Some Americans Boosted Charitable Giving In Recession; The Rich Did Not

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
If anything, this should come as absolute proof that trickle-down economics simply does not work; when it was needed, it became "it's all about me".

However, I have to hand it to the Mormons; they have always been giving, and continue to do so.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/06/354104760/some-americans-boosted-charitable-giving-in-recession-the-rich-did-not

Some Americans Boosted Charitable Giving In Recession; The Rich Did Not
by Bill Chappell
October 06, 2014 5:39 PM ET

As times got tough in the recent recession, the less well-off of America's citizens became more generous when giving to charity. But at the same time, wealthy Americans cut the proportion of their incomes they donated, according to a new study that analyzed data from tax returns.

NPR's Pam Fessler reports for our Newscast unit:
"The study was done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which looked at IRS data showing charitable deductions in 2006 and 2012. The study found that Americans who earned $200,000 a year or more cut the share of income they gave to charity by 4.6 percent, while Americans earning less than $100,000 a year gave 4.5 percent more of their income to charity.

"Those with incomes of $25,000 of less saw the biggest increase. The share of their income that went to charity rose almost 17 percent. Low-income Americans primarily give to religious organizations."
While the wealthiest Americans cut how much of their incomes they sent to charity, the total amount of their donations rose, with the Chronicle saying their donations "increased by $4.6 billion, to hit $77.5 billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars."

For the study, researchers used data about gifts to charity from taxpayers who itemized deductions, compiled by the organization Giving USA. They based their observations on donors' adjusted gross income, not their net worth.

To put the numbers in a wider perspective, consider that in 2012, individual Americans donated $228.93 billion to charity, or 72 percent of the total, according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics.

Beyond income levels, the Chronicle's study also highlights geographical differences in giving. For starters, Las Vegas, where the recession was sharply felt, surpassed its reputation as Sin City to show the largest increase in giving, with people shelling out nearly 15 percent more of their income for charity between 2006 and 2012.

The city's generosity helped make Nevada the state whose residents boosted the rate of their giving the most during the recession. Here's the top five:

Nevada
Idaho
Georgia
Connecticut
Florida

"Residents of Utah remain by far the nation's most generous," the Chronicle reports. "For every $1,000 they earned, they donated $65.60 to charity. New Hampshire remains the least generous. Those residents gave $17.40 for every $1,000 they earned."
A good quote someone had for this:

Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants. -Benjamin Franklin

BL.
 
Last edited:

impulse462

macrumors 68000
Jun 3, 2009
1,697
2,203
Just because they "kept it to themselves" doesn't mean it's sitting in a bank account. What if these are people who put more money into their children's college funds or something to help, maybe not them personally, but their immediate family or friends? Do those necessarily get reported in this study?

Plus, dontating money to charity is just so blasé. If these people actively volunteered and helped in their community in addition to donations, it'd be more impressive.
 

kilcher

macrumors 65816
Jul 3, 2011
1,262
313
I give to charity every day, it's called taxes.

And I couldn't care less what the "rich" do with their money, it's theirs.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
I give to charity every day, it's called taxes.

And I couldn't care less what the "rich" do with their money, it's theirs.
Our taxes are paid to fund this country; that has nothing to do with how charitable you can be in helping your fellow man.

But this does show how uncharitable and uncaring the rich may be.. yet people in this country still tend to idolize them...

BL.
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
992
2,733
Connecticut, USA
But this does show how uncharitable and uncaring the rich may be.. yet people in this country still tend to idolize them...

BL.
Uncharitable and uncaring? I guess you missed this part:

Even though wealthier Americans donated a smaller share of their income, the total amount they gave increased by $4.6-billion, to hit $77.5-billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars.
So the total amount given by the rich went up. Plus the fact that the article specifically states that Charities still look to the rich donors belies your conclusions that they are uncaring and ungiving.

