Charitable giving in America

[DragonMasterAlex]

This is largely for all you people-haters such as Bowfinger, who assume that just because they are greedy, cynical monsters that the rest of us are as well. Well guess what, baby, you're full of beans, and here are the numbers to prove it:

Americans give a lot to charity: $241 billion in 2002. This includes giving by individuals, corporations and foundations. However, giving went down by 2.3% in 2001 and 0.5% in 2002, the first declines in seven years. These percentages take inflation into account.


Individuals give away most of this money: $183.73 billion in 2001, or 76.3% of all giving. Bequests -- giving by individuals who have died -- added up to another $18.1 billion, 7.5% of all giving.

Foundations gave away $26.9 billion in 2002, or 11.2% of all giving. The amount of foundation giving decreased 2.7% in 2002 after inflation, a reflection of the decline in the stock market (foundation assets are often invested in stocks). In the 1990s foundation giving went up dramatically as the stock market rose. In 2000, for example, foundation giving went up nearly 20%.

Corporations gave $12.2 billion in 2002, an 8.8% increase. This figure includes the donation of corporate products, not just donations of money. Corporate giving accounts for 5.1% of all giving.


These figures come from Giving USA, an annual survey of philanthropy published by the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel (www.aafrc.org).

The figures are estimates, being based on data from charities, other research on giving and a statistical model that takes economic conditions into account to project how much is given. Data about giving reported to the IRS is not released until two years after donations were made. As a result, these annual giving figures are often adjusted, sometimes by a considerable amount.

How much do people give?


It is hard to know for sure how much of their income people give away. According to the Giving USA figures, individuals gave 1.8% of their income in 2001, a decline from 1.9% in 2000.

However, according to IRS data, people who itemized their deductions in 1997 gave away about 3% of their income. Nearly 89% of those who itemized their deductions made contributions. Itemized contributions include gifts of property, such as donations of clothes or an old car.


People who give to churches and religious groups give more than other people, according to a 2002 survey done by Independent Sector. They give an average of $1391 to their religious institution and $958 to other charities. Those who give only to nonreligious charities contributed $623 on average.


Who gets all this money?

Religion is by far the largest recipient of all this generosity. In 2002, giving to churches, synagogues and other religious institutions added up to $84.28 billion. This is 35% of all giving.

Education is the next largest category, receiving $31.64 billion in 2002, or 7.7% of all gifts.

Health is next, receiving $18.87 billion in 2002, or 7.8 % of all giving.

Human services is next, receiving $18.65 billion in 2002, or 7.7% of the total.

Arts, culture and humanities organizations receive the next largest chunk of donations, $12.2 billion in 2002. This adds up to 5.1% of total giving.

Public-society benefit organizations are next, getting $11.6 billion in 2002. This broad category includes United Ways, Jewish federations and consumer protection groups. This category accounts for 4.8% of giving.

Environment and wildlife organizations come next, getting $8.6 billion, 2.7% of overall giving.

International affairs is the smallest category, getting just 1.9% of overall giving, $4.6 billion in 2001.

Just over 12% of giving goes to other causes.

And here are numerous sources to prove that the people-haters like Bowfinger are completely wrong in their cynical hatred of man.

http://www.charitablechoices.org/chargive.asp
http://personal.fidelity.com/myfidelity/InsideFidelity/NewsCenter/reportdocs/CGF_2000.html
http://www.louisianagiving.org/why.htm
http://www.cpanda.org/arts-culture-facts/policy/giving00.html
http://fdncenter.org/learn/faqs/html/givingstats.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_Bush_transcript010920.html
http://www.charitytimes.com/pages/features/thecashincentive.htm

And a little bit about the Libertarian idea of charity:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0304/forumapril_bryant.html


Jason

 

[Bowfinger]

Grow up. You obviously haven't paid the slightest attention to anything I've said or NOT said. You're just making stuff up, embarrassing yourself in the process.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Good statistics DMA. It's nice to see just how much voluntary giving makes a difference. Should we do more? Hell yes, we all can do more.

CkG

 

[dahunan]

News like this makes Democrats think they can take more out of our paychecks...

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Yep, Nutfinger, I put up ALL those fake sites to fool the people of Anandtech into thinking Americans are generous. What a bastard I am!

