Thisis a bogus stat made to make rich people look bad by people who don't read the article closely. This was as a percentage of net worth and not net income. I have a charity giving goal that is a percentage of my income, but not as a pecentage of my net worth. My house going up in value doesn't help my cash flow in any way, and would only make my charitable givings look smaller.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
If I was ultra-wealthy I wouldn't donate more than 1% either. Sorry to disagree with the self-righteous scheme of the thread, but you guys are dicks. If you really give two shits about charity work, go give a homeless guy a big mac.
On a similar note, I heard of a study this week (on the radio) that showed that Americans are BY FAR the most charitable people in the world. Least charitable - France.
I agree. But this is a percentage YOU give. Many of us "common folk" probably give nothing. Just as, Im sure, many of the uber wealthy give way MORE than that %.
I actually find the 1% thing hard to believe. If for no other reason than very wealthy people often donate HUGE sums of money just for tax reasons. Whatever their motive, surely a good chunk of them donate for tax breaks.
That's what I thought too. A lot of items, especially cars and property, can be given in lieu of taxes... or at least to pay less. This study seems like bunk.
Abortion? Leave me alone, it's my body, my choice.
Drugs? Legalize them, we should be truly free and have a choice to use them if we desire.
God? Don't force that down my throat.
Other peoples money? Well…they should spend it the way WE think they should spend it…or they're greedy pigs!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny how you guys get so involved with other peoples money, but you're so hands off about everything else. I wonder who the real greedy bastards are sometimes.
You win... thread over, all the rest of you preachy bastards can go home now.
Sorry for the 4 posts in the row, all, but I just woke up to find this thread. I had to quote several diffferent people to supply my shitty input.
What's funny is that some of the people criticizing the world's wealthiest are probably among the worlds wealthiest. I know I fall into the top 2% of the world's wealthiest. I believe I read somewhere that any American making over $50,000 a year falls into the top 2-3% of wealthiest people in the world.
the answer to all our problems is a free market that rely's on charity to provide services and relief...taxes are evil... let them keep their money and they would donate more :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
exactly my point!
many here say the rich give sooooooo much and some do...but as we see w/ this report by merryl lynch, many, many, many, maaaaaany more don't give jack shit.
and think about it:
how much money does bill gates give? a whole lot, so do some other really rich ppl...but the others give so little it drags down the % of what someone like a bill gates gives to less than 3/4 of a stinking percent??? that's a lot of ppl not giving jack shit
this report contradicts what some ppl here have been preaching
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Abortion? Leave me alone, it's my body, my choice.
Drugs? Legalize them, we should be truly free and have a choice to use them if we desire.
God? Don't force that down my throat.
Other peoples money? Well…they should spend it the way WE think they should spend it…or they're greedy pigs!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny how you guys get so involved with other peoples money, but you're so hands off about everything else. I wonder who the real greedy bastards are sometimes.
Boy has the Coulter crew overrated this post.
I honestly don't think one person here has suggested that it is not the rich's right to donate next to nothing. Have they judged them? Sure. They think it is sad that people don't do more. I did not see any suggestions of "Charity donation minimums for the rich" or "jail time for non-donators."
Meanwhile...
Don't judge them. They can do what they want with their money and owe nothing to the world. By the way, you non-christians are going to hell. It says so in the bible, which we should be reading in public schools. And while you, socialist, are not suggesting laws about charity, we DO have laws that do not allow you to get high and we are trying our damndest to get abortion outlawed. My laws are all over your body, slut.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
New Survey Shows Why the Wealthy Give to Charity
By Marty Michaels
Nearly 90 percent of the wealthiest Americans say the primary reason they give to charity is that they believe in specific causes and have a desire to "give back" to society, according to a new survey.
Far fewer respondents — 33 percent — cited income-tax deductions as a reason for their charitable giving, and just 24 percent cited maintaining a family tradition of philanthropy.
When asked about the values they hoped to instill in their children, 82 percent of affluent parents cited a sense of the importance of philanthropy and charitable giving, while 80 percent said they hoped to teach that wealth brings "social responsibilities."
The survey, which is conducted annually by U.S. Trust, a wealth-management company in New York, polled 264 Americans with assets of $5-million or more. That sample differs from previous surveys, which included respondents who had household incomes of at least $300,000 or a net worth of $5.9-million or more, including their primary residence.
Wealthy Americans also said that accountability and "transparency" at nonprofit groups are major factors in deciding whether they would increase their charitable giving: Seventy-three percent said that it was paramount that they hold the leaders of a charity in high esteem, while 61 percent said they would consider increasing their donations if they had greater access to information about a charity's performance and its use of donations.
Nearly 7 in 10 respondents said that they plan to leave some of their assets to charity. Of those, 42 percent said they planned, to set up charitable bequests; 30 percent, charitable trusts; 27 percent, family foundations; 20 percent, charitable-gift annuities; and 17 percent, donor-advised funds.
Two-thirds of those with philanthropic intentions cited academic institutions and health-related groups as the organizations most likely to benefit from that largess, followed by religious groups (43 per cent), libraries or museums (39 percent), and environmental or public-policy groups (36 percent).
I honestly don't think one person here has suggested that it is not the rich's right to donate next to nothing. Have they judged them? Sure. They think it is sad that people don't do more. I did not see any suggestions of "Charity donation minimums for the rich" or "jail time for non-donators."
Meanwhile...
Don't judge them. They can do what they want with their money and owe nothing to the world. By the way, you non-christians are going to hell. It says so in the bible, which we should be reading in public schools. And while you, socialist, are not suggesting laws about charity, we DO have laws that do not allow you to get high and we are trying our damndest to get abortion outlawed. My laws are all over your body, slut.
I'm not part of the "Coulter Crew"... or the "Edwards" crew or your crew or any other... I don't need to belong to a camp...
Maybe you care more about stroking your ego than making a difference. If you really care about charitable giving more than being a self-praising twat, do what you can. But you can't tell ME about selfishness. I donate 20 hours a week to charity. (Senior care center.) I'm a teenager, and no I don't have a job right now, but I think I know about "charity work". Maybe I should take a shit on your head because I don't think you do enough. But I don't. Why? Because it's fucking annoying. I do what I can without chastising those who don't... because I'm not a judgmental twat. Unlike you.
I agree. But this is a percentage YOU give. Many of us "common folk" probably give nothing. Just as, Im sure, many of the uber wealthy give way MORE than that %.
I actually find the 1% thing hard to believe. If for no other reason than very wealthy people often donate HUGE sums of money just for tax reasons. Whatever their motive, surely a good chunk of them donate for tax breaks.
This study looked at wealthy people worldwide, not just in the U.S. I doubt if the the tax codes in all other countries encourage charitable giving the way ours does, so the percentage could easily be correct.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I'm not part of the "Coulter Crew"... or the "Edwards" crew or your crew or any other... I don't need to belong to a camp...
Maybe you care more about stroking your ego than making a difference. If you really care about charitable giving more than being a self-praising twat, do what you can. But you can't tell ME about selfishness. I donate 20 hours a week to charity. (Senior care center.) I'm a teenager, and no I don't have a job right now, but I think I know about "charity work". Maybe I should take a shit on your head because I don't think you do enough. But I don't. Why? Because it's fucking annoying. I do what I can without chastising those who don't... because I'm not a judgmental twat. Unlike you.
I did not say one thing about you. I don't know or care anything about you. The only judgement I made was "Coulter Crew", which was just alliteration--an attempt to make a clever name for "Moving Train right wingers"
If you are this way in the real world, you are gonna get knocked down a peg someday and I wish I could be around to see it happen. But I doubt you are. You have "board muscles."
I suspect the real "twat" is the one that throws terms like that around with virtually no provocation. My post was the same as HHKC's--Hyperbole, just from the opposite side.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Abortion? Leave me alone, it's my body, my choice.
Drugs? Legalize them, we should be truly free and have a choice to use them if we desire.
God? Don't force that down my throat.
Other peoples money? Well…they should spend it the way WE think they should spend it…or they're greedy pigs!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny how you guys get so involved with other peoples money, but you're so hands off about everything else. I wonder who the real greedy bastards are sometimes.
I haven't advocated FORCING anyone to give their money away, the way the pro-life crowd advocates FORCING a pregnancy or anti-drug people advocate FORCING imprisonment. But yes, I will call a greedy pig a greedy pig.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I did not say one thing about you. I don't know or care anything about you. The only judgement I made was "Coulter Crew", which was just alliteration--an attempt to make a clever name for "Moving Train right wingers"
If you are this way in the real world, you are gonna get knocked down a peg someday and I wish I could be around to see it happen. But I doubt you are. You have "board muscles."
