Perhaps the Trois Coleurs should fly in North America?

Thats almost kind of sad.
On my part, I give to charities on special festivals, or when something really good happens to me. The amounts vary ofcourse, depending on my capacity at that time.

I give because it makes me feel better about having helped someone, and just in case karma exists, I'll prolly get more back in different forms :P

But I still dont think I donated like 4% of my income last year. More like 3%... Though admittedly, it was a financially difficult time in general. I did help out at the soup kitchens and made food donations though.

@Lucifer_Cat:

Worth noting:
4.3% of 10531 = 452.83
2.1% of 158888 = 3336.64

So probably the rich people look at their statements, and say, "wow i gave over 3000 bucks this year... thats three times what i made in one semester in college. i guess it is a fair enough donation."

Also I have noticed that people who rose up the ranks from being poor to being rich thanks to hard work tend to donate more than people who have been more or less wealthy all along.

This is actually old news and something that I has been circulating for years.

This is an exercise in small numbers, with statistical and journalistic spin. 4.3% of $10,531 is $452.83 whereas 2.1% of $158,888 is $3336.65. You could just as easily state that the wealthy donate to charities at more than 7 times the rate than the poor... but since there are lies, damn lies and then statistics, one has to ask how they defined charity and how complete are the numbers?

And what's with the socialistic spin that the wealthy are duty bound to part with more of their money?

I'm curious what fraction of disposable income is donated. I'd guess the ratios would look even worse once you subtract food, housing, and other fundamental necessities from the base income.

@fantomesq: Um. I don't think it's "socialistic" to think that all humans deserve and are worth the same, and that none should die of hunger because one is too busy swimming in his huge vat of gold coins a la Scrooge McDuck.

2 things.
1 What part of the giving is lottery type donations? Dont the poor play those kind of charity games more?
2 The Higher income people pay income tax a a higher rate too. Count that against it as well.

@fantomesq: Actually, you couldn't say that, because the rate is less than half.
I do think the article gets a little muddy because it talks about giving to people as well as institutions, when the BLS statistics would seem to be focusing strictly on institutions, and that sending money to family seems to be included for the low end but not above it.

However, I think there's a reasonable and legitimate point here, and I think the tie the article makes to greater giving tendencies in the religiously observant is a pretty established one (and I'm an atheist, so I've got no dog in this fight), as is the greater number of observers in lower-income communities. What's more, they're unlikely to be able to benefit from tax deductions for their donations, so it matters even more to their expenses. I think the lower income may not be the most salient characteristic in high-percentage givers, but I still think it's significant that such givers aren't halted by the fact that they have little money and that their giving will bring more limits to their lives than it would to the more well-off.

"what's with the socialistic spin that the wealthy are duty bound to part with more of their money"

I thought that was a part of most sin- or karmic-based religions that have exhibited adaptive benefit to society and thereby endured for long periods of time.

I pay taxes which support Employment Insurance and Welfare which the poor do not due to their tax bracket, so I am already forced to give to 'charity'. Except the charity is government programs that go directly to these poor that supposedly give more to charity than me. Screw them, they're giving my money to charity and taking the credit for themselves. If you want me to give the same percentage to charity as the poor, then tax me the same percentage as the poor.

Percentage based giving is a great way to do it, but 3% is pretty low for a national average IMO.

We give 10% off the top, and have capped our income at $42,000 this year. Anything we make or get above that, 100% gets given away. I'm not trying to make myself look better than anyone, just saying that most people have more money to give than they think. It's just a matter of priorities. This goes for rich and poor alike IMO.

@fantomesq: Since when is being human "socialistic"?

I am being honest here with this, beyond being able to flaunt the fact that you are wealthier than most, how is your life better by being rich?

The wealthy never really have a legitimate answer to that question. Nothing says you cant be rich, and have nice stuff, but what value is it in you to have 8 50,000+ cars? Or 4 mansions?

The way I have always looked at it, if I where to ever become "in the money," I might buy myself a nice car, or a nice house, but when all is set and done I dont see any reason why I should spend money on frivolous things just because. Not when I have friends growing up who saved up their years allowance to buy a pair of Ewings, or who never made it to college because even with loans, they never had enough money to go.

I don't think anyone really says the rich cant be rich, thats foolish, but the flaunting of excess is disgusting, and in part of what makes 3/4ths of the world despise this nation. Much of the anger going on in this nation right now is exactly because of that. Excessive perks to rich people who where not only improperly doing their job, but in many cases not doing their job AT ALL. All the while autoworkers, and laborers break their backs and sweat away trying to make ends meet, and are not only looked down upon for doing their job, but are now being made to be a scapegoat by the VERY SAME RICH who failed, but need someone to shove the blame off to.

@floraposte: Actually 'rate' is amount divided by time (not ability)... since we are talking about the same timeframe, the 'rich' giving $3336.65 in the same timeframe as the poor give $452.83 is in fact more than seven times the rate that the poor are giving... Which spin you put on the statistics depends on what agenda you are pushing.

Here the agenda is to attempt and guilt the 'rich' into giving more even though they already give 7 times as much.

@fantomesq: It was discussed in percentages to avoid the very thing you're pointing out.

A percentage of your income is how a lot of expenses and things are calculated, why not charity? It's certainly fairer that just looking at the numbers, as you pointed out.

The rich guy feels the 3k a lot less because it's less of his total wealth than the 500 is to the poor guy, proportionately.

That's why I always get a tiny bit sad when I see "Billionare donates 1,000 dollars to charity". Granted, he probably donates to multiple charities, yadda yadda, but 1,000 is significantly less to him than it would be to you or me. At least he's giving, though :D

And the excuse that many rich people use (they have more expenses) is a poor one. Most of those "additional expenses" are luxuries. And while I'm not saying they should forgo luxuries, I don't think they're a very justifiable excuse as to why they can't give to charity. If they don't want to give, that's their problem. But if they go "Oh, I want to, but I couldn't live without this 800 dollar bottle of wine" that's what starts to ring false.

@fantomesq: Your comparison isn't valid. You could accurately say that the wealthy donate more money, but not that they donate at a higher rate.

You seem to have missed the point of the article, which is not that the wealthy are "duty bound" to contribute more than they do. The point is that lower-income folks give a higher percentage, even though doing so can significantly impact their standard of living. If a wealthier person gives at a similar rate, it's not going to have nearly as much of an impact on his standard of living--that's not "socialistic spin", it is simple economics.

If you read the article you'll see that religious contributions (tithing) are included in the totals. Studies have shown that most well-educated, and hence usually more wealthy, individuals don't attend church. Religion has really become the domain of the poor. If one was to look at charitable giving in the traditional sense of American Red Cross, March of Dimes or even a Save the Lemmings, I think those numbers would change drastically.

@AirIntake Taxing the poor at the same rate as the rich is a terrible idea. It would just start welfare into a never-ending vicious cycle, or we would have to end it all together and then we can watch a third of our population learn what living in a third world country is like.

I'd rather not be party to that, personally.

Oversimplified, yes. But it's not really what the story is about, except in as a small factor in the larger discussion of the whole.

I donate a set percentage of my income to my church- if I didn't set that money aside, I'm sure other things would come up or I'd forget and the cash would never get where it needs to go. If you're interested in donating cash to charity, I'd suggest putting it in your budget or even just having a jar in the kitchen... anything to separate that money from your spending pool.

What's nice about giving money to the church is that I know exactly where the money is going, information is readily available about the beneficiaries, I can see the financial books at any time, the people in charge are familiar to me and are held accountable, etc. Then I also get info about places I can donate my time to through pre-sermon announcements and stuff, sometimes the congregation will get together to help out with a specific event, and our pantry is a ready made food donation drop-off point. It's cool to have everything consolidated like that. If you can get involved with a community that has a service-oriented culture (maybe a group at work?) then I say go for it.

@so_gracefully: It is socialistic to hamstring questionable statistics and word spin into guilting those who are already paying 7 times more into paying yet even more. It is socialistic to tell the "rich" what they ought to be spending their own money on and think that anyone else 'deserves' their money. You wouldn't accept anyone second-guessing how you spend your money...

@AirIntake: This is a very good point. Paying into funds you will never collect from, that go to help those in a lower income bracket than yourself, is the very definition of charity. Except when the bloated bureaucracy with a 20% overhead that collects the money is called "Uncle Sam" instead of "United Way", it doesn't count as noble.

I notice that this survey also doesn't take into account that the "richer half", with their finances secure, are in a position to donate unpaid hours to charity. I wonder what the survey has to say about that?

I would really like to see a study like this that includes time spent volunteering.

Since most people who are well off just give money, in my experience with various charities both large and small, and a poorer person is more likely to offer what little money they can spare plus what little time they can spare.

I think the gap would honestly grow quite a bit larger. Embarrassingly large for those in the top percentiles, imo.

Also, unless the gala you throw/host/whatever raises at least three times what it cost to throw, it shouldn't count, in my opinion. When I worked with the Girl Scout office in New York, I saw way too many socialites spending thousands of dollars to throw a charity event that only ended up raising a few hundred. And then they didn't see the logic in the argument that they "just should have donated the thousands" in the first place.

Also, reputable charities! With very, very low overhead. Or non-organized, need-based giving to those in your life an community! Your donation means nothing if it pays some no-good fat-cat moocher's salary.

@Wombatish: Well, ends up meaning nothing.

But still! Responsible giving is good.

Sorry to ramble, but I've had a lot of good -and- bad experience with charities, both on the inside and from the outside, and it's a subject I feel strongly about.

@so_gracefully: God, could you beat his post with the hyperbole stick any more?

@Jim Topoleski: Wow. I seriously doubt anyone earning an AVERAGE of $158,888 per year (meaning that a substantial fraction of these are under this) own 8 $50,000 cars or four mansions. Most in fact are living as you said you would - maybe A nice house and A nice car.

The socialistic part is society telling anyone what they should do with their own money... Our capitalist society has fared better for everyone (including the poor) than any socialistic society on earth.

@AirIntake: When you're making minimum wage, you still have all of the FICA deductions from your paycheck. And your employer still contributes to Unemployment and Social Security and so on because you're their employee, same as if you're making $250k per year.

@fantomesq: What is with the crazy spin that instantly goes to the s word.

@Starphantom12: Just one question. Have you ever looked at the 'books'?

@Wombatish: Ugh, so much truth. I hate to see people give money to horrible charities where only .10 of every dollar gets to the people who need it. I also know that a lot of charities in my area need volunteers who donate more than a few hours of their time once a year- it takes that long to train them, then they're gone. I think donating an evening once every two weeks is so much better than just one marathon week around Thanksgiving.

@Wombatish: They defined the "rich" with an AVERAGE income of $158,888... that can hardly be considered rich. Not all of the rich's expenses are luxuries... many of these "rich" are business owners and these businesses are employing the lower strata.

Its not YOUR place to tell the rich what they ought to be spending their money on.

@wcnghj: I've never needed to go in and break them open, since a fairly detailed report is sent out to all church members yearly. "Special donation" amounts are also announced (we have three of those every year, where a rotating committee select a charity and the entire collection for a given Sunday is donated to that charity).

If I had any doubts, I'm glad to know that the books are available.

@fantomesq: No, that's still not what "rate" means, so using it that way wouldn't be manipulating the statistics, it would simply be incorrect.

I think wealthy people's donations get them more benefits than poorer people's donations--in terms of press, recognition, perks, etc. A friend of mine worked in fundraising for a Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and said that the people who gave the most would usually come with a lot of expensive demands, leaving their total contribution high but the net result of their contribution a lot lower.

I don't think sending money to family members outside of the country should count as charity at all. And I also question these statistics. I give money all over the place, and I rarely ever keep track of it. I give money to people on the street (not all of them or I'd be a sucker) and I don't see how that could fit into these numbers. But I bet giving to panhandlers aggregates to more than I give to non-profits.

I'd like to see which class of people gives the most to the government in the form of fees and fines. In San Francisco, they bleed you to death with penalty fees. I bet the poor and middle class get the brunt of that assault, too.

And the taxes issue is not clear cut either. Since I started my own sole proprietorship, my income has more than doubled, but my tax rate has decreased because I have the time, money, and ability to deduct a lot of my expenses. If I had a mortgage instead of renting, I'd pay even less. It definitely pays to be wealthy in the US.

@fantomesq: How interesting, you talk of rich, then post a "average" salary that's actually upper middle class, and not considered rich at all, but wealthy.

