The Very Rich, It Now Appears, Give Their Share and Even More

NY Times ^ | 1/1/04 | DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

[Puppage]

The top 400 American earners in 2000 provided nearly 7 percent of all the charitable gifts

And, the top 10% of American earners paid 55% of the taxes, too.

[staytrue]

For an organization to qualify as charitable doesn't mean it benefits the poor," he said. "People tend to care the most about institutions they are personally connected to, and those that benefit tend to be those connected to people of means like land charities, museums, colleges and hospitals.

Charitable deductions should not be tax deductable. Most do not go to the poor. This year for example, about 200 million will go to Stanford U. and I think that only puts them at about 7th on the list of "ivy" schools.

Further, there are the BS contributions to "land conservancy", Sierra Club, our own Heritage foundation, etc.

Further are the scams of the United Way, where the director gets 600k a year and the fund pays for condos in FL, and a condo for his mistress.

For the rich, it is also a nice vacation scam. You set up a foundation, pick you and your relatives as "directors" and make sure a lot of "necessary" travel to Fiji, Hawaii, etc. is involved. That way you can donate appreciated stock, get a nice tax deduction, avoid capital gains tax and get free vacations on pretax dollars, with the only caveat that 10% of the money actually go to "charity"

[Tax-chick]

Bill Gates, George Soros, Ted Turner and perhaps others who are known to have contributed large sums to charity ...

Great, millions upon millions going to freaked-out liberal causes. Maybe if the deductions were eliminated, they would spend their money on new cars? That would at least contribute to the economy!

[Rodney King]

I love the way the headline says "it now appears" as if this is a new phenomena. This is nothing new, it's just that the class-warfare specialists at the NY Times and the Democratic party have been lying about it for the last 100 years.

[Huck]

For the rich, it is also a nice vacation scam. You set up a foundation, pick you and your relatives as "directors" and make sure a lot of "necessary" travel to Fiji, Hawaii, etc. is involved. That way you can donate appreciated stock, get a nice tax deduction, avoid capital gains tax and get free vacations on pretax dollars, with the only caveat that 10% of the money actually go to "charity"

I think everyone I have ever met who could find a way to scam on their taxes scammed on em.

[xrp]

And the top 50% of American income earners paid over 96% of all income taxes. THOSE EVIL RICH PEOPLE!

[Paul Atreides]

I would like to see how Mr. Soros's charitable giving compares to the amount he spends on his Bush-hatred.

Odd, isn't it, how we don't see anything about Follywood's charitable giving mentioned in this article?

[ex-snook]

"Their combined giving totaled $10.1 billion, or 6.9 percent, of the $146 billion in charitable donations that Americans deducted on their income tax returns in 2000. "

"Deducted on their income tax returns". What would they have given from their hearts if it were not tax deductible? Wonder if the calculators factored in a charitable percent for those taking the standard deduction?

[John Robertson]

"Further are the scams of the United Way, where the director gets 600k a year and the fund pays for condos in FL, and a condo for his mistress."

Mistress? Is this public? If not, and you know this to be a fact, please start blowing whistles. Among my top 10 things I'd love to see is the Unite Way discredited.

[staytrue]

I think everyone I have ever met who could find a way to scam on their taxes scammed on em

Yes and god bless them all because taxes are too high, the tax code is an abomination. We need a low flat rate with no deductions.

[staytrue]

The United Way has been busted twice for this. Once was about 1989 and the second time was 3 years ago. Both directors had to resign.

[woofer]

Wonder if the calculators factored in a charitable percent for those taking the standard deduction?

No. Because in the snippet that you posted right above your question sez:
"in charitable donations that Americans deducted on their income tax returns

[Henrietta]

"I think everyone I have ever met who could find a way to scam on their taxes scammed on em."

Using the laws to one's own advantage could hardly be called a "scam." Is it a scam when you take deductions to which you are entitled?

[RightlySo]

OF COURSE the NY Times fails to mentions the statistics on liberal vs. conservative charity.

I don't have the figures in front of me, however, I did hear the results of an interesting study on the top local AM Radio station just a few days ago. It mentioned that conservatives (according to voter registration records) give far, far more than liberals.

Not only do conservatives give more dollars in total to charity, but, a greater percentage of conservatives give (any dollar amount) than liberals.

Think about it.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

What would gifts be if taxes were lowered? What were they at higher levels?

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Who was the VP that gave $3xx?

[staytrue]

Not only do conservatives give more dollars in total to charity

Define charity please. Donating to PBS qualifys by IRS rules as charity. I don't think it is chaity.

[RightlySo]

If you mean "that" VP who gave $300 or so... well, that would be Al Gore.

Short Story:

On a tangential note, I recently became a realtor after losing my computer analysis job. I've been moving door to door to introduce myself and hand out a free realty newsletter. I know many (if not most) of the people in the surrounding neighborhoods, having lived among them all my life.

The liberals are *far* less generous with the donation and charity programs the realty company sponsors ("Toys for Tots", the local charity drive for "Surplus Items for the GIs in Iraq", etc).

They are also far less cheerful and less tolerant of the newsletter I distribute. Additionally, they participate less with regard to submitting interesting or useful information to include in the newsletter.

It is, after all, a newsletter with two purposes: to promote myself as their realtor, and secondly, to offer the local area a voice amongst themselves. Community ties, etc.

All this, just anecdotal evidence that liberals are indeed myopic, generous with other people's money whereas conservatives are generous with their own money, atheist, unhappy, and generally tortured people.

Thanks for the read. Happy New Year!

[RightlySo]

Charity: Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.

As for a donation to PBS qualifying as charity, I should think that it would past muster despite most conservative's disagreement with their editorial stance or the fact that PBS is an organization that is propped up (to some degree) by tax dollars.