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.
- 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.
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 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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
