E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe American wealthy are hands down the most philanthropic in the world. Americans dominate global giving lists and surveys consistently show that the U.S. rich are far more likely to make philanthropy a priority.
But some say they could give more. One recent study found that a large share of people making $200,000 or more give only 2.8 percent of their income to charity. Other studies show that multi-millionaires donate only about one percent of their wealth to charity (though billionaires tend to give a higher percentage).
Read more: Stars of 'Nerd Philanthropy' Dominate Top Giver List
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates launched their Giving Pledge in large part to persuade the super-rich and the non-super-rich alike to give more to charity. As Buffett told me in 2011, "The hope is that our larger population ends up giving a larger proportion of their income to fund philanthropy."
So why don't the rich give more?
A new study of multi-millionaires offers some answers. The study, by SEI Private Wealth Management, found that 82 percent of wealthy families believe that having more money means you have a greater obligation to be philanthropic.
But the respondents (worth $10 million or more) listed three main reasons for not giving more. First, nearly half said they needed more confidence "that the level of their wealth would continue to support their lifestyle and their family." Second, they said they would give more if the markets improved.
Finally, a third of those polled said they needed to "find something they could be more passionate about."
Read more: Did 2013 Tax Hikes Slow 2012 Charitable Giving?
The first two reasons aren't all that surprising. If they had more money, the wealthy would give more of it away.
But the third reason is worth noting. While more money helps, it's also important to be motivated by a cause. And if you care enough about a particular problem, you'll be more inclined to sacrifice some of life's comforts to solve it.
Money, in other words, isn't the only driver of philanthropy. It's about the heart as much as the wallet.
Leave a Comment:
The is little you can say to the fellow worth 10 million that says they would give more if they had more money. They are delusional. They could double their net worth and still not give ANYTHING.
It's the rich psychopaths that are at the root of all evil. They want it all !
They could double their net worth and still not give ANYTHING.
...what percentage of YOUR income do you give to charity?
Bud....Admit it. You want it all, too. You don't have the talent and drive that it takes.
Mark - I dont know the exact percentage, but my giving comes in a variety of forms - I donate to food banks, to charities for diseases (MS Society, Cancer Society) and when tragedies happen, like the Japan Tsunami and Haiti.
I donate every year to goodwill, and I never claim any of it on my taxes...and I can guarantee, I donate enough to claim (I just dont see the point, it's charity...right?).
When I see local requests for donations - like at gas stations, I always drop my change in there.
During the holidays, when nearly every fast food place - and some retailers, are asking you to round up, or donate a buck or two, I almost always do.
If I kept track, I would bet it's probably somewhere in the 2-3% of my income.
But you have to understand, the less you make...the more that hurts. I am living paycheck to paycheck in many ways, as im working on getting out debt and getting my mortgage paid off long before my 30 year mortgage is due.
I dont REALLY have much extra to give, and yet I do.
I can unequivocally tell you that if I earned 1 million dollars a year...I would absolutely set aside 10-15% to donate...
and I cant see how hard it would be to find something "im passionate" about...
look around you, there's a million things to be passionate about...
They left off the 4th reason. They are Democrat Senators and Congressmen. They believe philanthropy is the Government's job. They either inherited or married into their money.
Mark - I dont know the exact percentage, but my giving comes in a variety of forms - I donate to food banks, to charities for diseases (MS Society, Cancer Society) and when tragedies happen, like the Japan Tsunami and Haiti.
I donate every year to goodwill, and I never claim any of it on my taxes...and I can guarantee, I donate enough to claim (I just dont see the point, it's charity...right?).
When I see local requests for donations - like at gas stations, I always drop my change in there.
During the holidays, when nearly every fast food place - and some retailers, are asking you to round up, or donate a buck or two, I almost always do.
If I kept track, I would bet it's probably somewhere in the 2-3% of my income.
But you have to understand, the less you make...the more that hurts. I am living paycheck to paycheck in many ways, as im working on getting out debt and getting my mortgage paid off long before my 30 year mortgage is due.
I dont REALLY have much extra to give, and yet I do.
I can unequivocally tell you that if I earned 1 million dollars a year...I would absolutely set aside 10-15% to donate...
and I cant see how hard it would be to find something "im passionate" about...
look around you, there's a million things to be passionate about...
@Jessica:
All your donations laudable, but what's your point?
My wife's cousin works at Goodwill. She sees folks in BMWs and Mercedes come in and drop off clothes by the trunkful. I've seen some steep donations for local soup kitchens by wealthier members of my congretation, too. This is not to belittle what you do, but my point is this: you give what you feel is right. Why should others be held to a different standard?
Do you not itemize your taxes, or just don't claim Goodwill on your taxes? Not itemizing is a major reason why people pay taxes that don't have to. Leaving it off your taxes isn't helping anyone except the government: you're paying more in taxes by choice. I assure you that few other people do that, including Warret Buffet.
But you have to understand, the less you make...the more that hurts. If I kept track, I would bet it's probably somewhere in the 2-3% of my income.
Of course it does! But let me ask you this: you are better off than 80% of the world. Why can't you give 6%? Because you're not rich? See, there it is again: what you give is what you WANT to give. :-)
Article: "The first two reasons aren't all that surprising. If they had more money, the wealthy would give more of it away." Not necessarily. What would likely happen is that they would spend the money in order to further improve their already lavish lifestyle. Not a fault, mind you; rather, human nature.
@Mark (#1.6): "I can unequivocally tell you that if I earned 1 million dollars a year...I would absolutely set aside 10-15% to donate..." I venture to say that if you're currently setting aside 2-3 percent of your income for charitable donations, you would do exactly the same regardless how much money you made. In accordance with your own statement: "...but my point is this: you give what you feel is right."
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people like yourself (and myself) contribute at all. There are many who have much but contribute nothing.
@DickCranium (#1.5): JFK was a democrat, and you no doubt recall his famous statement: "Ask not what your country can do for you..."
First - making $200,000 is a lot but doesn't make you a millionaire.
Second - Studies indicate that liberals give less to charity than do conservatives. Also the causes liberals tend to support are less likely to help the poor and more often support their interests (like the theater, arts and music) while conservatives give more to institutions that help the poor either with food and clothes or for education.
Very nice sentiment, but I must correct the grammar. I have noticed lately that myself and yourself are consistently not used correctly, especially where I work and lately on many posts on NV and other sites, where many are using these words incorrectly.
The sentence should be "Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people like you (and me) contribute at all."
The easiest way to ascertain whether the use of myself and yourself is correct is to say the sentence. You would never say it the way it was originally written.
Jessica..."I never claim any of it on my taxes..."
I do my taxes without charitable claims and then with them, claiming every penny I can. Whatever the difference is, I give that to charity when I get my refund.
You could do the same and help more people, or keep giving it to the government to waste.
The reason poor people give more, is they understand what generosity means. Rich people have little to no understanding about wealth in that respect, especially those who have inherited their wealth. The one thing that rich people do understand, which most don't, ( because they don't have great wealth ) is that their children are incapable of being rich themselves, and thus rich people are more concerned with their family image, than their wealth providing "the slingshot" to propel their personal values foreword in society. The rich know they don't need that amount of money for food, clothing, medical care, transportation and comfort providing amenities. They need the opulence to distract from their personal shortcomings, be it in physical stature and fitness, ( to include beauty ), talent and other intellectual prowess, courage, and qualities of that ilk. These apply to those whom inherited the wealth, as those who created it tend to be risk takers who chose profiting as a goal unto itself. People of wealth have a tendency to consider other people as property, and not individuals unto themselves.
It doesn't matter all that much. You wouldn't expect that a person who inherited great wealth to be brave enough to go into the areas which could benefit from the gifts, in the first place. And thus such gifts are not likely to occur. Nor is it likely the beneficiary of large endowments would be welcome where opulence exists. Therefore there will be little to no contact between the groups, and the separation between rich and poor shall remain. The Beverly Hillbillies is an old TV series which represents this later thought.
