Like the biblical account of the widow who gave “out of her poverty,” today’s poor are more generous than the rich. Americans in the lowest fifth of income levels gave 4.3 percent of their income to charity, compared with 2.1 percent for those in the highest fifth, according to a McClatchy analysis of 2007 data. Those with the second- and third-lowest income levels also gave a higher percent of their income to charities than the wealthiest Americans. The poor may be more generous because they are more likely than the wealthy to come in contact with and empathize with the needs of others. The poor also have a higher percentage of women and elderly and people who are religious, all of whom tend to be the most generous. It’s also noteworthy that, unlike the wealthy or middle class, the poor generally are unable to deduct their charitable contributions on their tax returns, because they don’t have enough itemized deductions. Yet as with the widow in the Bible, the poor rarely receive public praise or attention for their giving.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
40 Comments
The poor and working folks also give more of their time than richer folks.
Pro rata donations in money has always been painful to those attached to their money. Ten percent of 100,000 dollars is a lot more than ten percent of 20,000 dollars – so many well off individuals size their donation by the amount rather than the availability of their income status.
Frankly, I do get tired of all the phone calls soliciting funds from me, but I give anyway.
It is true for the most part, people of lower incomes are more inclined to give up their time and money to help the needy.
I suspect that if I was the recepient of Unearned Income Tax refunds, free cheese, subsidized housing, free Pell Grants, and reduced tuition, I might feel like giving back.
However, I believe if you count the mountain of state and federal taxes the top 20% are paying, you’d see that the evil rich are already giving more.
Everytime a rich person sees a poor person using food stamps at the grocery store, the rich person can feel good about having helped that poor soul.
And get their wings.
Maybe, American_Way, your last sentence could illustrate one of the differences in why people give. It would indicate you are motivated by something it will do for you — give you your wings. Others may be motivated because another human has a need they can affect. No more than that. Both, no matter the motivation, have the opportunity to learn the great gift of giving — when you give, you are given much.
Tell me something I don’t know Linda.
You give of your hard earned money as you feel the need. Just don’t reach into my back pocket with your government to take what is mine to give to whom you feel a need to give.
You don’t get wings for that.
Guess it doesn’t really matter how much write off the rich are given, since it doesn’t correllate with how deep one digs.
I see Pat Robertson has a book out about how to get rich. Let me guess, get a bunch of people to tithe to you, and prosperity is just a step away.
“Phantom” –
And then there’s Pat Robertson’s chapter on “Make Sure Your Father is a United States Senator who will Rescue Your Ass from the Korean War.”
“I suspect that if I was the recepient of Unearned Income Tax refunds, free cheese, subsidized housing, free Pell Grants, and reduced tuition, I might feel like giving back.”
Right, because those who are eligible for such supports are obviously, because of them, so much better off than those who pay more in taxes.
“However, I believe if you count the mountain of state and federal taxes the top 20% are paying, you’d see that the evil rich are already giving more.”
And despite what you claim, they are also getting plenty (almost certainly much more) back.
“Everytime a rich person sees a poor person using food stamps at the grocery store, the rich person can feel good about having helped that poor soul.
“And get their wings.”
Right, the rich do not give as much of their income because, why? They already give involuntarily.
This is truly a good example of the truly assh*lish nature of some self described conservatives. Never mind the fact that tax dollars come back to the rich person (Where does the money from all those benefits AmWay listed end up, really?). Not to mention all the tax dollars that are used to purchase and support services not for the poor, but for all sorts of other entities and citizens.
Your thesis, AmWay, that the poor can afford to be more generous because of the “free services” they get doesn’t even rise to the level of being laughable. It is simply pathetic.
BTW, all that being said, identifying charitable gift patterns is a very difficult process. Many gifts given by people that would properly be considered charitible would be inevitably missed.
“Your thesis, AmWay, that the poor can afford to be more generous because of the “free services” they get”
And your loose assumption is just that and as usual wrong.
Don’t bother reading what I actually posted.
(big eye roll)
Whatever level of your income make sure when you give to charities you know what their success rate is and how the funds will be used. Go online and find out what percent of your donation goes to advertising and staff as opposed to the actual cause. Rule of thumb is don’t give to charities who solicit over the phone. Odds are high that is a group that skims a high percent right off the top. And some of these national charities are nothing more than franchises with different management costs. Don’t be fooled just because they attach a religious name to their charities. These are some of the worst and some of the best. Just know what you’re doing to make sure your cause is being met. Charities are big business these days and its not always to help the ______ (fill in blank) Stick local whenever possible. Better yet, get involved.
That’s right Happy. Lot’s of liberal organizations out there to rob you blind and misuse your money.
Take ACORN for example……..
There are now lots of resources available to validate the charity before you commit to funding them.
