Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/01/2004 8:18:22 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Tumbleweed_Connection
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.

2 posted on 01/01/2004 8:32:48 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection; Taxman
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"

3 posted on 01/01/2004 8:33:27 AM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
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!

4 posted on 01/01/2004 8:34:03 AM PST by Tax-chick (Some people say that Life is the thing, but I prefer reading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
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.
5 posted on 01/01/2004 8:37:18 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"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?

9 posted on 01/01/2004 9:18:20 AM PST by ex-snook (Americans need Balanced Trade - we buy from you, you buy from us. No free rides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
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.
15 posted on 01/01/2004 9:45:30 AM PST by RightlySo (Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth; socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
As several posters have noted, rich liberals tend to give their money either to questionable charities, like Stanford, or to actively destructive charities, like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU, or the like.

It's too bad there isn't some way to weed out the destructive charities and foundations. Unfortunately, just the opposite tends to happen. The Christian Coalition, a somewhat naive but useful organization, lost its taxfree status, but the ACLU will never be subjected to the same legal challenge to its far more egregious behavior.
23 posted on 01/01/2004 10:55:17 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If you give to the needy<real charity) and then deduct it from your taxes, is it really charity?
28 posted on 01/01/2004 11:15:31 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"But Mr. Wolff, whose research has concentrated on documenting increased inequality in American society, cautioned that other research reports showed that little giving by wealthy Americans went to charities that directly benefited the poor."

It occurs to me that people like Mr. Wolff are overlooking the most important thing that these wealthy Americans have done to benefit the poor......haven't they have created jobs for millions of them? Of course, that doesn't seem to count for much these days. Unfortunately, "charity" has been redefined in our society as only a freebie hand out.......not a hand up.

30 posted on 01/01/2004 11:29:44 AM PST by freedox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson