Study Shows the Superrich Are Not the Most Generous

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I continue to be heart-warmed, thinking of maintaining tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy, since they reportedly do so much for the rest of us... :jerkit:

------------------------------------

Working-age Americans who make $50,000 to $100,000 a year are two to six times more generous in the share of their investment assets that they give to charity than those Americans who make more than $10 million, a pioneering study of federal tax data shows.

The least generous of all working-age Americans in 2003, the latest year for which Internal Revenue Service data is available, were among the young and prosperous - the 285 taxpayers age 35 and under who made more than $10 million - and the 18,600 taxpayers making $500,000 to $1 million. The top group had on average $101 million of investment assets while the other group had on average $2.4 million of investment assets.

On average these two groups made charitable gifts equal to 0.4 percent of their assets, while people the same age who made $50,000 to $100,000 gave gifts equal to more than 2.5 percent of their investment assets, six times that of their far wealthier peers.

Investment assets measures the value of stocks, bonds and other investments assets held in the tax system. Excluded from this are retirement accounts, which are generally held outside the tax system, personal property like furniture and art and equity in homes.

The I.R.S. data was analyzed by the NewTithing Group, a San Francisco-based philanthropic research organization that since 1998 has been encouraging the most prosperous Americans to give more. The full report was posted last night at www.newtithing.org.

Tim D. Stone, the president of New Tithing, said that taxpayers who itemize took $148.4 billion in deductions for charitable gifts in 2003. The American Association of Fundraising Counsel, an organization of companies that advise charities on seeking donations, estimates giving by all Americans, including those who file simple tax returns, was $180.6 billion.

The study used unpublished I.R.S. data from 180,000 tax returns to analyze giving by income, assets, gender, marital status and age. It found that disparities in giving by income class declined once taxpayers reach age 65, but it also found that as Americans grew older their giving as a share of their investment assets also generally declined.

Among those 35 and younger, those making under $200,000 made gifts equal to 1.87 percent of their assets, a figure that fell to 0.5 percent for the 189,000 taxpayers making $200,000 to $10 million and to 0.4 percent for the 285 taxpayers making more than $10 million.

Americans age 36 to 50 making under $200,000 gave less.

Those making $50,000 to $100,000 made gifts equal to nearly 2 percent of their investment assets, compared with less than 1 percent for those making $200,000 to $10 million.

But those with income greater than $10 million, whose investments averaged $81 million, made gifts equal to 1.54 percent of their assets. This makes these middle-aged givers more than three times as generous as their wealthier and younger peers, who gave at a rate of 0.4 percent.

Americans ages 51 to 64 gave in an almost identical pattern to those 36 to 50. But among those 65 and older, the pattern changed.

The superrich, with incomes of $10 million or more and average assets of $214 million, made gifts equal to 1.5 percent of their assets. But all the income groups below them gave at a rate of less than 1 percent. For those making $50,000 to $100,000, gifts average 0.8 percent, down sharply from the giving rates of younger people with the same income.

The study also found that single men, generally, are more generous than single women. Among the wealthiest singles, men gave 1.5 percent of assets compared with 1.1 percent for women. Wealth does not explain the disparity.

Single men in the top income group, $10 million or more, had average investment assets of $124.7 million; the women averaged $244 million.

Even though the wealthiest women gave at a lower rate than the wealthiest men, in dollar terms the women, who were far wealthier, gave more. The 247 women gave an average of $2.68 million each compared with $1.95 million for the 655 wealthiest men.

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, NY Times, Published: December 19, 2005
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Interesting. Looks like Bill Gates does not follow some of his friends. He leads. I remember my dad always saying there is always someone that may need help more then yourself. He was right.
Some of the older folks that came through the great depression had strong feelings about helping others.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
The ultra Rich pay more taxes than you can even hope to make in income in your entire life Chad so get your head out of your ass !
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Remember your artical applies to people like Jane Fonda and Micheal Moore and John Heinz Kerry . The majority of the Ultra Rich are complete Liberal morons just like you !
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
The ultra Rich pay more taxes than you can even hope to make in income in your entire life Chad so get your head out of your ass !

Remember your artical applies to people like Jane Fonda and Micheal Moore and John Heinz Kerry . The majority of the Ultra Rich are complete Liberal morons just like you!


Wow, what a complete assessment of the situation from the sage, Palehose. I guess you are tired of being Manson for a couple of days.