@hs321: That's a great idea! (And kudos to you doing it!!)
The only year that I claimed my charitable donations on my taxes was the year that I gave fully 10%! That was a particularly good year for me. I had some lean years after that, but every year I give something. However, I try to support causes that I think get results, such as education and the environment, not do-gooder pleas for money that help one person then results in that person return with 5 hungry, unclothed, unsupervised kids. I'm sorry, but I've had it with that kind of hand-wringing.
Generosity is about compassion - or the lack of compassion - for those of any income level.
Useless article, it nobodys business what others do with their $$. But God does love a cheerful giver....NT.
I thought it was because their hearts were two sizes too small...
Where's Cindy Lou Who when you need her?
Why don't the rich give more to charity? Because their taxes just went up nearly 10% (when you add Federal income tax increase, ObamaCare increased taxes, Medicare increased taxes, etc.). So they have 10% less TO consider giving to charity. Government took 10% more so THEY can give to charity. So let the government give it to charity.
Last time I checked, 2.8% of 10 million dollars was $280,000.00 Not small change by any means. And to me, giving is a personal issue. While I'm like everyone else up here and give, I do so in other Non-monetary ways. I donate a lot of my professional time. And yes, I did donate a little over 4% of my income last year according to my taxes (I'd rather the non-profits get it rather than the government).
Giving is not always money. Helping out in a soup kitchen, spending time with the elderly (non family), helping kids with after school programs, are just some of the ways people donate. And personally, I'd rather see people donate their time rather than money. It's not quite as easy as writing a check or opening the wallet. Donating time is the very essence of giving.
The truly wealthy could certainly afford to give more, but a large percentage of the upper-middle-class is made up of dual-income families living in very high cost-of-living areas who aren't actually doing as well financially as they appear to be on paper. $200k seems like a lot at first glance, but once you take out taxes, health care costs, mortgage or rent for a home in a safe neighborhood with decent schools, student loan repayments, childcare, commuting costs, saving for retirement, etc., etc. there may not be a ton left over to donate to charity.
@ Jessica.
You state you would give 10-15%. I'll buy that on face value, but consider this. 10-15% of what?
I realize that the first $250,000 under Obama is less than 39.6%, but you have to add 1% to cover a "rich income fee" to pay for Obama care. You can have deductions, etc, I baked that in as an example.
You make $1M
Federal Taxes: $400,600
State (in MN proposed) $98,000
SS + Medicare tax: $10,000
State sales tax
(If you spent the rest) $65,000
Real estate on $300K home: $6,000
Total Tax: $569,000.
Deductions: $35,000 x 40% = $14,000
Net Take home Pay: $435,000
Would you still donate 15% OR $65,250 to net $369,750? (or worse $150,000 donation for the original 1M or net $285,000.
A question I don't need answered, but one that people in the real world, just won the lottery have to consider.
@cdahl- how many folks with an income of $1M live in parts of the country where homes cost only $300k? Most affluent folks like in areas where houses cost double, triple, or even quadruple that. 20% of millionaires live in California, and regular middle-class homes in the S.F. Bay Area, LA, or San Diego often cost $1M+.
Yeah, then the United States became dyslexic.
But you have to understand... 1% is 1%3% is 3%!
One percent of $10K is $100. One percent of $100K is $1000. It is ten times as much in actual dollars but it is still the same percentage. "Hurt" is perceived - one individual gave ten times as much. Does that mean that he/she felt ten times as much pain?
"find something they could be more passionate about." Funny how that is worded. They are passionate about money, nothing supersedes that. Money is their passion in life. Tax their lives.
They give more than anyone else on earth, but you stupid, jealous losers want them to give it all. Well Scr** you. You want to give it all, go be successful instead of sitting on your fat, lazy, useless a** and complaining about how much everyone else should give while all you do is take. I don't give because you stupid pukes live in my country.
...nearly half said they needed more confidence "that the level of their wealth would continue to support their lifestyle and their family..."
The first reason is the only reason these money grubbers have
Q22, what a load. Those studies were including tithing as donations. Giving 10% of your money to the Church you go to so they can provide services is not the same thing as giving to a charitable organization.
What's more, those particular studies did not take any effort to normalize for the cost of living in various parts of the country. Somebody making $40k a year in any part of the country was counted equally for whatever they donated, regardless of cost of living. Which gave the conservatives an unfair advantage as they tend to live in places where the cost of living (and standard of living) are low.
I read with increasing humor the comments pro and con re: the "rich" giving more and the self-congratulatory comments from those who pony up their "fair" share. Nobody seems to get the following:
1. The vast majority of charities are glorified scams that rarely take half or more of donations for "overhead" (United Way and ARC, e.g.) which all too often includes six figure salaries for their top staff and directors, posh headquarters, junkets, etc. Some, including the Susan B. Kommen foundation, devote up to 85% of collections to overhead, with only 10-15% going to actual client-oriented programs. The overseas children's funds are notorious scams in this regard. The best by far is the Salvation Army, with almost 93% of donations going directly to assistance programs. Google it if you don't believe me. Therefore, if anyone says they don't have a charity they feel passionately about, I can certainly see why.
2. Nobody is obligated to give anything. Charity is exactly that--you give if you feel moved to do so. Once you make it an obligation, it's no longer charity, it's a social "tax". If you feel good donating, good for you; if you don't, that's your choice and you have every right to make it.
3. The whole "soak the rich" mentality is uniquely American. No other country works this way, and the irony is that there is more "old money" in other countries by far than we have here. The U.S. has more recent millionaires than any other first world country; even where some of their wealth is inherited, it's taken hard work and dedication to hold onto it and build on it. They didn't get their wealth handed to them, and expecting them to just give it up to gain public approval is silly. They have every right to keep it if they want.
Bottom line--there is no fair share of charity donations, give if you feel like it but nothing gives you the right to criticize someone else for not doing so, and be very careful of which charity you choose to support. Your money may not be going where you think it is.
Oh yeah, and they are JOB CREATORS.....hahahahahahahaaaaaa stingy bit*hes!!
Crimson wife...
Best check out warren buffets living abode since it is not a mansion. Take away the security enhancements and you may be surprised at what his home is worth. BTW - I have no idea on how lavishly appointed his omaha home is.
the Rich are like squirrels, instead of collecting acorns, they collect $$$$$$....aka; the squirrel mentality......
What a bunch of liberal BS! All you brainwashed lazy asses are just pissy that someone has more than you crying that life isn't fair, get over it!! I live paycheck to paycheck too but I work hard and my life rocks, what more could I ask for?
Agdoc69...
Stated bluntly, but true. At least no one has yet posted that they give more than those in the lower income brackets and that the low income people should be ashamed. As a % of disposable income the poor truly give the most.
Simply put, give what you can, when you can, be it cash, goods or time volunteered.
Jesus told us not to let our left hand know what our right hand was doing: this has been interpreted as that we should never even notice when we give "charity" because it becomes a burden on our own spirits by creating sense of debt.
We are also enjoined to think, "there but for the grace of God, go I."
But who among us, rich or less rich, has arrived at the spiritual stature to not even know when or that we are "giving"? And who among us has such brotherly/sisterly feeling for less fortunate others?
All major religions enjoin the giving of alms, but it must be done as if it is a matter of course (as in Hinduism and Islam) or in such a way that the giver does not notice. This acknowledges that there will be some people in need, and some who can and should relieve that need where possible.
If religion is seen as a civilizing force, then the giving of alms must be one too.
This argument sounds the same as the one about tipping at a restaurant.. Being rich is not a crime but the politicians want you to think it is.. They penalize people for being successful and take their money in taxes while showing the governments generosity in handing out free stuff to the poor.. In 100 years we have created a culture of moochers here in the US who have long since forgotten that hard work and self education are the true path to success.. Is some of it luck? Is some of it social networking? Is some of it timing and inspiration? Do people with all of these fail or get ripped off? YES to all of the above.. So get off your A$$ and make something of yourself because the US is the land of opportunity..
