Oh Jaaaaason: Study shows Superrich are NOT the most generous
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/na...rticle_popular

Study Shows the Superrich Are Not the Most Generous

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: December 19, 2005

Working-age Americans who make $50,000 to $100,000 a year are two to six times more generous in the share of their investment assets that they give to charity than those Americans who make more than $10 million, a pioneering study of federal tax data shows.

The least generous of all working-age Americans in 2003, the latest year for which Internal Revenue Service data is available, were among the young and prosperous - the 285 taxpayers age 35 and under who made more than $10 million - and the 18,600 taxpayers making $500,000 to $1 million. The top group had on average $101 million of investment assets while the other group had on average $2.4 million of investment assets.

On average these two groups made charitable gifts equal to 0.4 percent of their assets, while people the same age who made $50,000 to $100,000 gave gifts equal to more than 2.5 percent of their investment assets, six times that of their far wealthier peers.

Investment assets measures the value of stocks, bonds and other investments assets held in the tax system. Excluded from this are retirement accounts, which are generally held outside the tax system, personal property like furniture and art and equity in homes.

The I.R.S. data was analyzed by the NewTithing Group, a San Francisco-based philanthropic research organization that since 1998 has been encouraging the most prosperous Americans to give more. The full report was posted last night at www.newtithing.org.

Tim D. Stone, the president of New Tithing, said that taxpayers who itemize took $148.4 billion in deductions for charitable gifts in 2003. The American Association of Fundraising Counsel, an organization of companies that advise charities on seeking donations, estimates giving by all Americans, including those who file simple tax returns, was $180.6 billion.

The study used unpublished I.R.S. data from 180,000 tax returns to analyze giving by income, assets, gender, marital status and age. It found that disparities in giving by income class declined once taxpayers reach age 65, but it also found that as Americans grew older their giving as a share of their investment assets also generally declined.

Among those 35 and younger, those making under $200,000 made gifts equal to 1.87 percent of their assets, a figure that fell to 0.5 percent for the 189,000 taxpayers making $200,000 to $10 million and to 0.4 percent for the 285 taxpayers making more than $10 million.

Americans age 36 to 50 making under $200,000 gave less.

Those making $50,000 to $100,000 made gifts equal to nearly 2 percent of their investment assets, compared with less than 1 percent for those making $200,000 to $10 million.

But those with income greater than $10 million, whose investments averaged $81 million, made gifts equal to 1.54 percent of their assets. This makes these middle-aged givers more than three times as generous as their wealthier and younger peers, who gave at a rate of 0.4 percent.

Americans ages 51 to 64 gave in an almost identical pattern to those 36 to 50. But among those 65 and older, the pattern changed.

The superrich, with incomes of $10 million or more and average assets of $214 million, made gifts equal to 1.5 percent of their assets. But all the income groups below them gave at a rate of less than 1 percent. For those making $50,000 to $100,000, gifts average 0.8 percent, down sharply from the giving rates of younger people with the same income.

The study also found that single men, generally, are more generous than single women. Among the wealthiest singles, men gave 1.5 percent of assets compared with 1.1 percent for women. Wealth does not explain the disparity.

Single men in the top income group, $10 million or more, had average investment assets of $124.7 million; the women averaged $244 million.

Even though the wealthiest women gave at a lower rate than the wealthiest men, in dollar terms the women, who were far wealthier, gave more. The 247 women gave an average of $2.68 million each compared with $1.95 million for the 655 wealthiest men.

I, as a single mother, cant afford to give SQUAT. Although I do donate to goodwill or Salvation Army and orgs of that nature, but no CASH donations. In my world, there's no such thing as extra cash. Sigh........

Blah Blah Blah -

Let's figure in the Charitable Trusts set up by the 10 or 20 richest people in America.

In the end, who give a ****te - because this will boil down to me being called an elistist, an argument I no longer care to have.

:shocked: "Who gives a ****e?" What the hell did you do with our Jason? You can do better than that! ;)

Thankfully the Gates are not among the less generous super rich.

did you really need a scientific study to know that?

Bless you my child :angel: :angel:

:lol: That pic was funny. Sorry, I nearly forgot about the dead horse nature of the argument. No offense to you, Mary, since I respect your opinion and totally get where you are coming from. But you too Jason!

HAAAAHAHAHAHA!!! FUNNY! :lol: :lol:

you may be surprised to hear this but I actually acknowledge some of what you say....I know there are some superrich who DO donate. Its no accident that the Gates' made Time's cover. Sadly not very many of their uppercrusters follow their example. I believe this article took into account charitable trusts, anything that a person could claim as a tax exemption. I think the point of the article was more along the lines that the less wealthy (still superrich by MY standards btw) were more inclined to donate to charity than the ultra rich.

just so you know, Im just ribbing you in good fun, not trying to be snarky ok?

do I need to break out THIS again?
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/2b9924218d.gif
Never forget: I am the QWEEN.

I didnt, but its nice to be vindicated once in awhile.....

I think you need to keep it out..... :nod: It's hilarious when it's needed.

you know, i actually think that the whole idea of "charity" became obscene, a simple method to shift state's basic responsibilities to the private sector. why the hell should the ministry of health spend money on a new hospital ward, when that money can be raised by charity?
the outcome of charity policy is that in communities where the resources are already higher to begin with, all the services and welfare becomes better, and vice versa, it just contrasts my views about fairness and equality.

instead of having richer ppl pay the high taxes they should pay, without anybody saying "gee, sir, how generous you are", it allows them to enjoy public recognition when some of their unneeded income goes to much-needed causes.

the only times i donate are blood donations (by now i'm already insured for life, including my future siblings), and other causes that i don't think the state services should (or can) supply. for example, in the last year i donated twice for ppl who needed costly operations overseas (there's a big shortage here in organs for transplants) and for a search team who went looking for a victim of the tzunami in thailand. i never donate any money (although i am rather poor :cool: ) to "obvious" causes, because i strongly believe they must be addressed by professionals, and not be victimised by my judgement or generosity (or lack of it).

damn, i live in a very wealthy country, and i pay my taxes nicely, if the blinds, the deafs or the retardeds needs more fundings, they musn't be begging for it, and nobody should be rewarded for supplying it to them. if they don't have enough it only means that i (or others wealthier than myself) should have been asked for more taxes, that's all.

I need an Advil:laugh:

or a lobotomy :eek: