Slashdot Mirror

Well... the largest beneficiaries of charitable giving in the United States are religious organizations. Some portion of that probably gets passed on to those in need, through religion-based soup kitchens, etc., but it would probably be more accurate to say that we give what we do to charity because our tax code categorizes religious giving as charitable.

This article disagrees with the parents' claim, however. I'm not willing to pay enough attention to this topic to figure out that discrepancy, but... there you go.

From the actual source.
https://www.philanthropy.com/a...

Religion has a big influence on giving patterns.
Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not.
Two of the top nine states - Utah and Idaho - have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church.
The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different.
Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted.
New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

Their presentation is biased, cause they know not that "data and finger-wagging [don't] inspire people".
I.e. It would do them no good to NOT praise religious donors by presenting them as NOT better than those donating to secular donors.
Particularly by adjusting for tax exemptions.

Tax incentives matter.
State policies that promote giving can make a significant difference and in some cases are influencing the rankings.
In Arizona, charities are reaping more than $100-million annually from a series of tax credits adopted in recent years.

Where would that "red state" end up on the "giving scale" should those $100 million per year be controlled for?
Cause is it really giving if you're making money out of it?
Which sounds a lot like making a profit.

And it gets particularly interesting when it comes to what kind of donations are promoted by the legislature - i.e. Republicans.

A second problem is that the dollar-for-dollar tax credits are available only to those charities approved by the Arizona Legislature, including religious schools.
Other charities qualify only for a state income tax deduction, worth no more than 4.1 cents on the donated dollar.

...

So the working poor and public schools can get $400 each from married taxpayers, while private schools can get more than five times as much, with a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit.

It takes about $100,000 of income to qualify for all five credits.
A married couple meeting that threshold can give $1,200 to public schools, the working poor, and military relief, plus $2,062 to private schools at no cost if their state tax liability is that high.
If they're in the top tax bracket, the couple can turn a profit of $1,292 if they itemize on their federal income tax return.

...

The most suspect part of the Arizona scheme is that it heavily favors private schools, most of which are religious, by giving not just the largest credit, but two separate credits.
Catholic schools are by far the largest single beneficiary of the private school tax credits.

When the government is favoring one group over the other it may or may not be discrimination.
Like how promoting growth of small businesses is not discriminatory towards big businesses.

But when the government sets the rules in such a way that it NOT ONLY favors the rich, but it actually awards the rich who only give to the rich with the money from the state coffers, while penalizing everyone for giving to the poor - that's quite literally taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

By Republicans.
The anti-Robin Hoods.

And a special shout-out to my downmoderators who think that "I don't like reading the truth" is the same as "YOU are flamebaiting".
There's still an unlimited amount of copy/paste out there. Unlike mod-points.

From the actual source.
https://www.philanthropy.com/a...

Religion has a big influence on giving patterns.
Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not.
Two of the top nine states - Utah and Idaho - have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church.
The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different.
Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted.
New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

Their presentation is biased, cause they know not that "data and finger-wagging [don't] inspire people".
I.e. It would do them no good to NOT praise religious donors by presenting them as NOT better than those donating to secular donors.
Particularly by adjusting for tax exemptions.

Tax incentives matter.
State policies that promote giving can make a significant difference and in some cases are influencing the rankings.
In Arizona, charities are reaping more than $100-million annually from a series of tax credits adopted in recent years.

Where would that "red state" end up on the "giving scale" should those $100 million per year be controlled for?
Cause is it really giving if you're making money out of it?
Which sounds a lot like making a profit.

And it gets particularly interesting when it comes to what kind of donations are promoted by the legislature - i.e. Republicans.

A second problem is that the dollar-for-dollar tax credits are available only to those charities approved by the Arizona Legislature, including religious schools.
Other charities qualify only for a state income tax deduction, worth no more than 4.1 cents on the donated dollar.

...

So the working poor and public schools can get $400 each from married taxpayers, while private schools can get more than five times as much, with a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit.

It takes about $100,000 of income to qualify for all five credits.
A married couple meeting that threshold can give $1,200 to public schools, the working poor, and military relief, plus $2,062 to private schools at no cost if their state tax liability is that high.
If they're in the top tax bracket, the couple can turn a profit of $1,292 if they itemize on their federal income tax return.

...

