World's wealthy worth $37.2 trillion and give <1% to charity

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.

know1 wrote:

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 thought Germany was first.... linky, plz?

:V

hailhailkc wrote:

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.

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/update/2007/04/2007042401.htm

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).

Uncle Leo wrote:

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'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.

Alex_Coe wrote:

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.

hailhailkc wrote:

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.

hippiemom wrote:

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.

Alex_Coe wrote:

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.