"Why the rich don't give to charity"

Good piece.

Wealthy people give to charity at a rate 1/3 as large as non-wealthy people.

And when they do, they give to colleges and universities and museums, not to poor people:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

 

1.3%? Wow.

But not unexpected.

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A41-44%2CLuke+21%3A1-4&version=NIV

 

If poor people want money, they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and fleece investors like everyone else.

 

It's interesting regarding the research on lower-income people giving because they are more "aware" of the needs of the poor. The research I've read on churches and their membership is that as worship crowds have gotten smaller, they've actually become more generous (in terms of how they direct their giving) to mission work, particularly for the poor in their community.

 

This is very surprising. YF told me rich people want lower taxes so they can give more to charity!

Also surprising because I was under the impression that rich people giving to charity was going to be the 21st-century healthcare solution.

I am flummoxed and befuddled.

 

The New York Times was on this a while ago.

I linked to it previously, but can't find it now. Basically, this is one of the reasons why liberals want to end the charitable deduction -- rich folks are giving to the wrong charities!

 

You don't think that's a fair criticism?

 

No. I think people can go fuck themselves when they want a say in how someone spends their own money -- on charity or on anything else.

It's just as dumb as suggesting Marissa Mayer should be doling out $50,000 gifts to employees out of her own pocket.

Also, donations to Churches and colleges can directly help the poor.

And, if museums and other fine art institutions don't get charitable dollars, we'll just have folks demanding that they receive government funding.

 

The poor should host a dinner at the Waldorf. One of the poor should donate a week at his house in the Bahamas for the silent auction. Then the rich would give to the poor. "For the kids," you know.

 

They already do. And if the only thing the charitable donation deduction is going to do is help some rich trouser stain have a better symphony, ditch it.

 

Phasing out the charitable donation at higher incomes, as we already do with the mortgage interest deduction, is probably warranted.

 

People would, of course, be more than welcome to continue to donate their money to any charity they choose, including Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, all of them needy entities thirsting for charitable contributions.

Tax deductions are in the code for a particular reason. The charitable giving deducation is intended to help steer private money to those who need it more. Not so that Harvard can build another crew facility. When a deduction doesn't fulfill the purpose of the deduction, eliminate the deduction.