Cad, I hoped you would enjoy seeing the numbers that obviously strike some sort of fear into Bow's cynical, dark heart I also think we can do more, but I'm pretty darned impressed with the numbers; that's nearly a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in one year's worth of private giving. now just imagine, if we grow the economy so that people have more money, more goods and a better standard of living, we'll be even MORE capable of charitable giving than we already are!

Jason

PS: Let's hope folks *don't* take this news to mean they can get more from our paychecks; it's precisely that kind of logic that will *dissuade* people from charitable giving.

 

[ReiAyanami]

according to Yahoo! Finance, the figure is $160 billion annually to "non-profit" organizations, one fourth of which are actual welfare type charities. and the rest is bill gates...

 

[dmcowen674]

Thank you DMA.

You realize those figures clearly show the numbers going up and the reason the numbers going up is because the rich do this to skirt paying TAXES for crying out loud.

Don't forget after they make these "contributions" out of the goodness of their heart they cry that they are "Hurting" from paying too much tax still after lowering their Tax bill.

Thank you again DMA, should change the thread Title to:

"DMA shows how clearly the Rich Fleece America through the guise of charitable contributions"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Yep, Nutfinger, I put up ALL those fake sites to fool the people of Anandtech into thinking Americans are generous. What a bastard I am!

Cad, I hoped you would enjoy seeing the numbers that obviously strike some sort of fear into Bow's cynical, dark heart I also think we can do more, but I'm pretty darned impressed with the numbers; that's nearly a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in one year's worth of private giving. now just imagine, if we grow the economy so that people have more money, more goods and a better standard of living, we'll be even MORE capable of charitable giving than we already are!

Jason

PS: Let's hope folks *don't* take this news to mean they can get more from our paychecks; it's precisely that kind of logic that will *dissuade* people from charitable giving.

First, as I said in another thread, you can take that trailer trash chip on your shoulder and shove it straight up your rectum. You may or may not be a bastard. I will leave that determination to any friends, family, and co-workers you may have. You are, however, an ill-informed and belligerent boor. You seem to feel that everyone who needs help is just as worthless as your father. You are too wrapped up in your own self-hate to recognize you are not the only person in the world, your story is not the only story in the world, and perhaps of most relevance here, your opinion is not the only valid opinion in the world.

Second, as I said before, here and elsewhere, "Grow up. You obviously haven't paid the slightest attention to anything I've said or NOT said. You're just making stuff up, embarrassing yourself in the process." If you can show me where I said anything remotely related to charitable giving, I will be most appreciative. Until then, I will assume your use of my name is just another of your pathetic, childish lies intended to demonize someone with whom you cannot compete. (The same applies to eminent domain, another load you dishonestly attached to me.)

I can't tell for sure, but you might be interesting. You obviously have great passion. It is too bad you can't channel it into adult discussion. I express concerns for the middle class and for people who lack a living wage and basic health benefits. You somehow pervert this into calling me a greedy, people-hating, cynical monster. WTF? Those are names one associates with your comments, not mine.

Time and again you fail to address specific points raised by others, launching instead yet another tirade full of name-calling and nonsense. You rant and rage about "stealing" and "slavery", but you have yet to explain what specific actions constitute stealing and slavery.

To put it bluntly, your communication skills suck. Your posts are mostly gibberish, your intellect shrouded by hateful spews. This thread is a great example. People give to charity. Duh. So what? What does it prove? Are you suggesting it makes some alternatives unneccessary? If so, which alternatives? Why are they unneccessary? Where are your numbers showing the total need, so we can see if charitable giving is enough? Do your numbers mean anything, or are they an empty attempt to distract from other issues? In short, what's your point?

If you must continue your name-calling and personal attacks, I suggest you take it to PM. If and when you are interested in actually responding to points and issues raised by others, perhaps we can have a useful discussion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Little exercise for ya.

A myth exists that few taxes creates more giving, or that is at least what is implied by some.

I lived in NH.

Let's look at that. It has the lowest taxes of all states. Care to guess how it ranks with charitable donations? At the top, you think? From a NH group that analyzes such things...


"The data continue to reflect year after year that as a relatively wealthy state we could be doing more," said Deborah Schachter, director of Giving New Hampshire. Schachter helped analyze charitable deduction data on residents? 2000 IRS forms to compile the report.