Some of the so called charities are sad schemes that less then 5% of the money they take in is actually given to the needy.. The rest is spent on lavish parties and clothes and trips for the administrators.. Some are self serving tax loopholes for the rich and others are just PR glitter.. The Gates clan wanted to keep trillions of dollars out of the hands of the wasteful corrupt government by getting billionaires to contract to donate their wealth to charity during an open loophole in government taxation..
So give if you want but it is almost better to just drive through a poor neighborhood and toss a few hundred bucks out the window or drop off a few cases of food on a park bench.. These methods stand a far better chance of getting help to where it is needed..
The wealthy cannot find anything to be passionate about? Give me a break!
it's not the guy worth ten or twenty million that needs to give more, it's the foundation families that need to give more. the ones who count their money in TRILLIONS. or more accurately "OUR" money in trillions.
The CEO is just a front man for the real wealth. they want you to keep your eye on him while they live like gods in their own private world. Living off our labor.
I don't mind them taking the lions share, but at least leave us enough to have a decent life, instead of investing our labor in china so they can have even more. between the 1940s and 1970, there was a good balance between the rich and the working class. they took us off the gold standard and raped us. not even a little lube or a reach around. not even a thank you and a towel.
Bill Gates gave 48% of his net worth to charity. So much for the rich not donating.
As for charity, this is mostly driven by religious institutions. Ask any homeless where they get their 3 meals per day, and their answer is most likely preceded by a 'St.' I have yet to see a liberal organization running a soup kitchen.
Even though I do give money to charity, I really shouldn't...the government gives my money to charity for me!
I won't donate to any charity. I am much happier to just give the money to someone on the street asking for it.At least I know he will get to use all of it and the vast majority won't go to pay overhead cost of the charity. And no I really don't care if they intend to drink it away...who am I to decide how they live their life? If they tell me they want the money for food I will buy them food...if they are honest and tell me they want it for alcohol I will give them the money...just don't lie...I will help you get what you say you need.
If any of you Reich-Wing Fox News talking point sheeple think that the rich earn their money or that whole punishing success crap is really true, then you need your moronic heads examined! The rich don't earn their wealth, they STEAL it from you, me, EVERYONE! All in the form of the politicians they've bought and paid for the assist them in getting policies passed that stack the deck in their favor! Do you dumbazz's forget the corruption of Wall Street already? You know, to big to fail/to big to jail? How about the HSBC money laundering scandal? How about the Libor scandal? Yet you pawns still hold fast and true while parroting your partisan beliefs though the truth is smacking you right in your ignorant faces! Oh and before you even think of going there, I'm not here to defend the democrats, I'm here to offend the republicans, both two sides of the same coin!
I find it ironic that so many complain about "the rich" and what they give. If they give more and get a tax deduction they don't "credit" for giving, since it is a deduction. If they don't give they are greedy ba$tards. If they give they don't give enough.
There is no winning in America with this divisive wedge that has been driven by the politicians and the media.
Ebeneser is an Uncle Tom. XDDDDDDDDD
No matter how much the "rich" give, it will never be enough for the proliferation of greedy, grasping, nipplesuckers that the policies of the liberals in this country have spawned over the last 70 years.
There is an excellent cause at www.veritaschristi.com
A Church school, I think not! A non-church school, perhaps.
A quick Google search shows you to be completely wrong from a multitude of sources.
But, I'm guessing you already knew that.
Did lying about charity really make you feel better about yourself?
Really?
Hmmm... My quick Google search came up with this from the New York Time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?hp&_r=0
The 2000 Social Capital Benchmark Survey came to the same conclusion as well as the work of Aurthur Brooks.
Anecdotally you have the Bidens giving a little over 1% of their income to charity and, famously, Al Gore giving around $350.00 in 1997 of an income of nearly 200k.
NevadaJ-577866,
Q22 just handed your a$$ to you. You could consider that charity as well.
Q22 just handed an opinion from the Times over to Nevada. No where does that article point to links to real studies. But there is one interesting point made in that article about religious donations. Come on, does anyone think the Mormons are a Charity Organization? LMAO!
Really?
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
according to a Pew study:
On average, Mormons dedicate nine times as many hours per month (nearly 36 hours) to volunteer activities than other Americans do. The comparison stands up even after one subtracts from the Mormon totals the work of young, full-time Mormon missionaries.
Mormons reliably tithe to their churches and also give about $1,200 annually “to social causes outside the church.” Even Mormons who have relatively low household incomes both tithe fully and give more of their income to assist non-Mormons in need than other Americans do.
Your prejudices cloud your thinking.
Why is it that some people think that they are entitled to other peoples money, if you want more GO EARN IT !!! GOD helps those that help themselves !
Q22? arthur brooks? as in the right wing BROOKS foundation? lol No wonder why your so called facts are wrong. Why not just ask Dick Cheney to give you your view point. When was the last time you gave to any charity?
liberal donations are higher, but largely un counted because they are direct donations not to your high flying foundations. Go to the next march for breast cancer and see who's there. do a survey of your own, ask random people if they are democrats or republicans.
propaganda clouds yours.
Who do mormons give to? The other mormons who don't own a BMW yet? Their donations stay within their own community. Stop spreading BS please.
excuses are like a**holes and the rich are a**holes
Mormons are some of the biggest philanthropists and pledge to volunteer once a week to help the poor. Here's a link so you can inform yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Philanthropies
george pauljohn,
I don't like calling people stupid on these boards since that debases the dialog but sometimes it's the only response that's appropriate.
There is no such thing as the Brooks Foundation (unless you are referring to the Herb Brooks Foundation). You must be thinking of the BROOKINGS INSTITUTE which is a left-leaning group. Brooks is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute which is a right-leaning group but as there are other sources who corroborate his findings I think the research is sound.
As for breast cancer marches I doubt there are many liberals there ever since Planned Parenthood flamed the Komen group. Your side apparently loves abortion more than curing breast cancer.
Your comments about Mormons only reflect on your bias and bigotry.
I continue to believe it is the low tax rates. Back in Ike's day, it cost the moneyed class a dime to give a dollar. Now, for the rentier class, with no earned income and living off capital gains and dividends, it costs 85 cents to give that dollar.
Absolutely agree, when you cant write it off...whats the point, right?
When the top income bracket was taxed at 90% - anything you donate brought your income down, maybe to a better tax bracket.
Additionally, people took that income and created businesses with it...if that money you "earned" just goes right back into the business, the govt doesnt get the money...and you get to grow your business, at the same time.
Our tax Code is the very reason why the gap between rich and poor has exploded, and not in anyones favor but the extremely rich.
It's always why our economy has tanked...all that money sitting up at the top, doing absolutely nothing, but earning interest for rich people...and causing banks to high stakes gamble it like they did during the housing boom.
I mean, who would want to put people to work as a means of growing ones wealth? Absurd...gamble it on wall street, high risk...high rewards, and zero effort.
This is the new america...
Jessica-1170252 hit the nail on the head. And that's the irony of the present-day GOP; they want to 'take back' the country, but what they really mean is they want to return to the past. You know, when gays stayed in the closet, minorities 'knew their place', and the police and legal system made sure the 'right' people got the 'justice' they wanted.
All except for the tax code from those days; the one that created the middle class... but they don't want to talk about how 'golden' that was...
the good old days, when we weren't 17 trillion in debt as a country...
Name one poor person who has ever created a job for someone else.
Aside from the silly complaint that the rich don't give "more" (as if they are required to give anything), the most likely anyone, rich or not, would be apprehensive about giving is the uncertainty in how the money would be used.
For example, is it really going to feed starving kittens with no mittens in Antarctica, or is it going for lobbyist funds or "administrative costs?"
Neighbor, lots of poor people create jobs in the welfare office. LOL.
I can name millions of poor people who created jobs when they took public transportation, bought a coffee, put gas in their cars, bought a burger, etc. For the smart people of the world, demand creates jobs. For the idiots, rich people do.
where did the money they spend come from? Food stamps do not count!
Exyahoo...
By your logic, what do rich people do, vegetate? They just buy higher priced goods of better quality than your "poor" do. They are also drivers of demand in every area you mentioned the poor to do. The main difference being that they created a product or service that made the demand possible.
The only possible exception would be inherited wealth, but isn't that part of what creating wealth is about, providing a better life for your family and future offspring?
how about the real reason they don't give more. They don't want to.
And they don't have to.
the real reason is there human and it is human nature to want more for yourself
liberal chose the gov't programs. where as conservatives chose tax breaks and businesses
personally liberal are worse (clearly i'm biased but so is every one) becasue they increase our deficeit more by taking advantage of gov't programs but conservatives are bad too.
frankly the tax percent should be the same thru out all income classes.
Why should they, when the gov't has set itself up as the biggest charity in human history? When Washington played a lesser role in our lives, people gave more, and for two main reasons: 1) people went to church more, and 2) we had more direct control over who got the charitable donation, and why. The people who needed help didn't have the sense of entitlement to other people's money that we see so much of in today's society. By creating a governmental cradle-to-grave welfare system, we have destroyed not just the American work ethic, but the very real sense of satisfaction people get from sharing the fruits of their labor with those less fortunate than themselves. Why give to charity when D.C. will take the money you've earned and give it to someone who didn't?
NeighborOfTheBeast is right on target. Our very culture tells us all we need to do is pay our ever increasing taxes and then the government will take care of everything else. When a wealthy person who has been being told they don't pay enough tax and needs to be punished with higher rates is also told they don't donate enough to charity I see the reluctance to donate. I can see them getting tired of everyone from the President down telling them what they should do with their money.
And yet another story telling us how the wealthy should give more of their money away. It's just not fair that they have all that money and don't want to pay higher taxes and won't give it all to charity.
Seriously people! This class envy BS has to stop!
It's not class envy. It's about paying your fair share. We are all in this together. Maybe you failed to notice it. But things that the wealthy use to make their money are paid for by all of us. Therefore, since they use OUR communal resources to make money, they should pay a greater share, so those communal resources are supported.
It's about paying your fair share.
Why do only "the rich" have a fair share?
Watch this: I want all all welfare families to spend 8 hours a day cleaning up the highways and sidewalks.
But things that the wealthy use to make their money are paid for by all of us.
Yes, including themselves.
Therefore, since they use OUR communal resources to make money, they should pay a greater share, so those communal resources are supported.
They are. It's called income tax. Maybe you've heard of it, but I doubt you actually pay it. (Heck, almost no one below 67k a year does!)
Pay your fair share 42% of all Americans pay $0.00 in Taxes!!!!
Income taxes. You are ignoring property taxes, sales taxes, and payroll taxes. As a percentage of income, the poor pay a pretty high percentage in taxes if you add it all up.
I'm all for a more simplified tax code that has everyone pay an income tax. It would be more equitable and transparent. But such a tax code should be progressive and capital gains should be treated like any other income (with an inflation adjustment and the ability to write off losses against gains).
Income taxes. You are ignoring property taxes, sales taxes, and payroll taxes. As a percentage of income, the poor pay a pretty high percentage in taxes if you add it all up.
Except that those property taxes and payroll taxes are rolled into your Income tax, which pretty much everyone below 67k gets a decent percentage of (if not all) refunded.
And sales taxes are also paid by the rich, at a much higher level as they buy more in general.
I'm all for a more simplified tax code that has everyone pay an income tax. It would be more equitable and transparent. But such a tax code should be progressive and capital gains should be treated like any other income (with an inflation adjustment and the ability to write off losses against gains).
So you're for double taxation. No thank you.
Where do you get the information to back your statement that no one pays taxes if they earn below 67k? I'd like to know how to do that? But, I don't believe it's true. Many people do give of their time cleaning litter on highways and streets and other causes. Wealthy people attend charitable balls and dinners with lobster and other fine foods. As for their uneasiness with maintaining their current lifestyle, they set the bar where it is. Why not bring it down a notch and help others buy food and health care? The people with the $250,000 salary are not the issue. Watch the Al Gore short film online demonstrating the facts about wealth distribution in this country. We used to be a country where the middle class was thriving and important. We're now looked at by the Mit Romney's of this world as only takers of entitlements. And, what there is of a safety net, his followers want to take away.
I would say, since the top 10% of americans have 90% of the wealth, a 90% tax rate makes the most sense.
If you have the most, you pay the most.
Dont want to pay the most? Dont take the most.
And let's stop using the word EARN - it's a false reality.
I offshored 20% of my work, eliminated 100 american jobs and I EARNED myself an 800K bonus!
Hell, thats how my former employer EARNED his money. He even accidentally sent an email bragging about it to coworkers, who kindly shared it with the rest of the company...
Earning is clearly up for debate.
I would say, since the top 10% of americans have 90% of the wealth, a 90% tax rate makes the most sense.
Communism was defeated ~20 years ago. Please give North Korea a try and get back to us.
"Earning is clearly up for debate."
Some people only see what they want. You're only seeing what you want to see. If you want to pretend that the very few who lucked into money make up the majority, then at least realize that you're holding a biased view.
Carol--
You complain about Romney, yet of the four men in the last election (Him, Obama, Biden, and Ryan), he has given the most to charity by far...in terms of actual dollars, in percent of his net worth, and in percent of his income.
@Carol Laurich: Where do you get the information to back your statement that no one pays taxes if they earn below 67k? I'd like to know how to do that? But, I don't believe it's true.
Please go to this website & scroll down about a quarter of the way down to Table 1.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
Take note of the "Top 25 %" line. It is $ 66,193.00. So what we have here is that everyone above that sum pays 87.3% of all income taxes collected.
That means that everyone earning less pays 12.7% of all taxes collected, even though they make up 75% of all filers!
Now, the average rate at that 67k (ok, 66k) level is 14.68%, right? Well, take out the standard deduction and you're getting money BACK. (Nevermind if you itemize, contribute to a 401k, Flex spending, etc.).
As a point of fact, the current tax code is so screwy that if you make $100,000 and own a home and have a child, you get money back.
It's not that the poor don't pay taxes, most of the Middle Class don't pay more than a token in taxes either!
Many people do give of their time cleaning litter on highways and streets and other causes.
Yes, but my point is that it's donated, not enforced. If I'm being *forced* to "pay my fair share", why isn't everyone? Doesn't everyone have an equal "fair share" to pay?
That's why I want to see spotless sidewalks and roadways cleaned by poor people. (Hopefully, you see this is tounge-in-cheek to show the absurdity requiring more of people just because they make more.)
Wealthy people attend charitable balls and dinners with lobster and other fine foods.
Wow, stereotype much? FWIW, I got a baloney & cheese sandwhich at the last charitable event I was at. (Not that I'm wealthy...)
Why not bring it down a notch and help others buy food and health care?
It is not my obligation to feed, clothe, or pay for your medical care. Nor is it your obligation to so care for me. However, we've had federal programs to do that for decades.
The people with the $250,000 salary are not the issue. Watch the Al Gore short film online demonstrating the facts about wealth distribution in this country.
You mean the Al Gore that pocketed $100 million of the $500 million sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera, wholly funded by petrodollars? That Al Gore?
Jessica, you are ridiculous. Why would anyone want to be wealthy if they had to pay 90% in taxes? Why not everyone pay 90% according to your logic. The government knows best. Right? Just ask yourself how much you would like to pay in taxes then you apply it to yourself and to others. I'll guarantee that you won't go over 50% or I would even say 30%. You are a hypocrite and envious of others. By the way I only make 20k a year and contribute 10% in charity. I personally think a 10-15% tax on everyone rich or poor would be the most beneficial to society. God didn't ask for more than that why should the government?
justoutsidedc,
You are probably correct. I'm sure he had the most wealth of those four men as well.
