Published: Monday, March 25 2013 9:58 a.m. MDT
There was such adulation for Mitt Romney because he gave 10.3 percent of his
income to charity. Although I honor tithepayers for supporting their Church, the
10 percent tithing is not designated for helping the poor. This means Mittster
donated only .3 percent of his income to helping those less fortunate.
That's a pretty poor showing for such a wealthy guy.
@Irony,Curiuos where you get your info? I did a quick Google search
on Mitt romney donating to charity. It says Mitt and wife donated over 29% of
their 2011 income. Even if you deduct their Mormon tithing, my math
comes out as 19% of "real" donations.barack donated 21% It also says your boy Biden donated $3,690 over a team year period,
COMBINED.$369 a year from the Bidens, who averaged incomes of
several hundred thousand. Mitt over $4 million in donations in 2011
alone. Biden $369 a year. You must be so proud to call him a
Also according to a 2008 New York Times article, republicans were found to give
at least 30% more than liberals, with some studies showing repulicans giving
twice to charity what liberals do. AS quoted from that article"The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the
hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans
— the ones who try to cut health insurance for children"No
surprises here. Liberals are SO generous, ONLY with
other people's money.
Chris,How can one be either a republican, or a 'liberal'?
I'm a conservative. Democrat.
Ok, so percentage wise this may be true. But, 1.3 percent of a million, is still
better than 3.whatever of $30,000 right? It's kind of like taxes. The
rich are asked to give more by percentage, but I'll bet 1 guy who makes
over a million a year, pays more than my whole neighborhood. Sure, most pay some
tax, but I have neighbors getting insane refunds right now who end up paying
next to nothing. FLAT TAX!!!
“In 2011, the wealthiest Americans — those with earnings in the top
20 percent — contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to
charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid —
those in the bottom 20 percent — donated 3.2 percent of their
income.”=====‘Do the wealthy give to
charity?’To answer that question - Yes, they use it as a tax
deduction.And yet, some STILL insist the uber-wealthy don't
need a tax hike and aren't greedy.Yet, the facts here betry this
false lie they seem to have bought into.Chris BSalt Lake City,
UTThe article was Rich vs. PoornotLiberal Rich vs.
Conservative RichPlease stay on topic.
re:ChrisB"Do conservatives give more away? According to a new study by
two MIT political scientists, not really. Using a dataset which uses more
traditional questions to test political beliefs – the General Social
Survey – they found no statistically significant relationship between
peoples’ political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their
charitable giving level. And this held at the state level too. There was no
significant relationship between a state’s level of giving and the vote
share that Bush received in that state in 2004.However, they did
find that there was a strong relationship between political beliefs and what
kind of giving people engaged in. Conservative individuals and individuals in
red states were more likely to donate to religious organizations. Conversely,
blue states were likely to give to secular organizations, as well as to 2005
tsunami relief."(Washington Post) "States previously
reported to lag behind the nation in charitable giving actually have higher
generosity levels than those indicated by a widely-touted annual index,
according to a new study conducted by researchers (Paul Schervish)at the Boston
College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy."Other studies didn't
consider cost of living and tax burden.
Hutterite,conservative democrat is an oxymoron.airnaut,you are right, it is a rich vs poor study. But pointing out that liberals
give much LESS than conservatives (even the liberal rag NYT confirms it) is not
off-topic.and while there are some wealthy folk, like Bill Gates,
Warrent Buffet, and John Hunstman Sr who give away alot, if not all, there are
other wealthy folk like Joe Biden who give a pittance.and as
joseywales pointed out, 1.3% of a million is a LOT more than 3% of $30k.
@Chris B;Perhaps that is due to the way "charity" is
defined?Most of what I give goes directly to those in need and not
through any organization. There are a few orgs that I do respect and contribute
to.That said, since I don't deduct it on my taxes, it
doesn't show up under the "charitable contributions" category in
various statistical reporting or polls.
"Charity" is not an amount; it is an attitude. Those who are
"charitable", see the needs of others and do all that they can to
alleviate those needs. Those who have greater assets and a charitable heart are
able to do more than those who have fewer assets or a "hard heart".