The following findings are listed in the report?s executive summary:

l While New Hampshire ranks as the sixth wealthiest in the nation in terms of individuals? average adjusted gross income according to 2000 IRS data, the state ranks 45th among states in average reported giving;

l When it comes to charitable giving relative to adjusted gross income, New Hampshire still ranks dead last at 50 among the country?s states;

l In 2000, New Hampshire residents reported to the IRS they gave $495.7 million in charitable giving. If New Hampshire residents gave at the national average, they would have contributed approximately $170 million more in 2000. "

The more they keep the less they give. So much for charitable intent.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Thank you DMA.

You realize those figures clearly show the numbers going up and the reason the numbers going up is because the rich do this to skirt paying TAXES for crying out loud.

Don't forget after they make these "contributions" out of the goodness of their heart they cry that they are "Hurting" from paying too much tax still after lowering their Tax bill.

Thank you again DMA, should change the thread Title to:

"DMA shows how clearly the Rich Fleece America through the guise of charitable contributions"

Perhaps you would like to explain how it is that the "rich fleece America" by *giving away* money to charities? I would like, in particular, to know how this can be a fleecing while, at the very same time, the rich pay the VAST majority of tax dollars year in and year out?

Come on, take us all through it step-by step, wontcha?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

How humorous, Nutfinger, that in a post filled with lies you would accuse me of lying about you. You claim to be just innocently sitting around worryign so much about the middle class, and what are your proposed solutions? Social programs? Welfare? Forced charity? Come on, let's be specific.

I'll tell you SPECIFICALLY what the purpose of this thread is (which, by now, EVERYONE ELSE has already figured out): To show unequivocally that Americans, who live in the world's richest nation, give a hell of a lot of money to a lot of causes.

If you want to know my point about your "alternative methods," which for the sake of discussion I'll *presume* to mean Welfare and other social giving programs sponsored and funded by the government (feel free to adjust that if it's not the case), it is simply this: Government gets money through taxation. Taxation only works if there are people WORKING, producing wealth. Clearly enough, when you create a government funded giving program, you are taking the earnings of some people and giving it to others who did not earn it. This is not the same as using tax money for the common defense (military, police) and general welfare (fire departments, roads, etc), it is far more akin to theft. If we assert, as our founding fathers DID assert, that "All men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and that it is government's function to protect those rights, we *cannot* justifiably "take from the mouth of labor the bread it has EARNED" even if the stated purpose is to feed someone who didn't earn their bread and therefore doesn't have any.

My *entire* point is that there are certain functions of government that are legitimate and certain that are not. Social programs are not, because they *require* taking from some people and giving to others, BY FORCE (and if you don't believe it's by force, go talk to anyone who's spent time in prison or lost their belongings for not paying their full taxes. Granted, they SHOULD pay their taxes, but it's also fair and reasonable to say that taxes should be REASONABLE and used for the proper functions of the government, not this "New Deal" tripe that FDR saddled us with.)

Additionally I would say that the government would be FAR more frugal if it stuck to its' original premises and would not NEED the number of tax dollars it currently takes. 30+ percent of your income is a ridiculous amount of money.

Now there, BF, I've played very nicely with you, perhaps you can get off your high horse, stop imagining you're better than anyone else, and talk like an adult instead of someone out to make every personal attack he/she/it can muster.

Jason

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Little exercise for ya.

A myth exists that few taxes creates more giving, or that is at least what is implied by some.

I lived in NH.

Let's look at that. It has the lowest taxes of all states. Care to guess how it ranks with charitable donations? At the top, you think? From a NH group that analyzes such things...


"The data continue to reflect year after year that as a relatively wealthy state we could be doing more," said Deborah Schachter, director of Giving New Hampshire. Schachter helped analyze charitable deduction data on residents? 2000 IRS forms to compile the report.

The following findings are listed in the report?s executive summary:

l While New Hampshire ranks as the sixth wealthiest in the nation in terms of individuals? average adjusted gross income according to 2000 IRS data, the state ranks 45th among states in average reported giving;

l When it comes to charitable giving relative to adjusted gross income, New Hampshire still ranks dead last at 50 among the country?s states;

l In 2000, New Hampshire residents reported to the IRS they gave $495.7 million in charitable giving. If New Hampshire residents gave at the national average, they would have contributed approximately $170 million more in 2000. "

The more they keep the less they give. So much for charitable intent.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Thank you DMA.

You realize those figures clearly show the numbers going up and the reason the numbers going up is because the rich do this to skirt paying TAXES for crying out loud.

Don't forget after they make these "contributions" out of the goodness of their heart they cry that they are "Hurting" from paying too much tax still after lowering their Tax bill.

Thank you again DMA, should change the thread Title to:

"DMA shows how clearly the Rich Fleece America through the guise of charitable contributions"

Perhaps you would like to explain how it is that the "rich fleece America" by *giving away* money to charities? I would like, in particular, to know how this can be a fleecing while, at the very same time, the rich pay the VAST majority of tax dollars year in and year out?

Come on, take us all through it step-by step, wontcha?

Jason

Winston did an excellent job doing that for me, TY Winston.

So DMA, what exactly is the great contribution to Society of these "Rich" New Hampshirites? It sure isn't Charitable Contributions die to their LOWest Tax rate in the Country now is it?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Well, let's see. According to the 2000 Census, there were 1,235,786 people living in New Hampshire. According to the post above, those people gave 495.7 MILLION dollars to charity in 2000. The flaw is, of course, that I can't find any data on what percentage of New Hampshire is considered *wealthy* (and how much IS wealthy? I'd say over $3,000,000, no less, but others would say as little as $60,000 a year is wealthy, which, at least in California, it most assuredly is not...)

So to answer your question, the great contribution of those wealthy in New Hampshire, a small state with a small population, was just under half a BILLION dollars for ONE year.

How much did you give?

Jason

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well, let's see. According to the 2000 Census, there were 1,235,786 people living in New Hampshire. According to the post above, those people gave 495.7 MILLION dollars to charity in 2000. The flaw is, of course, that I can't find any data on what percentage of New Hampshire is considered *wealthy* (and how much IS wealthy? I'd say over $3,000,000, no less, but others would say as little as $60,000 a year is wealthy, which, at least in California, it most assuredly is not...)

So to answer your question, the great contribution of those wealthy in New Hampshire, a small state with a small population, was just under half a BILLION dollars for ONE year.

How much did you give?

Jason

"How much did you give?"

I am not "Rich" and never said I am like many in here that claim to be and that they are "hurting" too.

Are you rich? Are you "Hurting" from being overtaxed? How much did you give if you are so rich?

 

[Zebo]

Human services is next, receiving $18.65 billion in 2002, or 7.7% of the total.

Well if we'd only multiply donations by a factor 20 we could elminate welfare. Also, the idea of replacing social services is naive, since charities are highly localized and wealthy communities tend to have well-funded charities, and poor communities tend to have poorly funded ones.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
How humorous, Nutfinger, that in a post filled with lies you would accuse me of lying about you. You claim to be just innocently sitting around worryign so much about the middle class, and what are your proposed solutions? Social programs? Welfare? Forced charity? Come on, let's be specific.

I'll tell you SPECIFICALLY what the purpose of this thread is (which, by now, EVERYONE ELSE has already figured out): To show unequivocally that Americans, who live in the world's richest nation, give a hell of a lot of money to a lot of causes.

I must repeat what I said before, "People give to charity. Duh. So what? What does it prove? Are you suggesting it makes some alternatives unneccessary? If so, which alternatives? Why are they unneccessary? Where are your numbers showing the total need, so we can see if charitable giving is enough?"

I'm pretty sure we all already knew Americans give a hell of a lot of money, at least in terms of total dollars. In terms of percentage of income, however, I don't find 2-3% very impressive at all.

Finally, while you're on the subject of honesty, please show us where I said anything at all about charity prior to this message. Specifically, I'd like to see your basis for slandering me with this spew: "This is largely for all you people-haters such as Bowfinger, who assume that just because they are greedy, cynical monsters that the rest of us are as well. Well guess what, baby, you're full of beans, and here are the numbers to prove it:" You can't because I didn't.

If you want to know my point about your "alternative methods," which for the sake of discussion I'll *presume* to mean Welfare and other social giving programs sponsored and funded by the government (feel free to adjust that if it's not the case), it is simply this: Government gets money through taxation. Taxation only works if there are people WORKING, producing wealth. Clearly enough, when you create a government funded giving program, you are taking the earnings of some people and giving it to others who did not earn it. This is not the same as using tax money for the common defense (military, police) and general welfare (fire departments, roads, etc), it is far more akin to theft. If we assert, as our founding fathers DID assert, that "All men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and that it is government's function to protect those rights, we *cannot* justifiably "take from the mouth of labor the bread it has EARNED" even if the stated purpose is to feed someone who didn't earn their bread and therefore doesn't have any.

