Who is More Charitable

[Paul F]

The Haiti situation brings to mind the stereotypes of Democrats taking from the taxpayer and then handing it out to social programs. Republicans would rather do this sort of thing through private giving and on a local level. At least that was my working assumption. I figured Republicans give more to charity. So I did a quick search and came up with this link. The source doesn't at first glance, appear to be biased, but who knows what this guys agenda is. Anyway it says Republicans are more giving.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...sity_inde.html

[Bartruff1]

I believe that has always been true....take a look at what VP Cheney gives... sure he makes a lot...but he gives a hell of a lot....in the millions sometimes 50% to 70% of his adjusted gross income....very generous..

[Excaliber]

I wonder if this is a more of a reflection of wealth than giving. The data is likely based on tax returns and looks at itemized deductions. Something those with wealth are more likely to do than those without. The weathier you are the more likely you are to be Republican. Giving to charities is a good way to reduce your tax bill. All in all, I'm not sure the data is all that reliable as to who is "more generous".

Let's 10% of your income is used for what ever you want to do, beyond your cost of living. If your making a good salary already, 10% may not have much impact. But when your just barely making it, 10% could be the difference between making your mortgage payment or not.

[Paul F]

"I wonder if this is a more of a reflection of wealth than giving."

Not so liberal-san.


From http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2

"... according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income."

[Excaliber]

Interesting link Paul. I'll think I'll tune in to that 20/20 "Cheap in America" program to gain a little more insight into this issue.

It did point out that the "rich" give more in terms of dollars than the working poor, who give more in terms of percentage of their income. Which was my point of speculation in my first post. It's easy to give 10% when you have plenty already, hard to do when your back is already against the wall, like the working poor.

[Ralphy]

I guess Alabama, Mississippi, Utah, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Dakota and Texas are the center of wealth in the US, huh Ernie?


Moving to ATL I can say, I have never seen so many people charitable with their time also.

[Excaliber]

... or perhaps the center of the working poor? A good demonstration of the confusion that looking soley at "numbers" within a poll present.

Hawaii could be considered a state populated by a substantial number of wealthy people, but that would be somewhat miss leading. Plenty working poor there, plenty! However, the "aloha spirit" is alive and well and it was refreshing to see so many folks actively involved in charitable work of some kind.

[Ron61]

There are working poor in every state. I think they tend to appreciate what they have more than the wealthy who can buy whatever they want without regard to price. As a result they can relate to the needy more in my opinion. Somewhat like the Govt. can't relate to the people of the country. They have everything they want and don't need the people except to pay taxes so they can get more.

Ron

[Ralphy]

Here is a interesting old story.

Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism

Mr. Obama proposed the new caps on Thursday as a way to finance changes in the country’s health-care system.

http://philanthropy.com/news/updates...wealthy-donors

[Ron61]

Ralphy,

I have mixed feelings about that. I just don't believe the wealthy should be penalized because they have made or inherited money. I don't agree at all with the take from the wealthy and give to the worthless. And no, I am not one of the wealthy by any means.

Ron

[Ralphy]

With all the maneuvering the Democrats have attempted this year. If you ask yourself what would the party gain? There is always an answer. They to me, seem to be a well organized machine. Always playing partisan politics. Look at the health care proposed. I see nothing that will control costs. Just another handout. This is another reason why I no longer see myself as a Dem.

Take from the rich give to the poor appearance. Just not that simple.

[Ron61]

Basically if you can get through the crap it is take from everyone and give to the politicians. The slogans just sound good and many people believe everything this bunch says.

Ron

[Bill Bess]

I totally agree with Ron and Ralphy, if you have money you should be able to keep it, Period! The government should only be able to tax enough to efficiently run itself.
Problem is, "itself" keeps getting bigger and bigger with each giveaway program and no acountibility.
Bury your dough in the back yard and keep big loaded guns near.

[Ralphy]

This also I think is where the term empty suit applies to our President.

[Excaliber]

It's long been known that the wealthy use "philanthropy" as a tax tool while reaping public admiration for their "giving". It's a smart investment, driven as much by their accountant as it is by the generosity. Nothing wrong with that up to a point. Sounds like this idea is recognizing where that "point" is.

[Jamo]

Ernie, I fear you are never going to understand the one simple basic truth:

Republicans are just better people.

[Ron61]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Ernie, I fear you are never going to understand the one simple basic truth:

Republicans are just better people.

Ron

[snakebittexan]

If we can assume that the "rich" are either intelligent (big leap) or have access to intelligent tax advice, can't we can rule out charitable contributions as an effective piece of your financial plan? You give $100,000 to your favirite charity and your taxes are reduced by $28,000 so your tax savings cost you $62,000. How "intelligent" is that? That by default, takes us back to philanthropy for philanthropies sake.

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by snakebittexan

can't we can rule out charitable contributions as an effective piece of your financial plan? You give $100,000 to your favirite charity and your taxes are reduced by $28,000 so your tax savings cost you $62,000. How "intelligent" is that? That by default, takes us back to philanthropy for philanthropies sake.

Exactly !

Ernie/Libs/Dims/Socialists/Communists dislike anyone with more money than themselves more than they like seeing Charities receiving from non-goverment sources.

[Excaliber]

Reminds of what I was researching the other day. The IQ of Haiti, thought it best not to mention it in a new thread. It is lower than the French though.

Haven't researched the Repub vs Demo IQ thing yet, but I'm sure I'll find a way to twist the data when I do.