Oh and of whom DOESN'T pay 8 times more contrary to your failed belief. I sure don't, hate to break it to you, I pay more, but I also make more and HAVE more even after taxes.

And actually our capitalistic society has constantly FAILED. You DO realize that we have not had an actual capitalistic society till the 1980's? of which the policies instituted since then have directly contributed to the problems experience now. And that prior to that it had been pre 1929 that we had a "capitalistic" society which again caused a economic disaster of epic proportions.

True capitalism is impossible in society that promotes democracy, since capitalism is at its root a strive for a monopoly and a dictatorship.

A balance hand of capitalistic and socialistic policies is really the only way. Anything else is asking for disaster. Needless to say the US only prospered well when we HAD such a balance hand. It certainly prospered when we didnt, but at the suffering of the bulk of its people.

@Justin Larson: I call it as I see it - the point of the article is obviously to guilt the "rich" for not paying enough. The rest of society teling the rich how to spend their money is, per se, socialist.

Get a job, winos!

@Etoiles: Except that the wealthy don't USE any of that and the poor (statistically) do. Social security is a nightmare and should be systematically reduced until it's gone - employers could pay the money they pay to FICA to their employees, or the government could just tax that money off of businesses and the employees wouldn't notice a difference apart from the money staying in their paycheck.

As someone who DOES save their money, it offends me to see FICA deductions on my paycheck when I know I will never need them and will never - in all probability - receive them as well.

@floraposte: Sigh. Definition of rate: a magnitude or frequency relative to a time unit; "they traveled at a rate of 55 miles per hour"; "the rate of change was faster than expected"

@wcnghj: churches (protestant at least, I have no idea how things work with the Catholics and the Vatican) generally have very good accountability with money. It's pretty common that you'll go in and at service each week there will be a breakdown of income to date, budgeted income to date, and expensives to date. Plus, the people who budget the money are (very rarely) in a position to get a financial boon from where it is put.

@Wombatish: The VERY wealthy end up getting hit by the death tax eventually so I'd imagine it all works out in the end, not counting jerks like the Kennedy's who manage to evade some ridiculous amount of it each time someone dies.

@Megalomania: What they should or should not do with the systems is another issue -- and one far too complex for me to want to argue about in blog comments. I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly a "rich only" penalty as some people like to portray it.

This is a bullshit set of statistics as anyone with half a mind would have seen right from the start. As someone with no income, the fact that I donated a buck to charity now means that I just gave an infinite percentage of my income. A couple hundred college students or other people in my circumstance would skew the hell out of these numbers no matter what. At the small extremes, small differences cause huge changes in percentages. These numbers absolutely cannot be compared in this manner.

@meehawl: cute

@meehawl: Yeah, didn't Jesus advise the rich man to give away all his money? I guess he was a socialist.

Or maybe he realized that charitable works are extremely useful for community-building, since the giver feels good, the recipient becomes loyal, and fewer people starve to death.

@Megalomania: Truth. I'm in a Presbyterian church- our denomination is sort of the southern version of the Christian Reformed Church, which is full of the Dutch. You have not met penny-pinchers until you have met my Dutch relatives.

Also, protestant work ethic FTW... unless I wanted a snow day at college and my (CRC) school was the only institution in the county to stay open. That was annoying. Pfft, the Dutch.

@henwy: Amen! :)

@GuinevereRucker: *Arnold voice* You must be very proud of yourself.

@fantomesq: I think you're justifying a little bit of your own bias here. While I agree that the phrasing of the article was intended to encourage those more well off to support charity to a larger degree, I think you're wrong on several other instances.

1) Shaming people into doing something is a strong motivator in society, do you leave a tip when you eat at a restaurant? It's fair to draw attention to this fact and shame people in order to encourage other behavior. It's really only effective if enough people buy into the shame.

2) "Rate" as a term is not limited to merely a measure against time. I assume you're not deliberately ignorant of the fact so allow me to enlighten you. We have a given poverty rate, literacy rate, and bank prime rate. I'd rate your chances of observing these quite highly. Please feel free to rate this response, perhaps you'd like to compare our tax rates?

@Wombatish: The charity did FAR better with that $1000 that the "rich" donated than the $5 that the "poor" donated. Percentages, rates, etc. are all well and good but its card hold cash that pays the bills.