The most suspect part of the Arizona scheme is that it heavily favors private schools, most of which are religious, by giving not just the largest credit, but two separate credits.
Catholic schools are by far the largest single beneficiary of the private school tax credits.

When the government is favoring one group over the other it may or may not be discrimination.
Like how promoting growth of small businesses is not discriminatory towards big businesses.

But when the government sets the rules in such a way that it NOT ONLY favors the rich, but it actually awards the rich who only give to the rich with the money from the state coffers, while penalizing everyone for giving to the poor - that's quite literally taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

By Republicans.
The anti-Robin Hoods.

nope, just people realizing that while christiandome isn't all sunshine and roses, it would be incredibly naive and disingenuous to say that it's never done good works.

i'm atheist, but i'm not an obnoxious one... *hint* *hint*

charitable giving is higher in the religious, https://philanthropy.com/artic...

it's a terrible thing to paint with such a wide brush.

What percentage of income do other people spend on directing support to charity?

10% is enshrined in the Christian Old Testament. Some Jews read this as a donation to a class of priest no longer in existence, but also acknowledge a 2.5% terumah or a general "as much as you are able." Some also seem to interpret these as necessarily paid in food and only by farmers. Islamic zakat is 2.5%.

In the US, private charitable giving (as declared on tax returns) averages $1200 per household, or about 1.7% (keeping in mind that mean is a terrible way to measure US economic data). These guys have much more complete data that suggests something like 2-4% being 'normal.' This is still a terrible measure, because bible-belt Southerners average close to 7%, while New Englanders average under 3% (source).

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/U...
Source:
https://philanthropy.com/artic...
Data:
https://philanthropy.com/inter...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/U...
Source:
https://philanthropy.com/artic...
Data:
https://philanthropy.com/inter...

You do realize that most Western government have donated millions of dollars to nearly every international relief effort, right? And that money comes from the taxpayers, whether they like it or not. To attempt to shame someone because they have not contributed a second time is morally unsound.

Under some very particular definitions of morality. Values of morality that I and others reject.

You mean donating $100 million to help build up a hospital in New York isn't morally a good thing? Another $100 Million for Cancer Research at MIT. Another $25 Million for Cancer Research at MD Anderson in Huston TX.

Those gifts were spread out over the last 8 years. The Average American gives about 3% of their income to charity yearly. The Koch's made about $10 Billion last year, so reach that standard, they would have had to give $300 Million last year alone. It only looks like they are giving a lot in absolute terms because they are so ridiculously wealthy.

The Koch's are hardly alone in being relative skinflints. The percentage of income given to charity actually rises as income drops. For example, the most destitute zip in my town averages about 7.5%, while the richest gives less than 4% (yes, we are a generous state. Also a poor state). So if it is really charitable giving you care about (as your post seems to imply) then the best way to increase it is to find a way to move money away from the top end of our income distribution, and towards the bottom end.

Math.

You mean donating $100 million to help build up a hospital in New York isn't morally a good thing? Another $100 Million for Cancer Research at MIT. Another $25 Million for Cancer Research at MD Anderson in Huston TX.

Those gifts were spread out over the last 8 years. The Average American gives about 3% of their income to charity yearly. The Koch's made about $10 Billion last year, so reach that standard, they would have had to give $300 Million last year alone. It only looks like they are giving a lot in absolute terms because they are so ridiculously wealthy.

The Koch's are hardly alone in being relative skinflints. The percentage of income given to charity actually rises as income drops. For example, the most destitute zip in my town averages about 7.5%, while the richest gives less than 4% (yes, we are a generous state. Also a poor state). So if it is really charitable giving you care about (as your post seems to imply) then the best way to increase it is to find a way to move money away from the top end of our income distribution, and towards the bottom end.

Math.

how about you give back a small percentage of your riches and save even more lives.

Done. He gave $177 million last year. Your turn.

http://philanthropy.com/articl...

You can talk about all the moralistic high-ground as you want, but until that talk translates into actually helping people, you're not accomplishing anything except paying lip-service. To me, that's worse than doing nothing at all.

While I like to bash Americans as much as the next guy, I do think this is a weak point, as there is evidence that Americans do help others through charity. Below are two links obtained from a quick serach

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

http://philanthropy.com/article/America-s-Generosity-Divide/133775

But I suppose both you and the stats can be correct. Maybe Americans treat people far away from them nice through charity, while they treat each other and people close by like crap ;p

"Poor starving 3rd world children? Gotta help them!"
"Poor people on my street? Screw 'em!"