Those who have to be "commanded" to help others, no matter how great
their assets, are not "charitable". They may be forced to alleviate
suffering, but they would rather keep their possessions while suffering
continues.It doesn't matter what others do. What matters is
what we choose to do. Each of us has the power to do some good - if we choose to
My experience with the poor is that it's no surprise they're more
generous, because they are much closer to needing charity themselves, the
struggles of others resonate more easily with them. The more
isolated you are from the needy, the easier it is to have a "They need to
pull themselves up by the bootstraps! That's what I did!" attitude.Many of the problems that require charity are caused or exacerbated by
economic inequality, regardless of the process. You can make the case that
today's poor are *materially* much better off than the pioneers of 150
years ago. The poor struggle with battered self esteems, as much as
anything else, primarily because on the grand economic scoreboard they are
pretty much the value of dirt. Nothing could be more humiliating than working
40+ hours a week and still qualifying for food stamps, or being unable to
provide for your kids so they have a fighting chance in the economic contests
they'll face.The poor need jobs that pay well enough that they
pay taxes, too, and have pride, hope, and less despair.We need to
narrow the vast inequalities, which hurt us all.
@Ranch,That is a fair point, but unless you can show that one groups
gives significantly more to these "unreported" charities, wouldnt we
assume that both groups(republicans AND conservatives) or for my example(Romeny
AND Biden) gave to these "unreported" charities?Again, you
make a good point when comparing data, but reason would suggest that if your
point skews the data, it skews the data the same for all parties. So any change
in one groups would see a similar change in another groups, which would arrive
at the same conclusion.
It's really difficult to measure charitable giving because so much of it
goes unreported.If one donates $100 to the Friends of Scouting fund drive,
all $100 counts as a deduction. The scoutmaster who dedicates many hours each
week provides a priceless service but has little to report as deductible.
Likewise, if we hid a battered wife and daughter in our home for a while, we
would have nothing to report, but a cash donation to a women's shelter is
easily deductible.I suspect the poor are even more generous than
what these studies can count. The most effective giving is "in kind"
and is difficult to account for. The poor are less likely to have an accountant
who knows how to qualify a donation as charitable, and are less likely to care.
Their focus is on the needy, not the write-off.
The probable fact is that wealthy people, who got that way by carefully
scrutinizing where their money goes, are not taken in by the scams that most of
our charity organizations have become. If the tax deduction for the official
charities was stopped, most of the charitable giving by everyone would stop.
There are many charities where the only charity is in the name, if
you think of charity as the giving without reward. For instance, a theatre may
call itself a charity and a non-profit organization and receive money from
donors who get a tax deduction and their name on the theatre. Patrons of the
theatre who buy tickets for the events are not allowed to deduct the costs of
the tickets because they received something in return for their money. It should be obvious to people that the unscrupulous buy the special
laws that make it possible to steal from the public.
what is a conservavite democrate.
There have been some interesting studies and books written lately on charitable
giving. I will not go into detail here, but I will not donate a dime to any
organization that does not publish its results for all to see. It's time
for the secrecy to end.
I actually agree with Mike Richards on this one..and to that point I absolutely
fail to see the relevance of political party affiliation in the discussion.
It's what's in your heart.
It appears to me that a big question is what to give and to whom? There are
lots of hands wanting money. Some organizations need money, it translates into
salaries of "boots on the ground" in charitable acts, others need money
for necessities of life (I am speaking of third world necessities). Some
organizations need time, of which we all have an equal amount. What to do and
how to do it. Maybe we begin by doing something that forces us to look outward
and not inward. Experience will help us decide future acts. Maybe a goal is to
avoid the situation where our money perishes with us.
Utahns generally rank quite high in charitable contributions, but that is a bit
misleading. I give 10 percent of my income to my church, but I do not consider
that a charitable contribution. That is a donation to what I call institutional
maintenance. I donate to other charitable causes, but the 10 percent institution
maintenance fee limits what I can donate to real charitable causes.The numbers I see, though, for the wealthiest among us, are discouraging,
particularly because these individuals are reaping most of the benefits from our
slanted economic system. They accumulate the most, share the least, and buy
politicians to create loopholes so that they can avoid taxes. What a system! Too
bad it's not sustainable over the long haul.
Because I am usually on opposing teams with Mike Richards may I gladly agree
with every word he said in his 12:29 pm comment from yesterday. And I am
dismayed by how quickly this turned into a partisan argument, as if either party
didn't have rich and poor folks among their members.I am also
reminded of the story of the widow's mite. "And he looked up, and saw
the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a
certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, 'Of a truth I
say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all. For all
these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her
penury hath cast in all the living that she had.'"It seems
that the amount we give is not the point, but, as Mike Richards suggested, it is
the spirit in which we give it. Studies and polls seldom are able to gauge what
is in another person's heart.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments