The American wealthy are hands down the most philanthropic in the world. Americans dominate global giving lists and surveys consistently show that the U.S. rich are far more likely to make philanthropy a priority.
But some say they could give more. One recent study found that a large share of people making $200,000 or more give only 2.8 percent of their income to charity. Other studies show that multimillionaires donate only about one percent of their wealth to charity (though billionaires tend to give a higher percentage).
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates launched their Giving Pledge in large part to persuade the super-rich and the non-super-rich alike to give more to charity. As Buffett told me in 2011, "The hope is that our larger population ends up giving a larger proportion of their income to fund philanthropy."
So why don't the rich give more?
Charity's Biggest 2012 Spenders
CNBC's Robert Frank reports who were the nation's most generous donors last year.
A new study of multimillionaires offers some answers. The study, by SEI Private Wealth Management, found that 82 percent of wealthy families believe that having more money means you have a greater obligation to be philanthropic.
But the respondents (worth $10 million or more) listed three main reasons for not giving more. First, nearly half said they needed more confidence "that the level of their wealth would continue to support their lifestyle and their family." Second, they said they would give more if the markets improved.
Finally, a third of those polled said they needed to "find something they could be more passionate about."
The first two reasons aren't all that surprising. If they had more money, the wealthy would give more of it away.
But the third reason is worth noting. While more money helps, it's also important to be motivated by a cause. And if you care enough about a particular problem, you'll be more inclined to sacrifice some of life's comforts to solve it.
Money, in other words, isn't the only driver of philanthropy. It's about the heart as much as the wallet.
They needmore confidence "that the level of their wealth would continue to support their lifestyle and their family....."
Are you ******* kidding me?? Do these greedy, heartless ******** not understand that little kids are starving to death by the thousands every single day? What in the **** makes these twats thing that their right to live in a palace and be driven around in limousines takes precedence over someone else's right to simply live??? Do they have any idea how many children
That third reason is just a thinly veiled excuse for greed. The only draw back to being rich is; you never have enough. Conservatives talk about doing away with entitlements in favor of turning the needy over to charities. However, there are an estimated 23 million people at or below the poverty level and even more with no health insurance. No charity (s) could possibly pay for that many, nor should it. A wealthy friend once told me; it is easier to give to the poor when it is not required. It seems "dependence" is the biggest wedge between the poor and wealthy
Funny how it's always a LIBERAL that attacks people (conservatives) who give GENEROUSLY to charity while claiming it's not enough, when most liberals (i.e. Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hilary and Bill Clinton, the late Ted Kennedy and most of the Kennedy clan, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, Charlie Rangel and COUNTLESS pop and movie stars like Barbra Streisand, Jon Bon Jovi, Ben Afleck, Bruce Springsteen, Madona etc,) give on average FAR less that one percent of their income to worthy (private)-causes. I'll never forget Bill Clinton and Al Gore's 1990 tax returns, or Joe Biden's 2006 tax returns which revealed NONE of these self-rightous pols ever gave more than a mere couple of "franklins" to charity on an annual basis until they chose to seek the Presidency. Talk about hypocrites!)
In comparison, weathly conservatives like Mitt Romney, the Bush Family, John McCain, the late President and Nancy Reagan, John Clancy, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reily, the late Charlton Heston and Jack Warner, Gary Sinese, et al) choose to make little or no mention of their MILLIONS of dollars of philanthropy while publicly stating 34% of anyone's income is more than any government should take from individuals REGARDLESS of what that person earns. Hell, even Bill Maher had an epiphany about the greed of government in the last 90 days; stating he was ready to move out of California, and that: "Liberals, you could lose me on this!" THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING!
As has always been the case; private organizations have ALWAYS been far more effective at providing services to the poor. On average, 73 cents of every dollar donated to charity goes DIRECTLY to those in-need (AKA Shands Hospitals, Catholic and Jewish charities, The Cancer Society, The Heart Fund, The YMCA (yes, the "Y" is a VERY effective charity whose efforts in the poor community you rarely hear about), The Anne Frank Foundation, Ronald McDonald Charities, etc, etc, etc.) in comparison to the ineffectiveness of federal programs which on average deliver less than 25 cents to the poor out of every tax dollar squeezed from productive members of our society. Imagine how much more good would come out of such private organizations if they didn't have to compete with an unfairly-positioned, greedy federal government which always thinks IT knows better than we the people how-best to spend OUR (not the goverment's) money.
I don't trust charties cuz charties have their own CEO and board members that sucks millions for themselves first then a little bit for their cause. I'd fire the CEO and executives of charties before donating millions.
You are apparently not aware that invested money is taxed at a lower rate. That encourages investing and, after all, it is money saved after already being taxed. What kind of dope wrote this thing??
I might suggest that they don't know the true rules of prosperity. Generous giving leads to blessings they will never know. They rob God by not paying tithing, they rob themselves as they cannot know the happiness that comes from helping your brothers and sisters get through this life. And you get the Lord's blessings when you do this. He withholds them when you don't. Of course living a good life is most important and keeping the commandments, but we are only on the earth of a brief while. Generosity is a form of eternal insurance. No good deed goes unrewarded.
Their lifestyle!?!?! Weak "cop-out". What they give is only to look good; bragging rights. Guys like Buffet and Gates strongly favor any and all population reductions, that's where their donations and efforts really go. Buffet doesn't hide his support for UN Agenda 21.
They have lost their soul and never heard of tithing and seeding since they don't go to church. They also pay less in taxes, or ZERO like General Electric. They make themselves the center of the universe. They have no God. They create Philanthropy Organizations to boost their image around the world, but it does little to help the masses. It does not have to be about the poor. It can be about the good who go without. It can be about the old, the forgotten. It can be about the abandoned, the orphaned, the ill, and the sick and wounded. You don't even have to leave your own town or the USA.
I always say, "money is in the wrong hands." It's sad. There are so many less fortunate people on this planet. And, what about animals? The movie stars and sports figures....All they care about is having 10 homes in different parts of the country. Blahhhhh!
And who is it that has all these "multiple" homes, yet share so little of their wealth with the poor? Oh yeah, that's right; Libs like Barbra Streisand who's Malibu estate boasts not one, but FIVE separate homes that she trapses from day to day pending her mood. Compare her to John and Cindy McCain who also have multiple homes but choose to donate much of their private wealth to saving lives of disease-stricken Asian and African children every year! (One of their adopted children is an Indian girl who suffered from a defective palete at birth, and would have died if left in India 20+ years ago.)
So spare us who cares about having all their homes in different parts of the country. It's their money; they earned it, they have the right to spend it any way they see fit! (Much of which they choose to donate or use to DIRECTLY help individuals.)
No, what they have a difficult time with is choosing to waste their valuable time trying to convince millions of mis and UNinformed people like you how so many of the poor have become the modern-day slaves to the Democrat slave-masters who come up with MORE social programs every year designed to keep the poor where they are; rather than have them take control of their own lives.
By Robert Frank
26 Comments