times
Reputation: 6464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
The wealthy buy buildings for schools and fund the arts that the rest of the unwashed masses attend. The next time you get a nice park in your town, thank a rich person for donating the land and the money to create it.
That's not enough, they should give their house as well. How much money do they really need anyway? Cap wealth at 100k.
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
― Karl Marx
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top