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

[Kaon]

I understood you to be saying it about Capitalism/Free Enterprise.

My comment was a reminder that those characteristics apply also to Socialist societies.


If someone here has said that, I will have to take a look at the post.

No more argument from assumption, or strawman. You, and everyone can easily end this debate about charity by being honest about what Christ said to us concerning this world and its possessions, and our possessions in heaven. Are we arguing that rich people give to charity based on worldly approval, or are we looking at this from the Word of God's perspective? If it's the latter, the answer should be absolutely simple from Matt 19:16 - 30:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?​

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
​

If we are just arguing human standard of charity, by all means carry on and keep distracting from the Truth. It doesn't matter what human thinks you are charitable. The Word of God Himself outlined the definition - It is a complete action of spirit, not a tax write-off.

 

[Andrew77]

Jesus was very concerned with what people did with their money, so the topic is just as relevant as any other discussion regarding people’s morals. Wealthy people don’t need to have a $7,000 mo mortgage, and drive new cars, and buy $500 purses. They absolutely have expendable income that is not tied up in stocks that they can share with the less fortunate. Jesus focused more on caring for the poor than any other topic. I think it’s a valid topic for us too.

Right, but Jesus never once said to his followers "Go and check how much money other people have, and tell them they should give more".

You can't find that in the scripture anywhere.

Yes, Jesus did talk about what people did with their own money. He's talking to YOU about what YOU do with YOUR money.

He is not talking to YOU about what OTHER people should do with their money.

Do you understand the difference?

Let me say it from a different direction.

The Bible says "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." in Ephesians 5.

So let me ask you.... who was that written to? Was it written to men, to tell them "go make your wives submit to you!"? Is that who that was written to?

Or was that written to women, to tell them that they should make the choice to submit? Well of course, the verse clearly says who it was written to "Wives.... submit yourselves...... to your own husband".

It's not a commandment given to men, to force wives to do something. It's a verse written to women, to make the choice to do something.

Now do you see the difference?

We have no business telling other people, what they should do with their money. It's not our job to make other people follow the teaching of Christ. It's our job to make sure WE are following the teachings of Christ.

Why do you think Jesus was constantly fighting with the Pharisees? Because they were not following the scripture, while they were standing around yelling at other people for carrying their bed mat on the sabbath.

We should not be like the Pharisees.

 

[Andrew77]

That is a horrid example. In some countries you can live comfortably on $10,000 a year. $32,000 a year would not allow you to live well (if at all AND if you expect to rent or own a small apartment or home) in San Francisco, but it would in Sidney, MT.

People love to toss out money figures but seem to forget that there are MANY factors. I can also claim $3 will buy you a great steak dinner (but I fail to also add in 1802 North Carolina).

Not exactly. Economists that look at such things, account for that in what is called PPP, or Purchasing power parity.

What that means is, they compare between countries, how much the money have can buy relative to how much money they have.

So if you earn $10/hr, and can by a steak dinner for $10, and you compare that to a guy earning 2,000 Naria/hour, and you can buy a steak dinner of equal size for 2,000 Naria.... that would be equal PPP.

So when they compare wages between countries, they are accounting for differences in the cost of living.

The reason they can live comfortably on less money, is simply because they have less. We have a guy here from Africa, and from where he's from, you don't have electricity most of the day. Yeah, if you don't have electricity most of the day, you can live 'comfortably' on less money.

They don't have microwaves, or high speed internet. They don't have dish washers, and other basic things that we take for granted. A/C in your car? Clear paved roads?

All these things that you take for granted, would be a luxury over there. The reason they can live "comfortably" on $10,000 a year, is because their definition of "comfortably" is a tiny fraction of yours. If you doubt that, go there and live for a year. I've been in Europe, and the size of a house in Europe, is the size of a college studio apartment in the US. In fact, my first apartment, was larger than the average middle class home in Europe, based on sq.ft.

This is the reality.

 

[DamianWarS]

They are already giving more.

Responsibility?