One example is the Federal Combined Federal Campaign. There annual guide provides a list of hundreds of charities as well as how they use the money, and the percent used for admin/overhead costs. The charities have to meet standards to be included, and provide the prerequisite accounting information.
https://give.cfcnca.org/?search
Interesting.
When the CONservative media want to make the case that the lower income people give more to charity than the higher income people do, they use a percentage of income given as the statistical measure.
However when the CONs want to make the case that the rich pay too much in taxes, they do NOT look at percentage of income paid — because the poor pay MORE of their income as a percentage in total taxes than the rich do.
No, the CONs look at the percentage of the total PAID IN to income taxes, ONE type of tax which of course higher income earners would pay more of because they MAKE MORE INCOME.
Duh.
Aggie writes: Your thesis, AmWay, that the poor can afford to be more generous because of the “free services” they get doesn’t even rise to the level of being laughable. It is simply pathetic.
Amen. It’s the same kind of thinking that allows the Wall Street Journal editorial staff to write that people too poor to pay income taxes were “lucky duckies.”
Oh, please.
“American_Way
Posted May 28, 2009 at 8:00 am
…I believe if you count the mountain of state and federal taxes the top 20% are paying, you’d see that the evil rich are already giving more…”
Paying taxes does not count as charitable giving.
Claiming it does borders on laughable hypocrisy when you routinely advocate cutting programs funded by the government that assist (or would assist) the poor and working class.
“Paying taxes does not count as charitable giving.”
Says who? You? Your God? Your moral compass?
Your upbringing? Your ethical sense? Your religion?
Your government?
You have ZERO right to tell another citizen what counts and doesn’t count regarding their hard earned money.
It is a personal belief. You are not judge nor jury on that personal belief.
” that the poor can afford to be more generous because of the “free services” they get”
And now Capn and Agnatha: I never said that. You did.
“American_Way
Posted May 28, 2009 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
…It is a personal belief. You are not judge nor jury on that personal belief.”
Sure I am.
“American_Way
Posted May 28, 2009 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
You have ZERO right to tell another citizen what counts and doesn’t count regarding their hard earned money.”
I have 100% right to do that. Refer to the 1st Amendment if you do not think so.
“American_Way
Posted May 28, 2009 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
“Paying taxes does not count as charitable giving.”
Says who? You? Your God? Your moral compass?
Your upbringing? Your ethical sense? Your religion?
Your government?”
So do you actually think paying taxes is a substitute for charitable giving?
AmWay originally said: “I suspect that if I was the recepient of Unearned Income Tax refunds, free cheese, subsidized housing, free Pell Grants, and reduced tuition, I might feel like giving back.”
I paraphrased: “Your thesis, AmWay, that the poor can afford to be more generous because of the ‘free services’ they get doesn’t even rise to the level of being laughable. It is simply pathetic.”
AmWay rejoined: “I never said that. You did.”
Fair enough. Looking at your statement, it seems that it might be closer to this: Since the poor are the recipients of “free services”, or capital that really isn’t theirs, they are more inclined to give it away. It’s still bullsh*t, and idiotic bullsh*t at that. It still fails to even rise to the level of being laughable.
The poor get services because they are eligible, which means that they are, well, poor. Usually poor with children. This does not mean that they do not work, or that the “free stuff” they get amounts to most of their income. And since they are eligible for “free stuff”, they are unlikely to be in the position to give much in the way of resources without it having a substantial impact on their own resources and ability to secure wants and needs. The origin of the resources is irrelevant.
“‘Paying taxes does not count as charitable giving.’
“Says who? You? Your God? Your moral compass?
Your upbringing? Your ethical sense? Your religion?
Your government?
“You have ZERO right to tell another citizen what counts and doesn’t count regarding their hard earned money.”
Perhaps the most revealing comments about many self proclaimed (so-called) fiscal conservatives and libertarians is this ownership of capital. People who have more capital earned it by working harder and being more virtuous and frugal with their resources. A convenient and self justifying viewpoint, but one that is complete Frankfurtian bullsh*t.
1) AmWay, you continue to make the assumption that “your” hard earned money, your gross, would all be yours without taxes. Actually, it is almost certain that the fact of taxes is a central factor in the wages you and everyone else makes. People assume that if there were no income or payroll taxes, they would make their gross. That is extremely unlikely. Your gross is as much your employer’s contribution to your taxes, indeed more so, than yours.