When folks like the Koch brothers are found to directly affect local politics across the entire nation, donating millions to sway election decisions, it becomes simple fact rather than fear.

Fear itself is not a bad thing, but Irrational fear is. Frightened people are easily controlled. Although your argument might appear to put my statement in the same class, it only appears that way. For example, death panels were widely used to scare people when health care reform was begin drafted. The simple facts are quite different with specific text preventing the fed from denying any type of medical care or 'rationing'. This would be an irrational fear. In my statement, I indicated that big money is pulling the strings. The fact that these political organizations must often disclose their donors, and those donors happen to be folks like the Koch brothers, puts the statement into fact, rather than irrational fear.

http://philanthropy.com/article/Koch-Brothers-Influence/140227/

Their donations are public record. They spend millions to sway elections towards business friendly politicians. They aren't the only ones. Does this follow the same category that implied the president was friendly towards the 9/11 Terrorists that killed thousands of Americans, that Death Panels would be used to let the Fed decide who lives and who dies, etc. The above fear mongering had no basis in fact. Even worse, it was peddled by both news outlets, and directly from the mouths of representatives of the government itself. Pailin and her anti-immunization rant is a good example of fear based rhetoric with no basis in fact.

The following examples are reports, obtained from public disclosures of donations by various political groups, some loosely defined 'charities', etc.

http://www.lung.org/associations/states/california/for-the-media/inthenews/study-tobacco-money.html
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/05/01/12591/gun-lobbys-money-and-power-still-holds-sway-over-congress
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/11/local/la-me-special-interests-20100712

Are they in the same category?

most rich people still look past it and still care enough for humanity that even beyond their higher taxes they are also the most generous and donate a much high percentage to charity

False. Though of course you know that, you write like a Poe troll.

Gates Foundation is a funnel for corruption, and a pocket-liner for Gates' own business interests in the guise of a bureaucracy-dodging philanthropic enterprise.

Gates is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Monsanto/Glaxo Industrial Complex, making the world safe for the IMF and its participating billionaires.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html

http://naturalsociety.com/bill-gates-foundation-buys-500000-shares-of-monsanto/

http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/the-gates-foundation-connection-to-the-glaxo-drug-fraud-scandal-humanosphere/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353287/28-billion-health-fund-backed-Bill-Gates-Bono-investigation-fraud.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread777028/pg0

But? If they FUND journalists and transparency foundations, then the immunize themselves from criticism by the press... It's buying coverage.

http://philanthropy.com/blogs/giveandtake/why-is-the-gates-foundation-giving-so-much-money-to-journalists/27524

http://techrights.org/2013/03/22/gates-manufacturing-a-false-image/

Scientology has been the only group that has fought the IRS and won

Huh? The IRS loses all the time. Even if you just narrow the list down to religious groups pushing the boundaries of what qualifies for the religious tax-exempt status, the IRS lost to a church that was endorsing political candidates.

I'll do you better than that: an interactive tool which shows the data [philanthropy.com]. There's a link on that page detailing how the data was compiled. (Note that IRS data only includes people earning over $50,000 a year.)

... which handily debunks your own claims. GP said: "And proselytizing expenditures and church heating bills don't count." - while your source lumps them together with real charity:

Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine statesâ"Utah and Idahoâ"have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

(emph. mine, source.)

TL;DR: atheists give to charity, christs give to the church.

Citation, please. And proselytizing expenditures and church heating bills don't count.

I'll do you better than that: an interactive tool which shows the data. There's a link on that page detailing how the data was compiled. (Note that IRS data only includes people earning over $50,000 a year.)

I take offense at that.

You probably shouldn't. You're a human being, not a statistical average.

Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families.

This is another one of those things I call a "true lie" - it is a shallow literal truth that is used to obscure a more meaningful truth.

It is literally true that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. But it is a lie to say that means conservatives are more charitable. That is because the entire difference in charitable giving is accounted for by religious donations. When you take those out of the equation, both groups give roughly the same amount of money.

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

--The Chronical of Philanthropy

The problem with religious charity, aka tithing, is that it is not truly charitable. It is about giving money to something that benefits the giver whereas true charity is altruistic with no expectation of benefit to the giver. Religious donations are charity as defined by the IRS but are not charity as defined by common usage of the term.