Who said? On what authority? Because they have more? We all have many times more wealth, than the other 90% of the planet. Why are you yourself not required to give more? You have more than 90% of the planet has. If having more, in and of itself, implies a responsibility to give more.... why are you not giving more?

Did you know that if you make just $32,000 a year, you are the top 1% wage earners in the world?

That's two people working full time at McDonalds. If you and your spouse, work McDonald's full time, you'll earn more than minimum wage. That places your household, in the top 1% in the world.

Since you are the super wealthy, then by your own statement, you have a responsibility to donate more to charity. Right? Isn't that what you effectively said?

I do not believe that anyone has a 'duty' or 'obligation' or 'responsibility' to give to the poor. Whether you are rich, or poor, or middle class, no one is somehow 'supposed' to give to the poor.

I think that good people do give to charity, as they see fit, as they desire to do so. But that is on you, as an individual to make the choice, and give to charity when you have no 'responsibility' to do so.

However, it is no one's business what other people do with their money. Your only business, is what you do with YOUR money. Just as a good person gives to charity as he so chooses, so also a good person does not stick their nose into the wallets of other people, and judge them based on how much they give to the poor.

Good people do not do that.

you seem quite passionate about this subject. I merely suggested a rewording of the OP, I did not suggest an answer. perhaps another rewording is in order "Is it the responsibility of the rich of the world to give more?" or "Is it the responsibility of Americans to give more?"

 

[Sparagmos]

Right, but Jesus never once said to his followers "Go and check how much money other people have, and tell them they should give more".

You can't find that in the scripture anywhere.

Yes, Jesus did talk about what people did with their own money. He's talking to YOU about what YOU do with YOUR money.

He is not talking to YOU about what OTHER people should do with their money.

Do you understand the difference?

Let me say it from a different direction.

The Bible says "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." in Ephesians 5.

So let me ask you.... who was that written to? Was it written to men, to tell them "go make your wives submit to you!"? Is that who that was written to?

Or was that written to women, to tell them that they should make the choice to submit? Well of course, the verse clearly says who it was written to "Wives.... submit yourselves...... to your own husband".

It's not a commandment given to men, to force wives to do something. It's a verse written to women, to make the choice to do something.

Now do you see the difference?

We have no business telling other people, what they should do with their money. It's not our job to make other people follow the teaching of Christ. It's our job to make sure WE are following the teachings of Christ.

Why do you think Jesus was constantly fighting with the Pharisees? Because they were not following the scripture, while they were standing around yelling at other people for carrying their bed mat on the sabbath.

We should not be like the Pharisees.

I have never told a rich person what they should do with their money. But having a discussion about what is right and wrong when it comes to finances is no different than having a discussion about what is right and wrong in regards to sexual morality or any other topic. If people can preach and teach about what is moral, that includes what is moral in regards to charity and wealth.

Have you made any statements or advised anyone on this board about sexual morality, said that you thought certain behavior was right or wrong?

 

[Andrew77]

you seem quite passionate about this subject. I merely suggested a rewording of the OP, I did not suggest an answer. perhaps another rewording is in order "Is it the responsibility of the rich of the world to give more?" or "Is it the responsibility of Americans to give more?"

Yes, I am in fact very passionate about it, because I think the biggest problem in American Christianity today is greed and envy, and along with that the rationalization of greed and envious thinking under the guise of "they should give more to charity. They should give more for health care. They should give more for X."

I think Jesus is appalled by what Christian people do, supposedly, in his name.

 

[DamianWarS]

Yes, I am in fact very passionate about it, because I think the biggest problem in American Christianity today is greed and envy, and along with that the rationalization of greed and envious thinking under the guise of "they should give more to charity. They should give more for health care. They should give more for X."

I think Jesus is appalled by what Christian people do, supposedly, in his name.

What do you think a question gauging a giving response should look like?

 

[Andrew77]

What do you think a question gauging a giving response should look like?

I think the whole point of all my posts, is that it is wrong, and almost evil, to even gauge the giving response of others.

The only person whose giving should be gauged by any person, is their own giving. The only person who should gauge my charitable giving, is me. The only person whose giving you should gauge, is your own.