What? My income tax is separate than my property or social security taxes.
For the poor, the overall tax burden varies significantly from state to state, but many pay 10-15% of their income in local, state and SS taxes.
They buy more overall, but as a percentage of income, the rich pay much less because spending is not proportionate to income levels. The rich tend to save rather than spend their money.
I'm in no way for "double taxation". If you earn $1000 you are taxed on that income. If it's invested and grows to $2000, you are not taxed on that whole amout, just the gains. New money that has never before been taxed.
I'd even support adjusting the gains for inflation (thereby incentivising "safe" investments) and leveraging losses against other gains.
For example, I invest that $1000 into gold and another $1000 into stocks. The gold is inflated and drops to $800 in a year, but my stocks rally and is now worth $1400. Also over the year, inflation is 2%. Thus, my overall gains are $200, and adjusted for inflation of my base I'd only be taxed on $160 (2% of my $2000 reduces my gains by $40).
Such a system provides incentive to invest, and incentives diversification of the investments.
It's also fair in my opinion. I work hard and make good money. I also make money off of my investments... and that isn't very hard at all.
Of course, Romney could buy and sell Obama, Biden and Ryan ten times over. And a very large part of his "charitable" deductions come from tithes to his church. Perfectly legal, but whether it is truly "charity" is, to me, questionable.
People making the top 25% of income also make up 87% of all US wealth, and the vast majority of all income. You can't compare percent total $$ paid versus number of people. You need to compare % of the income.
I gotta go and won't be able to comment further. However, I think we all agree that the tax system is broken. And further the wealth gap is growing in this country. We can address it through taxation or other means; but clearly something must be done.
@EngEsq: What? My income tax is separate than my property or social security taxes.
For the poor, the overall tax burden varies significantly from state to state, but many pay 10-15% of their income in local, state and SS taxes.
Really? Where do you live that your SS taxes paid isn't considered in your income taxes? Do your W-2's box 1 and box 3 somehow match?
You're not claiming your property tax deduction and/or mortgage interest when you file?
...and what are they getting back in their local and state refunds? How much are they getting in assistance?
They buy more overall, but as a percentage of income, the rich pay much less because spending is not proportionate to income levels.
Taxes are supposed to fund the government, not to redistribute wealth.
I'm in no way for "double taxation". If you earn $1000 you are taxed on that income. If it's invested and grows to $2000, you are not taxed on that whole amout, just the gains. New money that has never before been taxed.
For example, I invest that $1000 into gold and another $1000 into stocks. The gold is inflated and drops to $800 in a year, but my stocks rally and is now worth $1400. Also over the year, inflation is 2%. Thus, my overall gains are $200, and adjusted for inflation of my base I'd only be taxed on $160 (2% of my $2000 reduces my gains by $40).
Such a system provides incentive to invest, and incentives diversification of the investments.
Why 2%? Are taxes somehow tied to inflation?
By what you're proposing (paying the same on capital gains as on regular income)... suppose you make $113k a year. Well, you're going to pay 18% on that $200, or $36. So: $2000 risked for a $164 profit, - 2% inflation = $160.72 at the end of the day.
It also doesn't really give any inventive for diversification per se.
It's also fair in my opinion. I work hard and make good money. I also make money off of my investments... and that isn't very hard at all.
May I then suggest this? http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
@EngEsq:
You can't compare percent total $$ paid versus number of people.
Why not? My point is that most people aren't paying taxes... and it's true.
You need to compare % of the income.
Why? Are "the rich" "ultracitizens" with an extra Bill of Rights I'm not privy to?
However, I think we all agree that the tax system is broken.
Yes.
And further the wealth gap is growing in this country.
Maybe.
We can address it through taxation or other means;
No.
but clearly something must be done.
We could have a flat tax. You know, so we all pay our fair share.
Mark, look at your pay stub. SS and Medicare are on separate lines from federal and state income taxes. They are payroll taxes not income taxes. It is a flat rate for everyone. The self employed pay the whole amount themselves, regular employees have a percentage paid by the employer, which is not the case for income tax. That they are not the same as income tax is why some folks call SS and Medicare entitlements. No one calls income tax an entitlement. There are no deductions or loopholes that allow you to pay less on SS and Medicare. Income tax was in place long before the New Deal of Roosevelt created SS. Medicare came even later.
Even if you pay no income tax you must pay SS and Medicare.
I'm back.
Of course I take my mortgage interest and propert tax deduction, which lowers my income tax burden, but I still PAID taxes that are not reflected in my income tax. Someone in Alabama who makes $13,000 a year pays on average 11% of their income in taxes. The 47% who don't pay only refers to income tax.
Highly depends, and this is a more fundamental debate on welfare. Some people are truly milking the system and I have no respect or sympathy for. However, the large majority of those on assistance don't want to be and are more than willing to work.
I think if you and I were to sit down together we could hammer out a welfare plan that would satisfy us both. Believe it or not, liberals like me, and conservatives like you are not really that far apart on many issues. We get caught up in our differences, and don't focus on where we agree enough (like reducing fraud, reducing incentives to be on the system, etc.)
Taxes are both. Wealth will almost always concentrate without governmental pressure or technological changes. Once a particular wealth disrepancy is reached societal breakdown (usually very violent) ensues.
Taxation is a leaver to moderate wealth gaps. The key is to use it effectively to achieve goals without unintended consequences (like off-shoring, no investing, hurdle to job creation).
No, I'm saying in my hypothetical tax structure I'd adjust the tax burden on capital gains by inflation to incentivise safe investments. For example, if I were to invest in gold, it should have approximately the same real value 100 years from now. However, due to inflation, the gold would increase in cost. Why should an investor be penalized for this? Ergo, I think all capital gains should be adjusted for inflation.
By what you're proposing (paying the same on capital gains as on regular income)... suppose you make $113k a year. Well, you're going to pay 18% on that $200, or $36. So: $2000 risked for a $164 profit, - 2% inflation = $160.72 at the end of the day.
Actually I'm suggesting the inflation is adjusted on the gains (2% of $2000 is $40, so of that $200 gains, only 160 is taxable). So under my hypothetical tax structure the amount paid in taxes is $28.80.
I know people who would kill to get 8.6% returns right now.
If losses can be credited against gains for tax purposes, then diversification is incentivised.
Give up Mark. They will never admit they are wrong. They've been so brainwashed into believing that the rich are evil and somehow use more resources and don't pay a fair share that you will never convince them otherwise.
"I'm all for a more simplified tax code that has everyone pay an income tax. It would be more equitable and transparent. But such a tax code should be progressive and capital gains should be treated like any other income (with an inflation adjustment and the ability to write off losses against gains)."
That would make a lot of sense....adjusting the basis for inflation before calculating the capital gain. Too many simpletons don't understand that the dollars you paid for an investment say 20 years ago were a whole lot more valuable than today's dollars that you get when you sell. Long term gains can often mean that you are paying taxes on a myth: that you got back more than you paid. The present 15% cap gain tax can be either too much or too little...alll depending on the inflation that has occurred since the purchase. It is amazing that those who think that COLAs make perfect sense are hypocritical when it comes to taxing possibly mythical capital gains from many years ago as if they were a salary earned today and paid for today. Or are they just ignorant and kept in the dark by rable rousing politicians?
EngEsq..... have you ever paid attention to the people that run our government? Almost all are wealthy. If they aren't then they soon will be. Do you really believe that those wealthy people running our government are going to redistribute that wealth, that they STEAL through taxation, to the needy in this country? The more probable scenario is that they redistribute that wealth into their own pockets.