I praised the above post, to which you replied "the Coulter Crew has overrated this". I took that to mean you lumped me in with the right-wingers.
I haven't advocated FORCING anyone to give their money away, the way the pro-life crowd advocates FORCING a pregnancy or anti-drug people advocate FORCING imprisonment. But yes, I will call a greedy pig a greedy pig.
So you want to drop all taxation, awesome. Does thi smake you a greedy pig? Does it make me a greedier pig?
On a more serious note what is everyone's giving philosophy? I have a set amount I give every year to a feew charities. Then when I make what I call crazy lifestyle purchases (travel, guitars, home renos, etc...) I always feel they need to be offset by an equal additional charitable donation. I live a priviedged life and sometimes feel guilty about what I spend some money on. Would love to get an idea of what others do, maybe I can do things a better way.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I praised the above post, to which you replied "the Coulter Crew has overrated this". I took that to mean you lumped me in with the right-wingers.
I'm a Libertarian... *cries* Meanie.
I don't give a shit what you are. Most of the people I know that praised it are people I know on here to be on the right (and I also know that most do not like Coulter and are a bit embarrased to be on the right every time she opens her mouth).
I figured most people would be thick-skinned enough for it.
I stand corrected.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
I haven't advocated FORCING anyone to give their money away, the way the pro-life crowd advocates FORCING a pregnancy or anti-drug people advocate FORCING imprisonment. But yes, I will call a greedy pig a greedy pig.
Not a very good analogy since the pro-life crowd doesn't FORCE people to get pregnant, but rather opposes them ENDING the pregancy.
Or...anti-drug people do not force anyone to go to prison who didn't choose to be involved with drugs.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I haven't advocated FORCING anyone to give their money away, the way the pro-life crowd advocates FORCING a pregnancy or anti-drug people advocate FORCING imprisonment. But yes, I will call a greedy pig a greedy pig.
On a more serious note what is everyone's giving philosophy? I have a set amount I give every year to a feew charities. Then when I make what I call crazy lifestyle purchases (travel, guitars, home renos, etc...) I always feel they need to be offset by an equal additional charitable donation. I live a priviedged life and sometimes feel guilty about what I spend some money on. Would love to get an idea of what others do, maybe I can do things a better way.
I donate about 3-4% of my salary to a few charities and I also volunteer to help mentor under-privileged kids and do some volunteer work with Gamblers Anonymous.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I've always found it quite interesting that the crowd that does all the screaming against censorship and for choice is the same crowd that wants to stamp out dissent.
The term "Fairness Doctrine" comes to mind as does non wealthy people complaining that successful people don't do exactly what the non successful people want them to do.
In other words, liberals love freedom as long as it's ruled by a dictator.
I donate about 3-4% of my salary to a few charities and I also volunteer to help mentor under-privileged kids and do some volunteer work with Gamblers Anonymous.
I guess volunteer work is an area I should look into. My son plays less team sports so I'm coaching a lot less. Thanks for the reminder.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
[]bNEW YORK (Reuters) - The wealth of the world's rich and super rich surged 11.2 percent to $37.2 trillion last year but the elite group gave less than 1 percent of their net worth to charity, a study released on Wednesday said.
For the first time, the 11th annual World Wealth Report detailed philanthropic giving, and estimated that high net worth individuals turned over $285 billion to charitable causes in 2006. That's equivalent to someone worth $100,000 giving about $766 to charity, or 0.76 percent of their wealth.[/b]
The 11th annual report said, however, that rich people -- led by the ultra wealthy -- are increasing the financial resources, time and thought that they donate to charities.
Merrill Lynch & Co., the world's largest brokerage, and Capgemini, a global consulting company, released the wealth report, which showed the largest growth of high net worth individuals happening in Singapore and India. Singapore's wealthy population rose 21.2 percent and India's grew 20.5 percent.
High net worth individuals are defined as people with at least $1 million in net assets excluding their primary residences. The double-digit growth of their assets -- a pace unseen in several years -- was fueled by gains from emerging economies such as India and China and wealth accumulation by the ultra rich.
The ranks of the world's ultra rich -- individuals with at least $30 million in assets not including their primary residences -- increased 11.3 percent to 94,970, the report said. Total wealth accumulation for this group rose last year by 16.8 percent to $13.1 trillion, the report said.
The report estimated that there were 9.5 million people worldwide with at least $1 million in net assets.
The United States has the most wealthy people, followed by Japan and then Germany, according to the report's researchers.