2) Once again, we also have the pathetic, self centered moral “outrage” of hard working people having their pockets raided to give to less deserving (i.e., poor) people. Never mind the fact that most of these “poor” are not unemployed welfare cases (unless, that is, you count the children, and if you want to argue against child labor laws, be my guest), or that these poor are not the primary recipients of “your” tax contributions. And guess what, these credits and services are used to purchase goods and services and that capital, coming from public sources, makes up a good portion of the money that ends up in the hands of the workers and owners who provide those goods and services. Not to mention all the other places that public money ends up in the economy. Sort of like the economically disabled conservative business owners who claim on one hand that the tax man is stealing from them, and yet fail to realize that the primary employer in their suburban communities are usually the public school system. Back to the “poor”, a lot of that “redistributed” wealth comes right back to the wealthy, because the poor, unlike the wealthy, can’t afford to keep it. They don’t have the resources to both purchase needed goods and services, including those they get through government assistance, and yet build their own private capital.
The ‘jawless fish’ freely contributes generous amounts of blog flotsam.
Re: Not even worth it.
Agnatha, I knew I could depend upon you to write a book on it.
I said that because poor people are the recepients of giving – they may be more inclined to GIVE. In other words, they have seen that giving helped them, so they might realize it is important for them to freely give.
I did NOT SAY they are ABLE to give because someone gave to them. I never said “afford”.
I actually posted: I might feel like giving back.
Get it? feel
Now eat that. Or write another book.
” People assume that if there were no income or payroll taxes, they would make their gross.”
Once again we have pathetic Agnatha jumping to conclusions without any supporting documentation.
1st – make something outrageous up
2nd – come to a far-gone conclusion based upon #1
Agnatha in it’s nutshell.
make something outrageous up (that no one posted)
I’ll bet everything in Agnatha’s house is labeled and its location charted.
Aggie writes, a lot of that “redistributed” wealth comes right back to the wealthy, because the poor, unlike the wealthy, can’t afford to keep it. They don’t have the resources to both purchase needed goods and services, including those they get through government assistance, and yet build their own private capital.
That is a very profound statement and exactly right.
It’s a consequence of the “it takes money to make money” axiom. A lot of people make some money on in building equity in their own houses, but not many have enough money to buy more houses to rent or flip as investments.
Poor people aren’t poor because they’re lazy. They’re usually poor because they don’t have the money that could make them well off . . . — that is the surplus wealth for investment.
“CapnAmerica
Posted May 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
…Poor people aren’t poor because they’re lazy. They’re usually poor because they don’t have the money that could make them well off . . . — that is the surplus wealth for investment.”
That is spot on. The only modificatin I would make would be to add the word ‘most’ in front of the statement. Some poor people are lazy (as are some rich people that got lucky).
Below is a quote from a world genius. It has to be one of the most profound posts I have ever read on a blog, or in a school textbook. This should be sent far and wide, to enlighten the world on the brilliance that has been hidden from mankind, until Capn American revealed it on the WEBLOG:
“They’re usually poor because they don’t have the money”
I’m touched. Touched I tell you. That is such a smart statement. It is amazing Capn America.
“They’re usually poor because they don’t have the money”
“Poor people aren’t poor because they’re lazy. They’re usually poor because they don’t have the money that could make them well off . . . — that is the surplus wealth for investment.”
That’s about the size of it. That and they are eternally kept in their place so that the well off have a steady supply of people to exploit and otherwise rule over.
Poor people aren’t poor because they’re lazy. They’re usually poor because they don’t have the money that could make them well off . . . — that is the surplus wealth for investment.
————
Believe what you want. But low income folks will be doing themselves no favors listening to poverty enablers like CapnAmerica. Fact is, people move up (and sometimes down) the economic ladder all the time.
that is the surplus wealth for investment.
===============================================
socialists, no commie b@stards!
Amway was busted. This is con theory…if they have to pay taxes, then that is their ‘charity’.
Despite the fact the poor pay more for everything.
Heh, sometimes they’re just ain’t nothing left to add!
Maybe just a commonsense observation: poor people who help other poor people do so at a greater personal cost. Drag out as many charts as you wish: when there’s no play in your budget, every act of charity is a sacrifice.
Duh.
P.S. Yes, I know the difference between a pronoun and contracted noun/verb. Oops.
A few things of interest in this thread. First, if the standard deduction is more than your charitable deduction you are not being penalized for giving. You get the larger of the two deductions.
Second, for the most part, people who are perpetually poor are that way because they do not know how to manage money. It is not because of laziness. It generally comes down to putting their wants far ahead of their needs.
American_Way
Posted May 28, 2009 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
“They’re usually poor because they don’t have the money”
=================================================
Dishonesty will get you NOWHERE… Why dont you post the ENTIRE quote, instead of only osting the portion that you can Flayme about??
No small wonder you dont like it when I post definitions of a Troll…
The REAL quote here >>>>
CapnAmerica
Posted May 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
…Poor people aren’t poor because they’re lazy. They’re usually poor because they don’t have the money that could make them well off . . . — that is the surplus wealth for investment.”
BIG difference when you put it in context… Your crap isnt working anymore… Better get a new method, TROLL….