In extreme cases the money can be "laundered" such that it counts as an IRS charitable deduction but then is used for something that is not deductible. One such example is the way the Knights of Columbus -- a religious charity affiliated with the catholic church -- spent $1.9M between 2008 and 2009 to fight same-sex marriage laws in Washington State. If a secular person wanted to donate money to a group like the Human Rights Campaign who advocate for gay marraige, it would not be considered charity.

Same thing with the way Mormons are expected to pay a 10% tithe to the Mormon Church. But the Church turned around and spent $22 million of that to defeat the pro-gay-marraige Prop 8 in california.

Check the statistics on charitable giving to see what I mean.

Let's be honest about this breakdown. The real divide is between secular and non-secular haves (vs. have-nots), they just happen to split fairly nicely along party lines.

Giving to your local church in my view is not the same as giving to a charity doing important work in the real world. Some churches do valuable things with their donations. Many just use them to grow bigger churches and bother me by sending their mothers around to my door on Saturday mornings to discuss why I feel that the self-referencing nature of the Bible makes it a poor basis for a belief system.

From this article: http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm "In 2000, religious people gave three and a half times as much as secular people."

When 10% of your paycheck is "donated" to secure your status in the afterlife, is it still charity?

Republicans give more because they are more likely to be Christians, and charity is the the cornerstone of Christianity.

Here is an article on the subject.

Go check the numbers. Republicans give more of their OWN money to charity than Democrats do. Democrats are perfectly happy to spend other people's money, though.

Democrats are emotional, stupid hypocrites, Republicans are soulless warmongers. A pox on both their houses.

An Unlikely Champion -- a former Supreme Court Justice -- Promotes Computer Games as a Way to Change Society

Apparently, according to this study, not as much as if it were just ONE child:

In another study, Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon, found that people were more sympathetic to a single starving child than they were to two children facing the same plight.

"We cannot wrap our minds around two people as well as around one," said Mr. Slovic.

Maybe you should write to Mark Everson, CEO of the American Red Cross, and ask him why he's taking funds away from the American Red Cross, namely a $500,000 salary, "more than triple his annual salary with the IRS".

Yes, the IRS, where totally co-incidentally the new ARC ombudsman came from. In fact, she's his old chief of staff! I'm sure she's totally independent and will be a great internal watchdog of Mr. Everson's actions.

But that's okay. He doesn't have any experience with non-profits or disaster relief, but since he was a Bush appointee I'm sure he'll do a heck of a job.

Religion IS the reason why poor people vote for Republicans against their own self interests. The Republicans do nothing to help the poor and much that hurts the poor. The only reason for poor people to vote for Republicans is that the Republican party has been taken over by the Christian Right.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? Read this and then get back to me.

...this development, along with the Bill and Melinda foundation, means we now have extremely large, extremely rich companies doing what our governments should be doing.

No it means we've finally got back around to big businesses doing what governments CAN NOT do successfully. The government is good at very few things: primarily killing other governments' armies. Clearly they are not that good at observing our rights, though they are good at polluting (single largest contributor to pollution is the government). some government even spend time and money putting speakers on big briotehr cameras to stop crime by telling people "I'm watching you" and so forth instead of doing what it really takes to stop the crime.

This isn't new, big business has done these things in the past. But now since it's Google or Gates we hear about it like it's the next big thing.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v18/i17/1700 1003.htm is about some o the recent reports. Direct corporate philanthropy last year topped 20 billion dollars.

If they're promoting cleaner vehicles or saving kittens it's all fine and dandy. But what about accountability? What if Google, with its billions, starts doing things that some of us strongly disagree with? Would Christian conservatives be happy if Google started a campaign to push condoms in schools and third world countries to help stop AIDS? Would progressives be happy if Google started a campaign to restore family values through aggressively marketing church youth groups?

Boycotts, media exposure, voting with your dollars. All of which are more effective than when the government does such things. What do you do when the government does these things? Whine a bit, and a few weeks or months later the government continues doing it as normal. The next election the same bozos are re-elected.

It isn't like you can go out and set up a new government as easily as starting a company to compete with Google.

Put it this way - if Google's board turned rabid tomorrow, how much damage could it do?

Not as much as you'd think.