• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by Yarddog, May 16, 2019 at 11:07 AM.

  1. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor Supporter

    +2,240
    Catholic
    Married
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +25,973
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Good well researched piece.

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

    Kaon Well-Known Member

    +1,207
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    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.
     
  4. timothyu

    timothyu Well-Known Member

    +999
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019 at 11:59 AM
  5. Silverback

    Silverback Active Member

    471
    +256
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  6. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +2,887
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  7. timothyu

    timothyu Well-Known Member

    +999
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Also no one should profit.
     
  8. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +19,211
    Anglican
    Married
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019 at 12:28 PM
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. Kaon

    Kaon Well-Known Member

    +1,207
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    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.
     
  10. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +19,211
    Anglican
    Married
    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! :doh:
     
  11. timothyu

    timothyu Well-Known Member

    +999
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Why distinguish what is meant to be the same?
     
  12. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor Supporter

    +2,240
    Catholic
    Married
    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.
     
  13. timothyu

    timothyu Well-Known Member

    +999
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    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.
     
  14. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +19,211
    Anglican
    Married
    And that is the topic here.

     
  15. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +19,211
    Anglican
    Married
    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.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  16. timothyu

    timothyu Well-Known Member

    +999
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    See the edited #13
     
  17. FenderTL5

    FenderTL5 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,042
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    n/m.
     
  18. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor Supporter

    +2,240
    Catholic
    Married
    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.
     
  19. Kaon

    Kaon Well-Known Member

    +1,207
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    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.
     
  20. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +19,211
    Anglican
    Married
    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.
     
Loading...