The Giving Season: Why the 99% Are Actually More Philanthropic Than the 1%

[Lakhota]

By David Morris

The 99% is more generous, and gives primarily to the church, while the 1% is more connected to cultural institutions that offer some payoff in social status.

This is the giving season and we Americans are prodigious givers. Nearly two thirds of us donate to charities each year. This year we will send more than $225 billion to charities. More than a quarter of this giving will occur in December.

Those are the bare facts. But this year, when the stark divide between the 1% and the 99% has begun to inform our thinking and our approach, it might be instructive to examine the world of giving through that lens.

How The 1% Differs

Unsurprisingly, the 99% are much more generous than the 1%. Households earning less than $25,000 give away twice as much as richer households as a fraction of their income. The disparity is even greater given that many if not most of the 99% do not itemize their tax returns and therefore do not take a tax deduction for charitable contributions.

To discover what motivates giving Paul K. Piff, a PhD candidate in social psychology at University of California carried out a series of experiments. He discovered that people earning $15,000 or less are more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than those earning more than $150,000.

The 99% tend to give primarily to their church. Giving by the 1%, on the other hand, according to Judith Warner writing in the New York Times “was mostly directed to other causes—cultural institutions, for example, or their alma maters—which often came with the not-inconsequential payoff of enhancing the donor’s status among his or her peers.”

Indeed, empathy and compassion seem in short supply among the 1%. Piff comments, “wealth seems to buffer people from attending to the needs of others”. Which, as Warner notes, affirms economist Frank Levy’s observation in his 1999 book about the new inequality--The New Dollars and Dreams: American Incomes and Economic Change. “The welfare state rests on enlightened self-interest in which people can look at beneficiaries and reasonable say, ‘There for the grace of God…’ As income differences widen, this statement rings less true.”

We should bear in mind that what is reported as charitable giving by the 1% significantly overstates the actual private sacrifice, as economist Uwe E. Reinhardt points out. If the wealthy donate $10,000 to charity and are in the combined 50% federal, state and local tax bracket then their effective sacrifice is $5,000 and society as a whole, without its advice and consent, subsidizes the rest.

Much More: The Giving Season: Why the 99% Are Actually More Philanthropic Than the 1% | | AlterNet

 

[Lakhota]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

 

[asterism]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

So you side with the religious?

Interesting.

 

[Lakhota]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

So you side with the religious?

Interesting.

Why, are all 99 percenters religious?

 

[asterism]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

So you side with the religious?

Interesting.

Why, are all 99 percenters religious?

Most are.

Same with the rest.

 

[asterism]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

Have you done an analysis of the 1% by political affiliation?

 

[Lakhota]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

Have you done an analysis of the 1% by political affiliation?

No, I haven't. Have you? However, Republicans are the only ones I hear praising Ayn Rand.

 

[asterism]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

Have you done an analysis of the 1% by political affiliation?

No, I haven't. Have you? However, Republicans are the only ones I hear praising Ayn Rand.

I know a lot of rich stingy Democrats.

 

[Lakhota]

Poorer people generally have bigger hearts - which may help explain why they're poorer...

 

[bripat9643]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

All you've said is that the giving of the 1% doesn't count in the strange math of liberals.

Every time I see a thread started by you, I expect something really stupid, and you never disappoint.

 

[Clementine]

I wish they'd cut it out with the 99% vs the 1%. That ratio is way off. First, you have to assume that all those in the 1% are greedy and selfish and the other 99% are all equal and generous. It's all too simplistic and might make for some catchy posters at an OWS site, but it's far from reality.

Nearly half the people don't pay taxes and likely don't donate, but are recipients. That's been my experience after working with charities for the past 9 years. Try standing outside of a store with a Salvation Army red bucket or getting involved in any other fund raiser for charity. It's generally the middle class who donate time and money and most of that money goes to nearly 50%, not just the poor. I've seen the poor drive up for their free giveaways in nice cars, carrying cell phones and then they get picky. At an event a few years ago when we were letting people come in to get free Christmas gifts for their kids that people had donated, one lady was insisting she wanted a WII for her child. We didn't have one and she was angry and told us she didn't want the other crap we had to offer. On the way out, she told her friend she'd just go to WalMart and buy one. So, why was she there to begin with if she could afford one? I realize people want to make their children happy, same as I do, but some will try to get something for free if they can. Another time, we were giving away good used and new items. One woman said she was looking for the Play Station, but we had the PS2 and not the PS3. We had XBoxes and another one I can't remember now. The woman said her kids had all the others, just not the newest one. Well, her kids were better off than mine and I couldn't believe how some don't just want free things, but they want the latest and greatest free things. How deprived are their kids if they have everything but what just came out that year?

I also notice it's the wealthier people in town who offer scholarships to the students each year. And the businesses donate to the school. I've been involved in fund raisers for the art and theater programs in schools and, again, it's the wealthier ones who keep them going.

There is no 99% of people who can be put together and claim to have the same mindset, nor can you lump 1% into a group and pretend to know how they think.

The OWS cooks didn't even want to share their organic chicken with the homeless who joined the protest. The derelicts, as they called them, got brown rice. We saw people divided into classes there. I wasn't surprised since it's mostly lefties in those protests and grouping and labeling people is what they do.

I think a growing percent of people in this country just want what they can get. Many reasons for the disparity between people's incomes. It's not all something that can be blamed on someone else, though the left sure tries. Some people just don't have what it takes. It's different with disabled or elderly people, but when able bodied people are not finishing school, staying off drugs or making good decisions, they can't expect to enjoy the same lifestyle as those who make smart choices. Instead of learning the lesson and changing themselves, they cry to government to bring down the wealthy, as if that will somehow elevate them. It's pathetic.