In 2010, our family's income was 3x what it was in 2011 due to a lump-sum severance followed by a period of unemployment. Our tax bill in 2010, however, was 10x the one in 2011. I'm all for a progressive income tax where higher income households pay a higher percentage, but the current system is ridiculously skewed. Only the poor should be exempt from the income tax (maybe the lowest 25%), not half the households in the country.
Josephine -- at least YOU have figured it out. Anyone making up to the SS, Medicare, FICA income limit is paying about 15% to taxes there. Then there is state income tax, now 6% in Illinois with very low exemptions per person. If you actually "earn" a million dollars you are paying about 1.5% to those taxes (SS etc), whereas someone making 100,000 is paying the 15%. So there is plenty room to increase Federal income tax and the rich still pay a low rate overall.
I'm to the point in income (less than 100k) that my raises are nearly cut in half by the extra taxes. Uncle Sam gets about 40% through one pocket or the other.
I suggest those of you who don't "get it" read an advanced book on taxation and get the real history on tax rates and taxpayer behavior after changes in the rules and rates. What's happened with Estate taxes is also interesting. Fact is that the middle class and poor, yes even the poor, give a higher % of their income to charity than do the rich. There are few Carnegies out there today. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the exception.
There should be no income tax at all. It should be a consumption tax on the goods we buy. Food purchased at the grocery store would be the only exemption. If it must remain an income tax then it should be a flat rate for everyone and all forms of income.
Anyone who got an income tax check from the IRS paid a net zero income tax for the year. Period. Do you really think that the fat cats in DC would give you back one thin dime if they hadn't overtaxed you to begin with?
Why is it that some people think that they are entitled to other peoples money, if you want more GO EARN IT !!! GOD helps those that help themselves !
@EngEsq:
Of course I take my mortgage interest and propert tax deduction, which lowers my income tax burden, but I still PAID taxes that are not reflected in my income tax. Someone in Alabama who makes $13,000 a year pays on average 11% of their income in taxes. The 47% who don't pay only refers to income tax.
...So now you agree with me that the property taxes are rolled into income taxes? :-)
And that same person from Alabama is going to get back FAR more than the $1430 they've paid!
Highly depends, and this is a more fundamental debate on welfare. Some people are truly milking the system and I have no respect or sympathy for. However, the large majority of those on assistance don't want to be and are more than willing to work.
I think if you and I were to sit down together we could hammer out a welfare plan that would satisfy us both. Believe it or not, liberals like me, and conservatives like you are not really that far apart on many issues. We get caught up in our differences, and don't focus on where we agree enough (like reducing fraud, reducing incentives to be on the system, etc.)
I can agree with all of this, except that I'm not a conservative.
Taxes are both. Wealth will almost always concentrate without governmental pressure or technological changes. Once a particular wealth disrepancy is reached societal breakdown (usually very violent) ensues.
Taxation is a leaver to moderate wealth gaps. The key is to use it effectively to achieve goals without unintended consequences (like off-shoring, no investing, hurdle to job creation).
No no no no no. Social policy through taxation is theft!
No, I'm saying in my hypothetical tax structure I'd adjust the tax burden on capital gains by inflation to incentivise safe investments. For example, if I were to invest in gold, it should have approximately the same real value 100 years from now. However, due to inflation, the gold would increase in cost. Why should an investor be penalized for this? Ergo, I think all capital gains should be adjusted for inflation.
Interesting, but not really feasable to do. True inflation rates are rarely known even a half year after the end of a tax year.
Nothing has the same real value from year to year. That's why CPI is a load of crap... and adjusting for inflation and taxing at the same rate as earned income are two very different things!
As for gold in particular, when you buy (a commodity) you don't pay taxes on it other than sales tax. You can legally sell it for whatever you want, give it away, etc. It's wholly unlike real estate or any other transaction where paperwork is involved. You're gambling against inflation, but that's the way it's been since the barter system started!
If losses can be credited against gains for tax purposes, then diversification is incentivised.
But no more than it already is under the current code. Your trick with inflation just adds merit to the idea of scrapping fiat currency, which is also not a good idea.
@Josephine: Mark, look at your pay stub. SS and Medicare are on separate lines from federal and state income taxes. They are payroll taxes not income taxes. It is a flat rate for everyone. The self employed pay the whole amount themselves, regular employees have a percentage paid by the employer, which is not the case for income tax. That they are not the same as income tax is why some folks call SS and Medicare entitlements. No one calls income tax an entitlement. There are no deductions or loopholes that allow you to pay less on SS and Medicare. Income tax was in place long before the New Deal of Roosevelt created SS. Medicare came even later.
Yes, but how many people get back enough to cover what they paid SS & Medicare? (Most do.)
Yes, income tax has been around for a long time, but entitlement spending is what's killing us as they are now over HALF the budget. (SS: 19.6%, Unemployment/Welfare 16.13%, Medicare 12.8% and Medicaid 8.2%.) Also, most people burn though what they put into SS after 5-8 years, though on average people live on SS for 13-18 years!
Even if you pay no income tax you must pay SS and Medicare.
Not necessarily. As I said above, most people that pay no income tax get refunds in excess of their SS & Medicare taxes.
@gday67: There should be no income tax at all. It should be a consumption tax on the goods we buy. Food purchased at the grocery store would be the only exemption. If it must remain an income tax then it should be a flat rate for everyone and all forms of income.
I have advocated an 7% flat tax starting at double the poverty line for years. That way everyone would have skin in the game. If you're below that, you pay nothing. No surprises, no unfair scales, but I do admit it would put a lot of accountants out of work!
For a single person, that means taxes start at 7 cents on every dollar earned above $22,340 (in 2012). Family of four? $46,100.
Investment income would not be taxed, or would be taxed on a temporary basis only for special needs (war, natural disaster, etc) at a rate no more than 50% of the income rate. So if the income rate got raised to 9%, investments could be taxed no higher than 4.5%.
Only primary residences would get a deduction.
Jessica,
First, we don't tax tax wealth in the US, so it really doesn't matter how much wealth someone has accumulated.
Second, the top 10% do not control 90% of the wealth in the US.
Third, I will gladly vote to return to the ridiculous 90% tax brackets of the early 60's, if you will vote to eliminate every Government organisation and agency that was created after JFK cut the top rate to 70%. That would mean no more Dept. of Energy, no more Dept. of Education, no more EPA, no more FDA, no more etc,..........
Deal?
Mark, I understand your point and your point is well taken. I personally am opposed to the income tax and believe it should be abolished. The liberal in me looks upon taxes as an evil imposed upon the people by a scurilous monarch or tyrant. Yes Robin Hood was a hero of mine as were most people who stood up to injustice and tyranny. I was raised to not be blinded by uniforms or badges or party affiliations. I do my best to rise to my raising. Observation tells me that generational wealth breeds priviledge, generational poverty breeds entitlement and sudden change in fortune breeds suspicion and contempt. Liberal billionaires belong to the same exclusive private secret clubs as the conservative billionaires.
If anyone wishes to see the original faces of the war on poverty they should check out the work of RFK in Appalachia and the South in the 60's. These are not black faces or white faces, they are not democrat or republican faces. They are southern faces. These are the faces of poverty of my chilhood.
These are the faces of the original single mothers on welfare, the widows of miners, and mill workers and field hands. Look at the faces of the mothers and children in dust bowl Oklahoma. These are American faces not white black or brown. Look at the images of the tenements of New York then and now. If anyone believes that your group isn't represented in the faces of povery, look again and look around. When you look at the face of poverty in America today you find the same, all the different faces trapped in a world of the same disbeliefs and skepticism and suspicions as they were. We are focused on urban poor and yet Southern red states still lead the country in poverty. The demographics may not be the same, but the faces are.
Thank you, Josephine, for a wonderfully written post. I greatly enjoyed reading it!
Wow, DNCNews, only two articles about class warfare in this section?
You're slipping.
The rich are fools to give it away. They can do more for society by investing wisely and creating jobs. The government gives enough of our money away.
