Why doesn't America's rich donate more to charity

[Yarddog]

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?
They could certainly afford to donate bigger sums, but something seems to be holding them back.

 

[redleghunter]

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?
They could certainly afford to donate bigger sums, but something seems to be holding them back.

Good well researched piece.

They may have saved a lot of money in research dollars if they just listened to Jesus on mammon.

 

[Kaon]

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?
They could certainly afford to donate bigger sums, but something seems to be holding them back.

Honestly, it would make more sense to change the system - which would benefit everyone on the whole.

The rich likely know this, which is why they 1) do not suggest it often if at all, and 2) would rather have people demand they pay more than have the majority move up a class or two.

 

[timothyu]

They are generous enough to donate what is feasible according to the charitable amount allowed by the IRS. True patrons of compassion. They are also quick to set up organizations where the masses may contribute making the organizers of course look good without spending any money of their own. It's a throw back to the middle age days of the wives of the rich being benefactors to the arts. Social standing outweighs compassion.

 

[Silverback]

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?
They could certainly afford to donate bigger sums, but something seems to be holding them back.

I know several Doctors, and a few others that people would consider "rich" these people worked hard, they sacrificed, practised self reliance, and made good choices. Because of this they have a very fine quality of life.

On average, at this point in their lives (middle age) they work 60+ hours a week, more if they have call. When they were younger, it was 70+ or more per week.

Additionally, between federal income tax, state income tax, city wage tax, property tax, plus other
tax, over 50% of there income goes to some level of government.

However, each have charities they support, and they are happy to do so.

It has become very fashionable in the United States to demonize the wealthy and successful, to accuse them of greed, selfishness, and non caring.

People who are able need to work, and need to do so for as many hours as necessary to make it in life, and not need charity.

Charity, should be a short term thing until people are back on their feet, and start working.

Hard work is the biblical norm, family is the first level of charity, the church is second.

In the old testament it talks about not harvesting the edges of your field, and not going over your field a second time, so the poor have something to eat. But, the poor had to get up, and go there to eat, and they could not take anything home. In short...they had to work for it.

NGO charities are fine, but people who have fallen of hard times should be helped by family, and there church first.

Nothing should be free.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I can't really be concerned with why other people don't do what I think they ought to do when I am less than perfect myself. I never understood why people think they are qualified to tell other people how much is too much or how little is too little of those other people's money to give away. True, Some of the rich have that Ebenezer Scrooge attitude. They believe the government is supposed to be in charge of all that poor people stuff. So people like Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton, Warren Buffet et al might tell us they would be fine with higher taxes to make things more fair but instead of voluntarily taking that to heart they squeeze the dollars until Washington can feel it in his grave. Still it is not my business to tell any of them that they aren't doing enough. It is rather my business to examine whether I am doing enough.

 

[timothyu]

Nothing should be free.

Also no one should profit.

 

[Albion]

IMO, its hard to come up with an answer that fits people across the board, but it is interesting that some of the most prominent and wealthy people who talk the most about wanting to help the poor seem not to be doing too much themselves. For example--

Among Democrats who are currently running for president, Beto O'Rourke and wife gave less than 1% to charity, Bernie Sanders earned $1,073,333 but gave $10,600 to charity.

Among other candidates for president, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and her husband donated less than 2% of their $215,000 income to charity last year. Sen. Amy Klobuchar and her husband gave $6,600 of their $338,500 to charity. Sen. Kamala Harris gave 1.4%

Joe Biden gave $3,690 to charity over the course of a decade, mainly covering his time as Vice President.

These figures are all from tax returns and do not all refer to the same tax years.
​

 

[Kaon]

I know several Doctors, and a few others that people would consider "rich" these people worked hard, they sacrificed, practised self reliance, and made good choices. Because of this they have a very fine quality of life.

On average, at this point in their lives (middle age) they work 60+ hours a week, more if they have call. When they were younger, it was 70+ or more per week.

Additionally, between federal income tax, state income tax, city wage tax, property tax, plus other
tax, over 50% of there income goes to some level of government.

However, each have charities they support, and they are happy to do so.

It has become very fashionable in the United States to demonize the wealthy and successful, to accuse them of greed, selfishness, and non caring.

People who are able need to work, and need to do so for as many hours as necessary to make it in life, and not need charity.

