Since most rich people these days are self-made, it is untrue that rich people
don't know what it is like to go without. I grew up poor. I don't know
where I fit in now (and I don't really care), but I'm sure I'm in
the top 10% somewhere. I don't have the same struggles with money that I
once had, but I definitely remember what it was like.Some people
like UtahBlueDevil think that rich people got that way by being selfish, stingy,
and hoard their cash. I think the opposite is true. Some of the most successful
people I know got that way by being the most generous. They give, they share,
they empower other people to build good habits and good products and services.
Excellence drives them, not money. As a consequence, money seems to just flow
their way like water going downhill.Work hard, always keep learning,
help others, make friends, be generous. Rewards (or dare I say...blessings) will
come to those who do such things.
I find a few things interesting here.... 1) there is a crowd who still wants to
view the world a class warfare and are desperate to defend the rich.... for what
ever reason. Most rich people are rich because they value money more than
others - neither bad nor good. Just is. The fact that the study was attacked
and attempts were make to discredit it just shows how unreasonable the argument
has gotten. It is like saying athletes (or politicians) are more ego
centric.... well duh. There are certain generalizations one can make.... and
Rich being stingy with their money is one of them.. it is how they got rich.2) Politics. I think poor have more compassion for their fellow poor,
regardless of party affiliation. To make this survey partisan is just plain
dumb. Mormons are more compassionate towards fellow LDS - because they can
relate to them. Blacks understand what it is like to be black more than other
groups, and on down the lone to just about every other segment of population.
It only makes sense that the poor or nearly poor understand the plight of the
poor, than someone who went to private schools.Logic not politics.
Regardless of whether you believe the rich are prideful and greedy. (though sin was never limited by income) God gave man his agency,
his free will,(and there is no teaching of Christ, nor any prophet,
about confisticating or taking away another person's property or money,
even via government) the extreme left wants to take our free will
away from all of us with more and more big government control over us.and they will teach hate and use any tool, like this study, to acomplish that
Mr. Kent:Guess what? You are making one of those big generalized
statements again.People of less means give anonymously to the less
fortunate. Why would you think they want recognition for that? Why would they
think differently? It is just for a tax deduction? Wrong.What makes you
think we don't feel the need to help others as the "wealthy" do?Are you one of those "class warfare" people?
It's harder to give away massive amounts. Story in the
bulletin. A man made a thousand a month and tithed a hundred. His salary grew
with promotions over time. He was making five thousand a month and tithes five
hundred to parish. He got another position where he would be making fifty
thousand a month. The thought of wiring a check of five thousand every month to
his parish seemed ridiculous. He went to his parish priest to discuss matter.
They decided to pray on it. The priest said please reduce this mans income so he
doesn't have to tithe so much money per month. A hundred
doesn't seem like a lot of money. Even when you are only making a thousand.
But five thousand sounds like a huge amount. Even when making fifty thousand.
So much for the trickle down theory.
Lets face it poor people know what it is like to go without! Rich people don`t!
If rich people give to something they use it for a tax write off! Rich people
think if your not rich it`s your own fault because if they are rich anyone can
Being poor is not a virtue. And maybe if the poor weren't so flippant with
their limited resources (time and money) they wouldn't be so poor?Just another feel good article for the proletariat.
@JoeCapitalist2The only reason the business exists is because customers
are purchasing products. Rich people might create the initial jobs but it's
the poor and middle class that keep jobs in place. After all, the largest
concentrations of wealth at the top this past century were 1927 and 2007, right
before massive depressions/recessions. A rich person might make 100x more than a
middle class person, but Romney only has 4 cars, not 100 so it's the middle
class who is keeping the auto companies open.
These comments crack me up. It never ceases to amaze me how people will nitpick
and analyze things to fit into their preconceived ideas about the world. Perhaps
if this was an isolated study coming to this conclusion I might agree. It's
not.That said I don't buy into the 'the rich are
evil' ideology any more than I buy into the "the poor are poor because
they are lazy" ideology. As usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Unfortunately that leaves someone like me with no political home.
Not surprising results to me at all. What does surprise me is
someone making a statement that people give to charity for the deduction on
their taxes - can they do math ? If the top tax rate was 36% - a contribution
of $100 would mean you gave away $64 net. Who'd give away $64 net just to
spite the tax man as a financial move ? That's not a good return on money
and that's for the highest tax payers, it's even worse for the lower
income. I make $117K/yr and my effective tax rate was just over
15% last year. I give to charity because there are people who need help.
I'd keep giving too even if they took away the deductions for it. The best reason to give seems to be because we've been fortunate
Thinking about this article doesn't really make sense unless the article is
meant to make the poor and charities think the wealthy are not giving their fair
share to others.You cannot measure charity by the standards this WAG
study is trying to impose.Value wise the wealthy are more generous
than they are given credit for. Measuring and comparing incomes are an
inequality of measurement since the wealthy usually give to charity outside the
channel that the poor give to. I don't think this study is
really about how much the rich or poor give to charity, its a planted plot to
make the rich look like they are not community minded and share any of their
wealth in taxes or charity. This proposal is not really a study yet, its just an
implication of possible differences that have not been established at all. In
other words is a great big WAG.
Re:SamhillThe data that the poor are more charitable has been demonstrated
in various studies, not just this one. Additionally, people at lower income
levels don't itemize on tax returns and are less likely to benefit from
deductions for charitable donations. Wealthy people actually get a greater
financial return from donations to charities.Republicans/Conservatives often report that they are the most charitable,
based on work done by Arthur Brookks. However, Brooks failed to consider
cost-of-living in his research, which resulted in people living in high cost of
living states--such as MA, appear to be less charitable. When Boston U
researched the same question, taking into account cost-of-living the results
were somewhat different. Notably, more "blue" states were in the
top 10. Additionally, UT scored higher in charitable giving in Boston U's
work than in Brook's research.
The study seems to equate "helping the poor" with "giving to
organized charities". It is certainly A way but it is not the ONLY way to be
generous.I wonder how much the study is skewed because they
don't consider the "Give a man a fish...teach a man to fish.."
idea. Poor people have less resources so when they want to help out they may put
a few dollars in the Christmas kettle or donate to the Red Cross. Rich people
tend to start businesses which give lots of people jobs in addition to donating
a smaller portion of their overall income to charitable organizations.When a rich person puts a million dollars on the line to start a business and
employs a dozen workers, that is not considered charitable giving (especially if
the business turns an actual profit, gasp..) but it probably does more to help
out others than just donating that money to a homeless shelter.
AmPatriot, you're up in the night and hallucinating again. While there are
disreputable charities out there, there are a number of very easy to use fact
checkers that allow us to learn which ones to contribute and which to avoid.The answer to why we who are not wealthy are more generous is very
simple. We've been there and done that -- unlike the Mitts of the world.
Furthermore, idealizing the poor is as wrong as vilifying the rich because as
King Benjamin points out:24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who
have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you
who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts
that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give. 25
And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are
condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not
received.As a percentage, I am certain that there are just as many
poor folks who covet what the rich have as there are rich who are greedy and
unwilling to give.
There is a similar Give more/Give less correlation between correlation between
conservative/liberal and religious/non-religious. This has been verified in
numerous studies over several decades.More paradoxical to me than
the poor being more generous than the rich to me is finding that conservatives
are so much more charitable than liberals. Usually by several orders of
magnitude.Of course, were the measure one of generosity with the
assets of --others--, my guess is that liberals would prevail by a long shot.
I wonder if the 2% from the more affluent includes all the various taxes they
pay which also go to support the poor (property taxes cover police and ambulance
services, libraries, education, etc; state taxes go towards education, medicaid,
etc; federal taxes go towards food stamps, unemployment, WIC, etc.)and other
charitable causes. Perhaps the affluent give a smaller percentage to charity
because they are giving a much larger percentage to various government agencies.
(for example, of my $94K, the feds retained $4K, IL kept $3K, and I pd. $4K in
property tax = nearly 12% of my income. I am guessing that few who earn $10K or
less pay that much in taxes.I also wonder if the poor give more
because they are more susceptible to respond to phone solicitors. Also I wonder
who the most giving among the poor are -- the elderly? The working single
parent? The Hispanic immigrant? Contrary to the bogus conclusions
drawn by a few of the posters here, I think this study leaves a lot of questions
unanswered and a ton unasked.