But if you'd been paying attention, they aren't creating jobs. That's just Oxylimbaughs rant.
Trickle down is a pipe dream for crackheads. Struggling people make better and more subservient slaves and the rich know it, Which is why they want the masses to have and own nothing.
I bet they have no problems putting down MILLIONS for charity as a tax deduction..even though the didn't!
Right. Only Barry is able to create that abundance of "Shovel Ready Jobs..."
...oh, wait...
What JOBS? Where??
Right on to G BUD. Those who believe the rich create jobs are delusional from 45 years of right-wing trickle-down propaganda. Wealthy people seek at each and every turn to avoid actual work - as well as create media propaganda to keep middle and working class people pointing fingers at each other!! Basically the "hard work" of rich people involves figuring out schemes to extract large amount of money from others who actually do work (usurian ventures). Those who actually have "businesses" use politicians, tax accountants, lobbying groups, etc. to protect their interests and keep their businesses afloat. So much for risk and/or letting the market decide, LOL. That's just for you poor suckers to mouth. Anyway, I don't call what they do "work". Let's call a spade a spade, most are usurians, ponzi-sheme criminals, etc. and often they have inherited wealth.
The top 7 richest members of Congress (and 10 of the top 15) are all liberal Democrats who either inherited or married into that wealth. That's a matter of public record, if you care to look it up yourself. The very essence of conservatism is to EARN that money through hard work, saving and smart investing. Please name one poor person who has ever created a good paying sustainable job for someone else. If it weren't for the disproportionate amount of taxes taken from the evil 1%ers, the gov't would grind to a halt. I wish I was rich as much as anybody, but I'm not so childish as to begrudge people with more motivation and better business sense than me. I want to earn it, not have it handed to me.
annnnnnnd the FOURTH reason - GREED!
The 3 reasons - the more money the rich make - they more they want:
1. greed - the more money they make, the more they want and they don't care who they have to step on for it. (food corporations poisoning us with salt sugar and fat - and the government helping them)
2. selfish
3. lack of empathy for anyone but themselves
These are the main characteristics of a lot of extremely successful people.
It's so said, if some of them gave a little a @!$%# about people, they could pool resources and help pull people up out of poverty many ways - but they would rather spend their money on $15,000 shower curtains and extra homes spread out all over the country that they don't even use most of the time.
Shameful!!!
So, what, you want them to tear down those extra houses? What about the people they employ to take care of them? Out on the street? I'm sure you'd have a field day with a headline that read, "Rich Lay Off 20% of Their Employees".
Only evil people gain wealth? Or do good people become evil after they become wealthy?
You poor, poor, misdirected and pathetic waste of humanity. Without the rich, there would be no poor, because they would die off like in 3rd world countries. The so-called poor in this country get unemployment for years, food stamp, welfare, free school lunches, and free phones from the taxpayers. Most have personal cars, computers and big screen tv's. That's vastly different from poor in other countries. What in the world are you thinking? Are you on drugs or what? You should be ashamed!
Gifted One - don't know what you were gifted with but it was not intelligence.
They don't give because they don't understand the concepts of compassion and charity. They never have to say to themselves, "There but for the Grace of God go I" which is what compels the lower classes to donate time and money.
Class warfare is more alive than it ever has been. And who is to blame for it? The rich. The economy is in shambles but they are making money hand over fist and keeping the money. The are not investing in this country. Some of them are even taking their money out of this country so that they don't have to give money to it (taxes). People are homeless and jobless and meanwhile the wealthy party like nothing is amiss.
People making over $200,000 gave an average of 2.8%. What percentage did you give last year?
CQChild - Wait a second. You say that class warfare is more alive than it ever has been, and blame said warfare on rich people. But, in the same post, you demonize the rich for all of our problems. Who is at war with whom here? It sounds to me like you are at war with the rich far more than they are at war with you.
Did it ever occur to you that since the economy is in "shambles," they are clinging to every dollar they make so they have it saved in case it gets even worse?
What do these generalizations gain you? How can you assume that any given rich person didn't come from nothing? How do you define "rich"?
Rich repubicans also give more than rich Democrats. People like Biden and Obama increased their charible donations AFTER they were exposed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/.../conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
they took a page from romney's playbook then? didn't he have to un itemize some donation deductions he took in order to raise his effective tax rate so that he wouldn't be caught lying about only paying 14% in taxes?
During the election I noted that I paid 25 times the amount paid by the Bidens to various charities and I make under $100K. I say that only to point out the hypocrisy of those to claim all they care about is the poor and needy. But in reality it is often the case only when they are handling other people's money.
The reason Mitt Romney only paid 14% is the same reason why Warren Buffett paid a smaller percentage than his secretary: the tax on capital gains is different than income taxes. They already paid taxes on money they earned and invested the rest. Now, they are paying taxes on the money they earned through that investment---essentially, the money their money earned. Without a reasonably low capital gains tax, there'd be less investing, less growth, fewer jobs created, and Warren Buffett wouldn't be able to pay that secretary the $200,000+/yr she "earns".
It's their money; they made it. Why are people so concerned if the wealthy give away THEIR money or not? (Operative word, THEIR.) If they don't want to give away, that's their business.
How much you want to bet that most people who want others to give more are liberals and they themselves give zilch to charity?
I'll take that bet. And there is more to charitable giving than just providing money. Time and volunteering are greater commodities.
wrgarr....Then why are the liberals whining about the rich not giving their money away? I'll take your money. You keep your time.
You can't afford my time.
I'm a liberal and I give approximately 4% of my income to charities. I also volunteer and give blood regularly.
I think I read however, that on average conservatives give more to charity, whereas democrats are more likely to support higher taxes that impact themselves in order to support social services.
wrgarr.....Are you the 1% taking advantage of people like me because you have something not many people have like resources and talent? I knew you were a capitalist.
Listen to this person!
"Class Warfare" is Orwellian speak for "I've got mine, scr*w the rest of you."
They must mean people like Joe Biden donating $369 dollars a year.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm
Last two sentences of the article:
Money, in other words, isn't the only driver of philanthropy. It's about the heart as much as the wallet.
With the stock market at all time highs, I would venture to say that even though the wealthy have fat wallets, thier hearts are very, very small.
It's odd that the poorest people have the biggest hearts. LOL
JobSeeker,
I think that is because the poor know what it is like to get by with next to nothing and therefore give generously when they have extra.
Studies have shown that the poor exhibit higher levels of empathy than the rich.
Wealth doesn't make you a bad person, just a little calloused.
Love the people defending people not giving, like that's an honorable quality.
wrgarr.....I love people who have the galls to tell people they should give their money away.
No one has been telling anyone to give their money away; no where in the article and no where in the comments.
Pointing out that greed and selfishness consumes the super wealthy faction of the right wing isn't telling them to give money away. It's merely making an observation.
Nevada...Well, your observation is one-sided and not very objective. Nowhere in the article did I see anyone saying the greed and selfishness is only in the super wealthy faction of the right wing. The super wealthy faction of the left wing is equally if not more selfish and greedy.
"that the level of their wealth would continue to support their lifestyle and their family."
Are you kidding me? How much do you need to 'support your lifestyle?' $2 million, $4 million, $6 million, $8 million, $10 million...
Try supporting your lifestyle with $20,000.
I make a decent living and live comfortably (in the upper-5 digit range). I don't know why I would need a lot more than this to 'support my lifestyle.'
Well, just try to support four or five houses around the world and a jet plane with a full time crew and a dozen cars and thirty or so hangers-on with only $20,000 a year.
Yeah, Kyle, but I'll bet you're one of those poor people who doesn't even have a car elevator in your house.
It's relative. So you make upper 5-figures, so you give 2% and you live comfortably. You have expenses of say 65%. Now, the economy gets shaky. The government has continued down it's socialist path and you are the new targeted "rich." Inflation is increasing. You might reduce your donations as well. The guy who makes $12K a year thinks the same about you as you do about the guy who makes $500k.