My *entire* point is that there are certain functions of government that are legitimate and certain that are not. Social programs are not, because they *require* taking from some people and giving to others, BY FORCE (and if you don't believe it's by force, go talk to anyone who's spent time in prison or lost their belongings for not paying their full taxes. Granted, they SHOULD pay their taxes, but it's also fair and reasonable to say that taxes should be REASONABLE and used for the proper functions of the government, not this "New Deal" tripe that FDR saddled us with.)

Those are interesting opinions. They are just opinions.

For the sake of argument, let's accept your opinions for a moment. Unless you can demonstrate that charitable giving is adequate to fill the need, what do you suggest? Do you have other alternatives? Would you let these people starve? Do we ask the U.N. to provide relief? Do you think the United States should treat its citizens as if we were some third-world hell-hole?

Another question: who gets to decide the "proper functons of government"? You don't want to pay for "welfare"; I don't want to pay for our empire building adventure in Iraq. Even Bush said nation building was inappropriate ... before the election. Indeed, I suspect you can find a fair number of people who object to any specific government function. If we all get to choose, there'll be no government left. While that has a nice ring to it, we all know anarchy is NOT desirable.

Additionally I would say that the government would be FAR more frugal if it stuck to its' original premises and would not NEED the number of tax dollars it currently takes. 30+ percent of your income is a ridiculous amount of money.

Now there, BF, I've played very nicely with you, perhaps you can get off your high horse, stop imagining you're better than anyone else, and talk like an adult instead of someone out to make every personal attack he/she/it can muster.

Jason

Ironic that you lecture me about talking like and adult when you start your post with juvenile name-calling.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Human services is next, receiving $18.65 billion in 2002, or 7.7% of the total.

Well if we'd only multiply donations by a factor 20 we could elminate welfare. Also, the idea of replacing social services is naive, since charities are highly localized and wealthy communities tend to have well-funded charities, and poor communities tend to have poorly funded ones.

how about instead of redistrobution of wealth, we redistribute the poor?

 

[beyoku]

i always donate 100.00 a quarter to different NPO's or poor people. Im thinking of sponsoring a child as well. Good point, good stats

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674<br
"How much did you give?"

I am not "Rich" and never said I am like many in here that claim to be and that they are "hurting" too.

Are you rich? Are you "Hurting" from being overtaxed? How much did you give if you are so rich?

Nor am I rich. I gave about $1200 to charity, mostly during the holidays when I bought items to be donated to a local orphanage. In addition I paid about $21,000 in taxes last year. I fail to see how any of us on this board can bitch about the people of ONE state giving "Only" half a BILLION dollars to charity in a single year when the entirety of this board will never give that much, combined, in our *LIFETIMES*, chances are.

And as for you, Nutfinger, you just don't get it, do you? The entire point I've been making is that we give a LOT of money (and it's the REAL dollars that count, not the percentages you piss and moan about). You go on and on about the "NEEDS" being met, and what I'm telling you is this: NO ONE's NEED gives you or me or anyone else the right to FORCIBLY take the earnings of some people and give it to others. If you want to convince us why we should give, that's one thing, but your desire to use political power as a tool to extort money from some in order to meet the needs of others is MORALLY WRONG. You have NO RIGHT to use the property of others to meet the needs of any cause, and no matter how much he starves in the street, neither does any other man.

And as for my "opinions," concerning the function of government, unlike YOU, I at least have the many thousands of pages of writings of Jefferson, Adams and Madison, the key founders of our form of government, to back up my perception of what government can and should do. You have only your rabid rantings about peoples' NEEDS, which you apparently think is enough to give them the right to steal.

Jason
Watch the personal attacks DMA, people have been complaining about it. I suggest that you get a little more known here so others will not mind so much that you do what they do!

 

[Zebo]

What a childish argument. How is anyone stealing? Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government where citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us the comfort of being protected in times of adversity, the tax money that goes for defense buys eash one of us protection from foriegn invasion. The tax money etc etc etcand so on.. either way it's an expenditure dirived from voters whether you like it or not. None of it's stealing, it's a majority contractual obligation, unless you view anything not benefiting you directly at the time is theft. Well looking at it that way then all of us have a few beefs, no?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: dmcowen674<br
"How much did you give?"

I am not "Rich" and never said I am like many in here that claim to be and that they are "hurting" too.