I feel for those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but I am talking about people that have never worked and many came from families who have been on welfare for generations. They will never see a better life if they are waiting for government to confiscate it for them.

 

[editec]

I believe that the STYLE AND MANNER of giving is very different depending on socioeconomic class.

When the very wealthy give to charity, do remember that thye get to write it off.

Unlike MOST Americans who are also giving. MOST Americans cannot write off charitable giving.

So in tht sense, when a middle class person (who does not itemize their income tyaxes) gives to charity every cent they give comes directly out of their bottom line.

When a very wealthy person gives to charity, that positively effects their tax burden.

You all know this, right?

 

[code1211]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

So you side with the religious?

Interesting.

Why, are all 99 percenters religious?

In the first several words of your post, it refers specifically to religion.

Do you read this stuff before posting it?

 

[code1211]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

Rand had no problem with giving. Her problem was with those who demand that she give to those that were selected for her. That was not charity to her way of thinking. It was theft.

 

[code1211]

This does not surprise me. It's the Ayn Rand mentality of the 1%.

Have you done an analysis of the 1% by political affiliation?

No, I haven't. Have you? However, Republicans are the only ones I hear praising Ayn Rand.

That's because Dems are either too lazy or too stupid to read and understand what she says.

 

[code1211]

Poorer people generally have bigger hearts - which may help explain why they're poorer...

You believe that a giving spirit causes poverty?

Be sure to let the librarians at the Carnegie Libraries know this when you enter.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Poorer people generally have bigger hearts - which may help explain why they're poorer...

So you're saying that the poor are poor because they give most of their money away?

 

[code1211]

I believe that the STYLE AND MANNER of giving is very different depending on socioeconomic class.

When the very wealthy give to charity, do remember that thye get to write it off.

Unlike MOST Americans who are also giving. MOST Americans cannot write off charitable giving.

So in tht sense, when a middle class person (who does not itemize their income tyaxes) gives to charity every cent they give comes directly out of their bottom line.

When a very wealthy person gives to charity, that positively effects their tax burden.

You all know this, right?

If the Standard Deduction exceeds the deductible minimum, how does this represent a direct out of pocket vs. the amount declared but those who itemize?

 

[editec]

I believe that the STYLE AND MANNER of giving is very different depending on socioeconomic class.

When the very wealthy give to charity, do remember that thye get to write it off.

Unlike MOST Americans who are also giving. MOST Americans cannot write off charitable giving.

So in tht sense, when a middle class person (who does not itemize their income tyaxes) gives to charity every cent they give comes directly out of their bottom line.

When a very wealthy person gives to charity, that positively effects their tax burden.

You all know this, right?

If the Standard Deduction exceeds the deductible minimum, how does this represent a direct out of pocket vs. the amount declared but those who itemize?

I don't think I understand the question.

If one does NOt itemize, then one can take no tax benefits for charitable giving.

If one does itemize then charitable giving will offset some income.

MOST Americans do NOT itemize their taxes because they do not make enough money to bother.

Does that answer you question?

My charitable contributions EXCEED my income.

And since my income is low, I do not itemize.

Now if I made enough money to bother itemizing, I would take off the value of charitable contributions.

But as I cannot deduct those contributions, any charity I give comes out of my pokcet directly, and the government gives me no tax benefits for therm.

Clear?

 

[waltky]

Granny says, Dat's right - dey lie to get ahead an' even take candy from lil' kids...

How the 1 percent lives: Yes, the rich take more candy from kids, study finds
February 28, 2012 - A Berkeley study conducted seven tests to gauge the ethical behaviors of different economic classes. It finds that the rich are more likely to cut somebody off in traffic and lie to get ahead.

A new study by the University of California at Berkeley suggests that the richer you are, the ruder and less ethical you are. One experiment tried to determine who is more likely to take candy from kids. You guessed it: the Daddy Warbucks type. The study – published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – looked at a series of seven tests to gauge the ethical behaviors of different economic classes. To the academic minds at Berkeley, the results proved that “upper-class individuals are more self-focused, they privilege themselves over others, and they engage in self-interested patterns of behavior.” In other words, they tend to live and breathe the saying, “Greed is good.” One small question, though: Is this study a class critique – or an instruction manual for how to get rich?

After all, considerable research suggests that the rich get rich by embracing greed, and that it's often small, daily decisions about saving and spending that result in wealth over time. Added to what some call America's “capitalist spirit,” behaviors seen by others as greedy or unethical simply fit into Donald Trump's dictum in “The Art of the Deal”: “The point is, you can't be too greedy.” “If 'greed' is defined as a desire to possess wealth for its own sake, even a modest amount of greed will suffice,” Johns Hopkins University researcher Christopher Carroll wrote in a paper called, “Why Do the Rich Save So Much?” “Of course, towering and obsessive greed cannot always be ruled out.”

To be sure, the Berkeley study doesn't measure deviance, just degrees of ethical behavior, the researchers note. It didn’t explore links to violent tendencies or crimes. Rather, the study simply measured daily social interactions and small behaviors to examine how socioeconomic class affects behavior. Moreover, the study doesn't suggest that poorer Americans are paragons of virtue, the researchers are careful to point out. In fact, previous Berkeley studies have found poverty linked to violent crimes. At the same time, a couple of the more eye-popping findings in the new study might bear some scrutiny.

MORE