Again, for what possible reason is it my business, how much you give to charity?

By the way, how much money did you give to charity, and what percentage of your yearly income was it?

 

[ralfyman]

Yeah but their wealth is a figment of imagination, not being actual cash but the value of holdings.

Yes, much of the wealth of many people (not just the rich) consists of numbers in hard drives.

What backs these numbers for everyone is availability of material resources like minerals and energy to manufacture products, produce food through mechanized agriculture, and supply chains extending thousands of km and involving transport systems and infrastructure.

Because the world is a limited biosphere, then at some point diminishing returns (i.e., more energy to lower amounts of resources each time) kicks in, leading to a decline in output. Meanwhile, the world population plus demand per person (as more seek not just necessities but also wants) rises.

At the point, the value of money and various credit instruments drop. It's similar to what happens in war-torn places, where one will need a sack of money to buy a loaf of bread.

 

[timothyu]

At the point, the value of money and various credit instruments drop.

And this matters to the Kingdom how?

 

[DamianWarS]

I think the whole point of all my posts, is that it is wrong, and almost evil, to even gauge the giving response of others.

The only person whose giving should be gauged by any person, is their own giving. The only person who should gauge my charitable giving, is me. The only person whose giving you should gauge, is your own.

Again, for what possible reason is it my business, how much you give to charity?

By the way, how much money did you give to charity, and what percentage of your yearly income was it?

I'll reword a more neutral question that seems to capture what you're asking

"Should we be asking others to give?"

are there any examples in the bible where there is some sort of monetary giving request?

 

[ralfyman]

And this matters to the Kingdom how?

Poverty leading to higher death rates and more suffering, among others.

 

[timothyu]

Poverty leading to higher death rates and more suffering, among others.

So you believe loving neighbour as self depends on the ideals of man as much, if not more than the ideals of the Kingdom, where the solution is monetary and not just giving of self?

 

[ralfyman]

So you believe loving neighbour as self depends on the ideals of man as much, if not more than the ideals of the Kingdom, where the solution is monetary and not just giving of self?

Compassion will have to be stronger as suffering grows.

 

[Fantine]

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.

Their tax rates are lower so the benefit of deductibility is inconsequential. No more estate taxes make them less motivated to leave anything to charity. There are a few--Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett--who are admirable exceptions.

 

[rhawk]

There are a few--Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett--who are admirable exceptions.

I do not consider a lot of what they donate "admirable". I do not deny they "donate", but I do not always consider what their causes are, worthy. For example:

"According to the Gates Foundation grant database, the Foundation gave Planned Parenthood of America, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Planned Parenthood of Western Washington about $71 million from before 2009 through 2013. Additionally, the Gates Foundation gave $46.1 million to Marie Stopes International in 2012 alone.
Much of this giving is focused on Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where abortion-providers like Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes, and Ipas seek to overturn pro-life laws and sometimes even provide illicit abortion drugs."

(quoted from Fact check: Does the Gates Foundation fund abortion? - Live Action News)

 

[Fantine]

I think that the work the Gates Foundation and Warren Buffett do is, for the most part, humanitarian aid which saves millions of lives--through vaccinations, for example. You are free to disagree.

I would judge their actions against those of billionaires like, for example, the Koch Brothers, who buy elections in order to insure that they can keep polluting the environment, deregulating laws so that they can underpay employees and forego things like workmen's comp, and paying as few taxes as possible in order to avoid their societal obligations to America.

 

[rhawk]

I think that the work the Gates Foundation and Warren Buffett do is, for the most part, humanitarian aid which saves millions of lives--through vaccinations, for example. You are free to disagree.

Okay, agree to disagree.

 

[Archivist]

Well, Robert Smith just announced that his family is providing grants in the amount of $40 million to wipe out the student debt of the entire 2019 class at Morehouse College. That sounds pretty generous to me. I was at a graduation a couple years back where the speaker donated $10 million to the school (yes, I got to touch the check). Does that mean that all wealthy folks are generous with their money? Unfortunately, no. But many are.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I do know President Trump donates large portions back to the US Treasury.