Three reasons the rich don't give to charity....GREED, TREMENDOUS GREED, FILTHY GREED....Plus the tax law doesn't make it beneficial any more.... I'm for taxing the filthy rich until they bleed.
I'm for taxing the filthy rich until they bleed.
So... you're pro-theft. Awesome.
I'm for taxing the filthy rich until they bleed.
What a joke
You are absolutely off the reservation Ms. Meijer. Without the rich, there would be no poor, because they would die off like in 3rd world countries. The so-called poor in this country get unemployment for years, food stamp, welfare, free school lunches, and free phones from the taxpayers. Most have personal cars, computers and big screen tv's. That's vastly different from poor in other countries. What in the world are you thinking? Are you on drugs or what? You should be ashamed!
As I sit here reading these comments I am appalled at the stereotyping that is going on. Not all wealthy are GREEDY and SELFISH and not all poor are more generous and compassionate. When I was younger I too thought that the wealthy should be helping (giving) more but, after 35 yrs of work I now live a more comfortable lifestyle and do not think anyone should expect us to give it away just because we have it. Before anyone takes me to task for being selfish, we do donate time and money but at our own discretion not anyone elses.
The wealthy haven't made their wealth by being greedy. They are wealthy because they work.
Joan is jealous cause she's lazy and shiftless and the world owes her a living. Go to North Korea Joan where you belong.
They're not as stupid as you Joan,try that and they'll leave the country.
Just like that ultra right winger Tina Turner did.
You know she took Swiss citizenship don't you?
reason number #1 "their taxes are going up or have gone up"!!! Does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that if the Government raises your taxes and takes more of your earned income you have less to give away. When "not for profit" companies start struggling and cutting their budgets and not able to respond as well because donations have decreased "please all of you remember your Democrat President who wants to put it to the rich" becasue this is one of the "bi-products" of raising taxes on the rich.
BINGO, WE HAVE A WINNER! Personally, when I give $ to 'charity' I definitely consider the level of taxation already imposed on me - and deduct that from my tith. Reason - instead of me giving it to the poor, the government wants to give my $$ to the poor (so they can have the credit)
Absolutely.
Deduct your increase in taxes from your charitable giving and go back to work.
The 475ers can continue to sit around and hate the wage earners
This is just another attempt at MSNBC to divide our nation with class warfare. The liberals want you to give the shirt off of your back but not willing to give their own. Great examples are Biden with his donations compared to Romney. Biden is stingy with his money but wants to take everyone elses. If we all donated 2.8% of our income it would make a significant improvement in many peoples lives. I wonder how much the people making $50k give. I know it's not 2.8%. The rich tend to give a higher percentage.
The wealth gap in this country is much higher than in any modern time. It's a simple fact that this causes unrest and attention. Call it "class warfare" if you so wish, but clearly something is very broken in the current system.
And if it really is 'class warfare', clearly the poor are loosing badly by any objective measures.
Charity is great, but it suffers from volatility and very bad usage. Most charities are very inefficient, and get inundated after a disaster but get nothing the rest of the time. It's an ineffective means for truly addressing social issues.
Tax revenue used to support programs, when well managed, are far surperior. Further, taxes ensures everyone pays in, not just those feeling charitable. Again, it's far more efficient and equitable.
EngEsq--
I think your view on charities has some merit...but I would pick the Red Cross over FEMA in first response.
Some charities are great, and some governmental agencies need to be overhauled. No debate there.
Some charities are great, and some governmental agencies need to be overhauled. No debate there.
Now THAT I totally agree with!
Yeah! It's MSNBC's fault republicans are such greedy aholes!
NevadaJ-577866 Yeah! It's MSNBC's fault republicans are such greedy aholes
liberal/democrats are greedy also they use gov't programs to get money rather than a buisness i ask which is worse?
I don't get the purpose of this article. I have lived my entire life without receiving any money from wealthy people. I don't care why they do or do not give. As a matter of fact I am as sympathetic to them as they are to me. They can keep it all and that's OK. They can loose it all and that's OK. They can give it all away and that's OK too. We are probably like any other society in history. If the people with money (who always run any country) are responsible and do well then we will prosper. If they are selfish and foolish they will not be allowed to run society anymore. The quality of their lives depends on the work of people less fortunate than them. Some things never change.
The people with money did not originally run countries, the strongest did. Gengis Khan was not wealthy or Hitler or Napoleon but they were powerful leaders. If the strongest of the poor decided to take the country back it would be interesting. Tha's why Rich Republicans always support the police and armed forces, but not the teachers and nurses.
You know the real reason they don't give more, with the tax loopholes, they no longer need the write off!!!!!!! and with this up and down and class warfare crap, they are hording every bit of cash they can. People don't understand, a fare and enforced corporate tax code encourages reinvestment, a fare and enforced income tax code, encourages philanthropy. If they would stop the class warfare crap, close the holes in the tax code, give large corporations and millionaires some assurance that the government is stable and able function and they don't have to worry about a market crash every 3 months, then I think you would see it return to previous reinvestment levels.
wow, I have got it all wrong. I make less than 30,000 a year, but I give over 20% to charity. Once or twice a month, I pay for and prepare a community dinner for 40-50 people who might not otherwise have a hot meal. I support the local food pantry.I go to Haiti twice a year to work on microenterprise projects that I help fund. I also support a child there and pay for another's education. Do the poor know your name? I can't take it with me. I belong to a disaster relief organization where I pay my own expenses to go help people who have been devastated by disasters. What I would like to see, is people stepping up to help, and not just once in a while, but on an ongoing basis. Most people don't have a clue how much I actually, and that's the way I like it. It sure would be nice to have deep pockets though so more could be done. I have no time for those who don't step up. Hope their money keeps them warm at night.
It must keep them warm at night, yet I never see a cart full of $$ following their casket?
Oh, I think they're plenty warm even without the $$$ following them...
I would like to point out that in this global economy, the far majority of americans are "rich" compared to those in China, africa, mexico etc.
So, before you start calling the rich greedy because they are not sharing their wealth as much as you want, please incldue in your post how much of your income you have sent to the poor in Africa who have no food or water, the starving in China, the people living on dirt floors in south america. According to them, you are "rich" and they want you donate more.
It's all relative but I think one has to keep in mind that when speaking about "rich" people it refers to people who make money far beyond the norm for that region or what it actually costs to live in that particular area comfortably.
You cannot compare America to Africa or Mexico, they don't even parallel; anyone would be considered rich compared to people who cannot simply afford running water or a daily food supply. But when you compare that some people in America are living hand to mouth while others are living in vulgar luxury, that's too extreme.
It makes for a serious societal fracture.
First, I thought the reason that part of the reason we have taxes were to help the less fortunate (welfare, food stamps, free cell phones, etc.) Aren't the rich, and everyone else that has a job for that matter, already paying to "charity" every paycheck? Why should the rich be guilted into paying more just because they have worked to get a good paycheck. Most of them have earned it. In fact, most of them own companies that employee Americans. I'd rather see someone employee 20 people @ $50k a year than give $1 million to charity. Also, the last I checked 2% of $1 million is still $20,000, and I'm pretty sure that's more than most of us will donate in our life times and these people do it every year, on average.
Uh...yeah, as sablelace said, you can't make a direct comparison. You also have to take local economy and cost of living into consideration on top of currancy exchange. A person living in rural Montana can do a lot more with $20,000 than a person living in Seattle, Washington. Also, generalizing Africa? You do realize that there are 54 countries in Africa? Most of them have reasonable standards of living, wages, etc.
Frank 3333 - The richest man in the world is Mexican.
I'm at no risk of being called rich, but I can't help but feel that MSNBC is misinterpreting this.
If rich people felt free to give more, they would. They probably don't feel free to give more because they know everyone else in the country is trying to pry their bank vaults open using robin-hood excuses.