Are you rich? Are you "Hurting" from being overtaxed? How much did you give if you are so rich?

Nor am I rich. I gave about $1200 to charity, mostly during the holidays when I bought items to be donated to a local orphanage. In addition I paid about $21,000 in taxes last year. I fail to see how any of us on this board can bitch about the people of ONE state giving "Only" half a BILLION dollars to charity in a single year when the entirety of this board will never give that much, combined, in our *LIFETIMES*, chances are.

And as for you, Nutfinger, you just don't get it, do you? The entire point I've been making is that we give a LOT of money (and it's the REAL dollars that count, not the percentages you piss and moan about). You go on and on about the "NEEDS" being met, and what I'm telling you is this: NO ONE's NEED gives you or me or anyone else the right to FORCIBLY take the earnings of some people and give it to others. If you want to convince us why we should give, that's one thing, but your desire to use political power as a tool to extort money from some in order to meet the needs of others is MORALLY WRONG. You have NO RIGHT to use the property of others to meet the needs of any cause, and no matter how much he starves in the street, neither does any other man.

And as for my "opinions," concerning the function of government, unlike YOU, I at least have the many thousands of pages of writings of Jefferson, Adams and Madison, the key founders of our form of government, to back up my perception of what government can and should do. You have only your rabid rantings about peoples' NEEDS, which you apparently think is enough to give them the right to steal.

Jason

Glad you are doing well, giving back to those less fortunate and not claiming to be rich. Doing that though is being "Rich" where it counts and that is the main point those that are against the NeoCons are trying to say those the noice of greed.

We're all on the same side, no one wants to force anyone for hand outs for those that will only leech (ie: permanent welfare families for generations) , only a strong Society that does look out for those not as fortunate, big difference.

Just don't run for Office, there already is enough NeoCons to oust out of Office.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Me, a NeoCon? You must be joking.

The point of why the system of Welfare or the tax system amounts to theft is precisely that when you get these people who become lifelong drains on the system, you are, in effect, taking from those who produce to support the lives of those who do not. Just so it's clear I'm not talking about those *unable* to produce, but those who are *unwilling*. In those cases, I say cut them loose, and if they refuse to support themselves then let the law of nature take its course, even if that means that person dies.

Like I have said before, I'm more than aware that there are some who can't work due to circumstances beyond their control, and for those I have sympathy and I am willing to do what I can afford to do in order to help them. I think the difference between what others might propose and what I would propose is that my idea is based *solely* on voluntary giving, which, at $241billion in a single year, is pretty huge.

I don't support the idea of forced wealth redistribution in any way, shape or form, nor for any reason.

Jason

 

[308nato]

" When it comes to charitable giving relative to adjusted gross income, New Hampshire still ranks dead last at 50 among the country?s states;"

I think that statistic says more about assholes from New hampshire than anything relative to taxation.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Hahaha, that's really funny, hehe

Perhaps they are assholes, perhaps not, I dunno. All I'll say is that half a billion dollars in giving for a single year is a buttload of cash, far more than most of us *combined* will give in our lifetimes. We can piss and moan about the percentages, but to me it seems a lot more productive and honorable to be thankful for the generosity that private citizens in one teeny-weeny little state *did* give.

Jason

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Thank you DMA.

You realize those figures clearly show the numbers going up and the reason the numbers going up is because the rich do this to skirt paying TAXES for crying out loud.

Don't forget after they make these "contributions" out of the goodness of their heart they cry that they are "Hurting" from paying too much tax still after lowering their Tax bill.

Thank you again DMA, should change the thread Title to:

"DMA shows how clearly the Rich Fleece America through the guise of charitable contributions"

Dave, please at least look into the tax code and benefits of charitable giving before spewing this kind of stuff. Demonizing the wealthy is your right, but doing so based on false pretenses is slanderous. As an exercise for you, sit down and figure out the "savings" in taxes of someone with $6M in earned income giving $1M to charity. How much money do they give up to save that $350K? The situation is even more exaggerated for those with a big percentage of their yearly earnings coming in the form of dividends and gains, as only a small portion of their earnings are taxed at the 35% rate. The only time charitable giving makes sense tax-wise is if you are hugging a tax bracket and want to slip under it for the lower rate. Since most "wealthy" people are nowhere near the cutoff point in the top bracket, and derive a substantial amount of earnings through the lower rate dividends/gains anyway, there is no real "savings" by giving to charities. They are still giving away money.