We read in the scriptures and in "Jesus The Christ" that is hard for a
rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven. I agree, I think it would be very
hard to be rich and not be greedy and prideful.
Poor people have felt the pain of going without. Because of this they have the
ability to feel the pain of others and to empathize with them. They will be the
first to pull money out of their pockets, even though it may be very little.
However, I also believe that people who have not felt the pain of certain
situations can develop sympathy and have a desire to help. I believe that
Christlike people do this. It demands an unselfish heart and a desire to know
how to help others with the blessing they have. It also demands that a person
be wise that they do not help people to become weak. There is wisdom in knowing
when to help and when to withold. It is very tricky. It is easy for a rich
person to feel that the poor just aren't trying, when they may actually be
trying; but they need alot of encouragement. It is also easy for a person who
has money to give it to someone who would use it wrongly.
Actually the statistical sampling is pretty good. Why do the less affluent give
a greater portion of their substance than those who have more was the question?
If we feel a tinge of guilt in reading this article or if it make us mad perhaps
we need to sit down and decide if we ourselves are giving enough and if we will
commit to doing more. It does bring happiness and satisfaction to those who
give.Interestingly it seems like, and I have no studies readily
available to back, it up but the less affluent are often also willing to give of
their time and efforts to help. To all of us who claim to be
Christian we would be well to remember the words of Christ and do our best to
follow: If thou lovest me thou wilt remember the poor and
consecrate of thy properties for their support. Remember in all
things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted for he that doeth not
these things the same is not my disciple.
Most any poor person could have told them this without any study. What amazes
me, and tells us the researchers general income bracket, is that the researchers
were surprised at all. The good news in this is, if the wealthy are made
aware, they also tend to give generously.
@AmPatriotRich people can detect fraud in charities? Even if that were
true then there's still plenty of good charities so why would they not
compensate by donating more to the good ones if they're going to refrain
from giving to the fraudulent ones?"Then you have to factor in
that the more money you have the more debt "Yeah but the
income:debt ratio is better for rich people than for the poor. Even if the rich
are making 150k and paying out 100k in expenses, that leaves 50k left than say
someone making 10k and paying 9k in expenses where only 1k is left."that these social behavior studies tend to over look because we
don't fit in with their research criteria "I think
you're just annoyed that this doesn't agree with your own conceived
Many people who fall into the wealthy category give, but they give anonymously,
they don't report it on their taxes and they don't otherwise broadcast
it. They have learned to give that way for many reasons, including to avoid
organizations and people who will approach them with their hands out. These
kinds of studies will never be accurate.
Not ONE comment in the article about the relative level of religious observance
between the two groups, "rich" and "poor"As far as I
know, ALL major western religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam (sorry, I
don't know too much about eastern religions) teach charity as a basic
tenet.Leave it to Cal Berkeley to ignore something as basic as
Makes sense in many ways. Folks with money seem to have a sense of entitlement
where they come first and others come second where folks without money feel more
'equal.' Also seems, in a general way to reflect the differences
between Democrats and Republicans where the latter have more and the former have
I think its because the wealthy have better money management skills and can spot
the fraud in many of the so called charities. Then you have to factor in that
the more money you have the more debt they usually have and money is a tool, not
an asset. I think I am the exception and I think there are many more
like me that these social behavior studies tend to over look because we
don't fit in with their research criteria which is usually biased and
created to meet one of two elements in their pass/fail studies which reduces the
size of study group.The majority of all studies in any subject
looking for predictable and biased results with well versed questions all of
them colored gray, that's so they can filter out answers and groups that
don't fit their expectations.What is a penny worth to a poor
person? Nothing, but a million of them to the rich running a charity means a
hundred thousand dollars of which 95% they get to keep, the other 5% pays their
workers in $1 hamburgers.
Poorer people understand what it means to be poor. Obviously. But because they
understand that, they are willing to give of what little they have to share with
someone who has less. It isn't for the tax deduction, or the notice of
others, but rather because of a shared understanding of what it means to be