Your disdain for fellow citizens is getting old fast.
 

samiwas

macrumors 68000
Aug 26, 2006
1,575
3,518
Atlanta, GA
Your disdain for fellow citizens is getting old fast.
And many peoples' disdain for the average and poor citizens got old a long time ago.

How does respect for those who earn their wealth equate to idolization?
I think "earn" is a bit of a misnomer. Someone who loads pallets onto a truck on a hot summer day "earns" his $12 an hour or whatever. Someone who gets in a ring for half an hour with someone else while they punch each other does not "earn" $32 million in that half an hour. This, of course, is my opinion.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
What don’t you understand about a simple, unambiguous question?
Because it isn't simple and it's based on incorrect information. I understand the question quite easily, it's saying "we should respect them, they earned their money", as if that's always true.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Why do you care? It's not your money.
Wow, defensive.

He asked a question with a bad premise and I inquired more about the premise. It's as simple as that. If you're going to frame a question in a certain way, be prepared to be questioned about it.
 

sodapop1

Suspended
Sep 7, 2014
187
1,282
And many peoples' disdain for the average and poor citizens got old a long time ago.



I think "earn" is a bit of a misnomer. Someone who loads pallets onto a truck on a hot summer day "earns" his $12 an hour or whatever. Someone who gets in a ring for half an hour with someone else while they punch each other does not "earn" $32 million in that half an hour. This, of course, is my opinion.
Well, this speaks more about a society who is willing to pay money to watch a person punch another person than it does to the individual.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Well, this speaks more to a society who is willing to pay money to watch a person punch another person than it does to the individual.
I doubt many here would begrudge a guy for making 32m in 30 minutes. They might begrudge that guy for then saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or "anyone can be rich", but usually not for the money.
 

sodapop1

Suspended
Sep 7, 2014
187
1,282
I doubt many here would begrudge a guy for making 32m in 30 minutes. They might begrudge that guy for then saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or "anyone can be rich", but usually not for the money.
No doubt, I'm certain that many including myself would love to be in that position but society is really acting as the enabler where someone could make that amount of money.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
No doubt, I'm certain that many including myself would love to be in that position but society is really acting as the enabler where someone could make that amount of money.
I do agree that society as a whole needs to change.
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
992
2,733
Connecticut, USA
Yeah, but *how* did it become theirs? In a just or unjust manner?
Define "just" and "unjust".

I would point out that the OP's original quoted text says "earned". Short of theft or other illegal activities (which I doubt anyone would be reporting to the IRS anyway), how they "earn" it is completely irrelevant.

The entire article is nothing more than click bait for the progressives to get outraged about. The title is particularly misleading because the rich, as defined in the article, did in fact give MORE in total dollar terms than prior years.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Define "just" and "unjust".

I would point out that the OP's original quoted text says "earned". Short of theft or other illegal activities (which I doubt anyone would be reporting to the IRS anyway), how they "earn" it is completely irrelevant.

The entire article is nothing more than click bait for the progressives to get outraged about. The title is particularly misleading because the rich, as defined in the article, did in fact give MORE in total dollar terms than prior years.
That's because the rich are becoming richer in America. The gap isn't shrinking.
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
992
2,733
Connecticut, USA
That's because the rich are becoming richer in America. The gap isn't shrinking.
And they are giving more to charity! You should be happy!

Michael Goff said:
Because it isn't simple and it's based on incorrect information. I understand the question quite easily, it's saying "we should respect them, they earned their money", as if that's always true.
Apparently you think there are "right" and "wrong" ways to legally earn an income. Please elaborate, with examples, so I can understand your position.
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
Define "just" and "unjust".
I'm not sure I can. But you're explicitly defining "legal" = "just".

I would point out that the OP's original quoted text says "earned". Short of theft or other illegal activities (which I doubt anyone would be reporting to the IRS anyway), how they "earn" it is completely irrelevant.
Disagree. When you get to buy the laws that regulate how you "earn", it's completely relevant.