Charity, should be a short term thing until people are back on their feet, and start working.

Hard work is the biblical norm, family is the first level of charity, the church is second.

In the old testament it talks about not harvesting the edges of your field, and not going over your field a second time, so the poor have something to eat. But, the poor had to get up, and go there to eat, and they could not take anything home. In short...they had to work for it.

NGO charities are fine, but people who have fallen of hard times should be helped by family, and there church first.

Nothing should be free.

This is capitalist - which isn't bad if you are fine with the consequences. If you think nothing should be free then there is no boundary on exploitation. The air you breathe should be charged, as well as the energy you use as a human. Your existence should be taxed (which, it is) - again, very capitalist, but fine if you are fine with the consequences or evolution.

 

[Albion]

No, the Free Enterprise System does not permit anyone to sell someone else's property. Ironically, much of the Capitalist exploitation that people talk about is made possible ONLY because of sweetheart deals made between ambitious entrepreneurs and GOVERNMENT.

And yet people actually believe that if we move in the direction of more government a la Bernie Sanders or AOC or most of the people named in my post above...that this will be LESS common!

 

[timothyu]

because of sweetheart deals made between ambitious entrepreneurs and GOVERNMENT.

Why distinguish what is meant to be the same?

 

[Yarddog]

IMO, its hard to come up with an answer that fits people across the board, but it is interesting that some of the most prominent and wealthy people who talk the most about wanting to help the poor seem not to be doing too much themselves. For example--

Among Democrats who are currently running for president, Beto O'Rourke and wife gave less than 1% to charity, Bernie Sanders earned $1,073,333 but gave $10,600 to charity.

Among other candidates for president, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and her husband donated less than 2% of their $215,000 income to charity last year. Sen. Amy Klobuchar and her husband gave $6,600 of their $338,500 to charity. Sen. Kamala Harris gave 1.4%

Joe Biden gave $3,690 to charity over the course of a decade, mainly covering his time as Vice President.

These figures are all from tax returns and do not all refer to the same tax years.
​

The point of the article wasn't about Democrats and Republicans but the rich and not so rich. All the Dems that you point out are all considered rich.

 

[timothyu]

And yet people actually believe that if we move in the direction of more government

What is the option? More business? Is it bad if business's hold on government is reduced? We here did not end up with more government. We simply tossed the auto and health insurers, got rid of the parasites, but now being an endangered species, left them life and house insurance.

 

[Albion]

The point of the article wasn't about Democrats and Republicans but the rich and not so rich. All the Dems that you point out are all considered rich.

And that is the topic here.

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?

They could certainly afford to donate bigger sums, but something seems to be holding them back.

 

[Albion]

What is the option? More business? Is it bad if business's hold on government is reduced?

The best option certainly is not to move in the direction of making the problem worse! I thought we could all agree on that, at least.

 

[timothyu]

The best option certainly is not to move in the direction of making the problem worse!

See the edited #13

 

[FenderTL5]

n/m.

 

[Yarddog]

And that is the topic here.

It is the topic but you were pointing to only Democratic candidates. Do you have stats for the 2016 Republican candidates to balance your point.

 

[Kaon]

No, the Free Enterprise System does not permit anyone to sell someone else's property. Ironically, much of the Capitalist exploitation that people talk about is made possible ONLY because of sweetheart deals made between ambitious entrepreneurs and GOVERNMENT.

And yet people actually believe that if we move in the direction of more government a la Bernie Sanders or AOC or most of the people named in my post above...that this will be LESS common!

The idea that capitalism is unfairly critiqued is asinine; the very purpose of capitalism is to produce more capital. Romanticizing how the capital is made (insert "honorable" wealth methods here) doesn't remove the fact that if one is true capitalist, one's purpose in the market is to make more capital.

No capitalist goes into capitalism because they want to promote wealth and income inequality. It goes against the very philosophy of capitalism, and the inherent culture of competition.

That is why I said if you are comfortable with being a capitalist, accept all of it and own it. We shouldn't pretend capitalism is a noble economic structure.

 

[Albion]

It is the topic but you were pointing to only Democratic candidates. Do you have stats for the 2016 Republican candidates to balance your point.

I am sure there are some, but I was most interested in candidates for the top office in the land, people you might expect to be setting a good example or at least putting their monies where their mouths are.