The poor give more to charity then the rich?

K, I can't really find any info to corroborate these numbers, so I figured the internet detectives of this site would be able to source it out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

I wonder how this would have played if it had come out during the election cycle instead of now.

 

THAN

Also, I don't understanding the reasoning in your quoted text. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns. This seems backwards to me, since it's those who could take advantage of tax deductions who would be more likely to, well, take advantage of those deductions.. If the lowest income people cannot, then why would they be more "generous"? It doesn't benefit them..

 

Obama tax hikes took it first.

 

Damn it. Stupid grammar.

I think the idea is that the Wealthy have these deductions available, which would (in theory) promote more generous giving because of the deductions they could take, vrs those who can't take advantage of said deductions, which indicates that they spend more, even knowing they aren't getting as much back as someone of means.

 

Its probably not that surprising. I know people who have been down and out and relied on charity of one form or another, going out of their way to support that charity when things improve. Wealthier people, as really rich are going to donate less to specific charities, but be the people who outfit a hospital with some cutting edge technology. Or help finance a new wing at a local library etc.

 

Ah, so you're thinking it's about the difference between what we should expect the wealthier people to give, based on the fact that they have tax deductions available for doing so, versus what we should expect of the poorer people who don't get those breaks. OK, maybe.

And yeah, it's telling that the poor apparently give more by percentage when they're in greater need of keeping their earnings. I wonder if that counts church donations? I'm sure plenty of them at least take advantage of that particular tax break, since from what I've seen, a church will help you keep track of how much you give. The Lutheran church I used to attend in Minnesota had special envelopes for use in the collection plate, which were optional but I believe also used by them to send you a tax document at the end of the year to use in filing.

 

I don't know about that. I do know that wealth has no bearing on generosity, though. A generous person will typically be generous no matter how much or how little they have whereas a stingy person will likely also be stingy regardless of how much or how little they have. It's about mentality; abundance vs. scarcity. The generous person operates in abundance; believing that there will always be enough. The miser operates in scarcity; always worrying about losing what he has and not having enough. They are both self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

Yeah thats for sure Professor. I lost almost 300 bucks a month between me and the wifes tax hikes, and her HC increase since Jan1. I still keep up with the children I sponsor...but I have had to tell agencies that call, sorry.

I hate to do it, as Im usually the guy who will buy that box of lightbulbs from the handicapped, donate to various causes as they call and even add that 1.00 everyone asks you for at the drive through nowadays...but unfortunately, that 300 bucks was where it would have come from. Now unfortunately I just tell them no. My heart would love to give more...but everyone has a monthly/weekly bottom line they dont cross into reserved for bills and other commitments.

That 300 bucks a month dropped me alot closer to said bottom line, so I dont extend any new helping hands. The dollars I can now spend freely will be kept for taking the family out, or things they want.

 

We have a good variety of income levels in the town I recently moved to. We have some upper class, a lot of middle class, a LOT of lower middle class to lower class people, and a pretty good amount of impoverished lower class people. What strikes me (and I spend a lot of time working with the impoverished through my job at a church) is that when the impoverished lower class people, the lowest of the low, get thrown out of their place to live, need food, need shelter, need clothes, etc, it is time and time again the lower middle class to lower class people that take them in and give them a place to live or food to eat. Sure, when the upper and upper middle class people get asked to help, they might throw a little money at it. But I've yet (with only about 3 exceptions I can think of) seen one of that class of people do anything more than throw money at it. Meanwhile, people with very little means themselves are giving transportation, food, shelter, money, and emotional support to people who are only slightly worse off than they are.

It really tells me what kind of society we've become. If you want to know why the government has had to step in and take over social welfare, start by looking at the upper crust and the fact that they long ago stopped worrying or caring about those in need. And this isn't just a monetary issue when it comes to that need. Those with skills, talents, gifts, education, and yes money, no longer share with those that don't. Not unless their is some leverage to gain through grants, career opportunities or political gain. It's really a sad state for our country.

If the right wants to get rid of government welfare, they need to stop with one time monetary handouts and start reaching their hands down to the poor and needy and not let go until they've pulled them up. Since they have no intention of helping in this way, it's best to shut your mouths about the issue.

 

Umm.. The standard tax deduction is way higher than any amount of charity a poor person might give. Wealthy people don't get a standard tax deduction and have to itemize everything to get back what they can. They also do not get Earned Income Credits or many other deductions available to the poor, and they have a much higher tax rate to contend with. The poor usually get money back during tax season, even when they haven't paid any.

Not that I think there is anything wrong with that, I am just trying to put the issue back in context.

The poor give more (of their income percentage wise) to charity because they know how it feels to hit bottom, and they appreciate the help they have received.

 

BH Obama wants to take away those decoctions so that the poor are more dependent of the federal government/liberal masters.

 

Yea, progressives would've loved this....

LOL....Who could possibly question "research" done by this guy"? My goodness, he's a psychologist at UC Berkeley!

 

I figured that's what you meant, as the OP details that EXACTLY. Some people just do not read..

- - - Updated - - -

Tough point to dispute, no doubt...

 

Perhaps if you had reading skills or comprehension skills you would not look like the thing you called the OP!!!!
\

 

How did you manage 2yrs ago before the temporary payroll tax holiday? No raises in the 2 yrs either?

 

Different times, and different bills a couple years ago. There isnt really any questions or talkarounds that will nullify the fact that people lost money Jan 1st. It's a fact.

In my budgets X amount is for Bills, X amount is for things like retirment plans and savings and X amount is for spending. obviously when i lose some, im not going to choose a bill to stop paying, and my 401 and savings are automatically set...it has to come out of the disposable income pool.

Thats the same pool I would use for donations and such when i chose.

 

Its true, but the problem is that taxes should have never been allowed to get this low. People got used to the extra money, without realizing that everything is crumbling around them. Now that they are being brought back to where they should never have left, people are taking the hit.

 

It's also been proved that Conservatives give more of their money, time and blood to charities than Liberals. I guess Libs are all for giving as long as it isn't them doing it.

 

Anybody can use those deductions.

 

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

 

I would bet that most low income families contribute more of their income as a percentage than do the rich. It is just a fact that when you are oin that position you are more empathetic. The million dollars contributions are great but when some one puts a dollar in the plate and it is all they have then that is giving.

 

Oops!

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

 

Liberals only want to give with other people's money, not their own. That's why they can be so compassionate. That's why they like taxes so much. Many of them don't pay any.

 

It's been proven, as a percent of income, you'd be wrong.

 

Not 'charity' per say, but way back in the days of my youth when I did service work on peoples' homes, the best tips I ever got were from working class folks.