Merrill Lynch and Capgemini said they examined the "investments of passion" of the wealthy and found that luxury collectibles such as vintage yachts and automobilies selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars were among the top items.
The report also said Boeing Co.'s wide-body private jets are being customized at about $150 million each as mobile mansions.
In 2006, wealthy people shifted more of their money into real estate investments, at times liquidating some of their holdings in hedge funds to do this, the report said.
*footnote* i've been telling all of you to invest in realestate for over a year now. not so much houses; but land the people displaced by global warming will need to live on. as we lose land to the oceans; the price for dry land will rise.
I've always found it quite interesting that the crowd that does all the screaming against censorship and for choice is the same crowd that wants to stamp out dissent.
The term "Fairness Doctrine" comes to mind as does non wealthy people complaining that successful people don't do exactly what the non successful people want them to do.
In other words, liberals love freedom as long as it's ruled by a dictator.
Isn't it a republican position that charitable assistance should not come from the government, but from the private sector? You know, less government.. well except when it comes to building a family... the republican positon there is that choice remains one for congress.
I've always found it quite interesting that the crowd that does all the screaming against censorship and for choice is the same crowd that wants to stamp out dissent.
The term "Fairness Doctrine" comes to mind as does non wealthy people complaining that successful people don't do exactly what the non successful people want them to do.
In other words, liberals love freedom as long as it's ruled by a dictator.
Well I wouldn't say all liberals. I'm pretty liberal, socially speaking, but I have also noticed a sweeping feeling of entitlement amongst many liberals. They feel that the government and/or wealthy are obligated to provide certain entitlements to society which is not true. The rich are not obligated to be charitable with their money and the government is not obligated to provide certain services or benefits to the public. It is an added benefit to society if these entities decide to provide, in the form of charitable contributions or social services, but by no means are these things entitled to us.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
0.0%
If I was ultra-wealthy I wouldn't donate more than 1% either. Sorry to disagree with the self-righteous scheme of the thread, but you guys are dicks. If you really give two shits about charity work, go give a homeless guy a big mac.
I thought Germany was first.... linky, plz?
:V
That's what I thought too. A lot of items, especially cars and property, can be given in lieu of taxes... or at least to pay less. This study seems like bunk.
You win... thread over, all the rest of you preachy bastards can go home now.
Sorry for the 4 posts in the row, all, but I just woke up to find this thread. I had to quote several diffferent people to supply my shitty input.
I think it's 60K, but you're pretty much right.
exactly my point!
many here say the rich give sooooooo much and some do...but as we see w/ this report by merryl lynch, many, many, many, maaaaaany more don't give jack shit.
and think about it:
how much money does bill gates give? a whole lot, so do some other really rich ppl...but the others give so little it drags down the % of what someone like a bill gates gives to less than 3/4 of a stinking percent??? that's a lot of ppl not giving jack shit
this report contradicts what some ppl here have been preaching
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Boy has the Coulter crew overrated this post.
I honestly don't think one person here has suggested that it is not the rich's right to donate next to nothing. Have they judged them? Sure. They think it is sad that people don't do more. I did not see any suggestions of "Charity donation minimums for the rich" or "jail time for non-donators."
Meanwhile...
Don't judge them. They can do what they want with their money and owe nothing to the world. By the way, you non-christians are going to hell. It says so in the bible, which we should be reading in public schools. And while you, socialist, are not suggesting laws about charity, we DO have laws that do not allow you to get high and we are trying our damndest to get abortion outlawed. My laws are all over your body, slut.
New Survey Shows Why the Wealthy Give to Charity
By Marty Michaels
Nearly 90 percent of the wealthiest Americans say the primary reason they give to charity is that they believe in specific causes and have a desire to "give back" to society, according to a new survey.
Far fewer respondents — 33 percent — cited income-tax deductions as a reason for their charitable giving, and just 24 percent cited maintaining a family tradition of philanthropy.
When asked about the values they hoped to instill in their children, 82 percent of affluent parents cited a sense of the importance of philanthropy and charitable giving, while 80 percent said they hoped to teach that wealth brings "social responsibilities."
The survey, which is conducted annually by U.S. Trust, a wealth-management company in New York, polled 264 Americans with assets of $5-million or more. That sample differs from previous surveys, which included respondents who had household incomes of at least $300,000 or a net worth of $5.9-million or more, including their primary residence.
Wealthy Americans also said that accountability and "transparency" at nonprofit groups are major factors in deciding whether they would increase their charitable giving: Seventy-three percent said that it was paramount that they hold the leaders of a charity in high esteem, while 61 percent said they would consider increasing their donations if they had greater access to information about a charity's performance and its use of donations.
Nearly 7 in 10 respondents said that they plan to leave some of their assets to charity. Of those, 42 percent said they planned, to set up charitable bequests; 30 percent, charitable trusts; 27 percent, family foundations; 20 percent, charitable-gift annuities; and 17 percent, donor-advised funds.
Two-thirds of those with philanthropic intentions cited academic institutions and health-related groups as the organizations most likely to benefit from that largess, followed by religious groups (43 per cent), libraries or museums (39 percent), and environmental or public-policy groups (36 percent).
http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/2007/06/united-states-most-charitable-country.html
Apparently Germany isn't even close.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm not part of the "Coulter Crew"... or the "Edwards" crew or your crew or any other... I don't need to belong to a camp...
Maybe you care more about stroking your ego than making a difference. If you really care about charitable giving more than being a self-praising twat, do what you can. But you can't tell ME about selfishness. I donate 20 hours a week to charity. (Senior care center.) I'm a teenager, and no I don't have a job right now, but I think I know about "charity work". Maybe I should take a shit on your head because I don't think you do enough. But I don't. Why? Because it's fucking annoying. I do what I can without chastising those who don't... because I'm not a judgmental twat. Unlike you.
I did not say one thing about you. I don't know or care anything about you. The only judgement I made was "Coulter Crew", which was just alliteration--an attempt to make a clever name for "Moving Train right wingers"
If you are this way in the real world, you are gonna get knocked down a peg someday and I wish I could be around to see it happen. But I doubt you are. You have "board muscles."
I suspect the real "twat" is the one that throws terms like that around with virtually no provocation. My post was the same as HHKC's--Hyperbole, just from the opposite side.
That sucks. This is big news to me...
I praised the above post, to which you replied "the Coulter Crew has overrated this". I took that to mean you lumped me in with the right-wingers.
I'm a Libertarian... *cries* Meanie.
On a more serious note what is everyone's giving philosophy? I have a set amount I give every year to a feew charities. Then when I make what I call crazy lifestyle purchases (travel, guitars, home renos, etc...) I always feel they need to be offset by an equal additional charitable donation. I live a priviedged life and sometimes feel guilty about what I spend some money on. Would love to get an idea of what others do, maybe I can do things a better way.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
:(:D
I don't give a shit what you are. Most of the people I know that praised it are people I know on here to be on the right (and I also know that most do not like Coulter and are a bit embarrased to be on the right every time she opens her mouth).
I figured most people would be thick-skinned enough for it.
I stand corrected.
I'm not thick-skinned at all. My mommy never hugged me.
Not a very good analogy since the pro-life crowd doesn't FORCE people to get pregnant, but rather opposes them ENDING the pregancy.
Or...anti-drug people do not force anyone to go to prison who didn't choose to be involved with drugs.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
rightly pointed out.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Pro-life isn't forcing a pregnancy at all.
I donate about 3-4% of my salary to a few charities and I also volunteer to help mentor under-privileged kids and do some volunteer work with Gamblers Anonymous.
I've always found it quite interesting that the crowd that does all the screaming against censorship and for choice is the same crowd that wants to stamp out dissent.
The term "Fairness Doctrine" comes to mind as does non wealthy people complaining that successful people don't do exactly what the non successful people want them to do.
In other words, liberals love freedom as long as it's ruled by a dictator.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
that's why their rich.
*footnote* i've been telling all of you to invest in realestate for over a year now. not so much houses; but land the people displaced by global warming will need to live on. as we lose land to the oceans; the price for dry land will rise.
Isn't it a republican position that charitable assistance should not come from the government, but from the private sector? You know, less government.. well except when it comes to building a family... the republican positon there is that choice remains one for congress.
Well I wouldn't say all liberals. I'm pretty liberal, socially speaking, but I have also noticed a sweeping feeling of entitlement amongst many liberals. They feel that the government and/or wealthy are obligated to provide certain entitlements to society which is not true. The rich are not obligated to be charitable with their money and the government is not obligated to provide certain services or benefits to the public. It is an added benefit to society if these entities decide to provide, in the form of charitable contributions or social services, but by no means are these things entitled to us.