You have no idea how much money I make, first of all. But that really is irrelevant to this thread. Of course, relevance really doesn't matter to you, does it? Just make fun of a liberal and call it a day. They pay more (those that don't avoid paying their fair share through "deductions", that is), they make more - LOTS more - so what? Of course they pay more. Rightfully so. What does that have to do with charity, and how much they pay for good causes? People who have more disposable income, apparently are giving less to charity. That is the point of this study. Not taxation.

I realize that the article I posed applies to Fonda, Moore, Kerry and the like. I have no idea how much they specifically gave to charity. Do you? What's your point? They should be held to the same standard, definitely.

What percentage of the ultra-rich, as you note, are liberals? I don't know. Maybe there is a list somewhere. I sincerely doubt that the majority is liberal, and I really doubt that many of them are morons.

But, nice analysis. Thanks for your insight. :rolleyes:
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
The Ultra out of touch Rich is mainly Liberal morons . The Rich that still have to work and watch their money their mainly conservative .
Micheal Moore is a Moron so is Jane Fonda and John Travalta, Susan Serandan (sp) morons morons morons


Figures you morons still think I am Manson. Oh well your always wrong so why not continue to be so . Never met Manson never will but at least he has a brain .
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Palehose said:
The Ultra out of touch Rich is mainly Liberal morons . The Rich that still have to work and watch their money their mainly conservative .
Micheal Moore is a Moron so is Jane Fonda and John Travalta, Susan Serandan (sp) morons morons morons

Oh, ok. That clears it RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT Up. Thanks.

:rolleyes:
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Well Chad till you get over the fact that even though the Rich do get more Tax breaks due to their assets and having a larger Mortgage to write off interest on and things like owning a buisness were they can reinvest and write that off .... in the end they are footing the bill for the majority of the nation . Its something down the line of people that make over 100k a year pay nearly 90% of the nations bills and people that are in the top tax braket pay something like 65 to 70% of the nations bills . So untill you realize this fact that the Rich are taxed all to hell and pay a compleately unfair amount of their share of the tax bill their really is no discussing this with you because your wrong stupid and clueless but at least you wont have to worry about carrying that burden :mj07: :mj07: :s4:
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
They also make that % of the nations income, too, right? So, what's the problem? It's called a progressive tax system, and they seem to be doing just fine with it. Some might say they have done extremely well in this system that makes it so hard on them to succeed.

I think I've stated before that I could take a long look at a flat tax system for everyone, with no deductions. In many ways, that makes a lot of sense to me, although I don't pretend to be an expert. Would you say that a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage of their income and does not benefit from deductions and tax incentives is fair? Or do you just want to maintain further cuts to get the rate the same, and maintain all the tax benefits the super-wealthy are better positioned to take full advantage of?

I have asked this before with little response. I have also asked Freeze, among others, what is a fair tax rate? You guys criticize liberals for having no plan. What is your plan? What is a fair tax system? Are you willing to cut everything across the board a very small percentage to make government smaller? Or just the programs you personally disagree with, to make sure 1% of 1% of our population gets to keep more of their money?

Your plan? Make things more fair for those that benefit the most already. Smart plan for some.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
I am with you on the flat tax thats what would be the fairest . Just dont hold your breath . The Dems and the poor would hate it because it truley would be fair and they wouldnt be bilking the rich anymore .I am also fine rt now with the tax system as it is even though its very unfair to the rich the rich are making a lot more money so its fair enough . Than again I didnt come here complaining about it in a fashion that isnt even true so of course the burden of a new plan would be on you the one complaining about it . got that ?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Got that? Hmm. I didn't come here (in this thread) complaining about taxation. This was about charity, and who is giving what. Got that? Sheesh.

And I don't really know how I was complaining about taxation in a fashion that isn't even true. I don't even know what that means, so there you go. You win that one. My point in other threads, the thing that REALLY bothers me, is the administration continuing to push tax cuts for the select few at a time when the expenditures (caused by this administration, mainly) are excessive and are seriously taxing the country and it's financial reserves. All the same time, cutting programs that it doesn't agree with. Sacrifice only comes for some, to benefit others. Simple. I will always disagree with this situation.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
continue to be heart-warmed, thinking of maintaining tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy, since they reportedly do so much for the rest of us...


I see youir really praising the tax system here rt ???

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
:mj07: The Admin pushing tax cuts for the select few ????? wtf you get your news out of a cracker jack box ?? Show me these tax cuts for the select few ???? I have been doing taxes for over ten years never seen one cut that wasent available to everybody ! Select few my ass thats so ridiculouse you shoundt even post on political boards for a week just to punish yourself for your own stupidity . Tax cuts for a select few OMG how dumb can ya get !!!! :mj07: :s4: :scared
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
So, are you saying - I can't believe this - that Bush's proposed tax cuts were equal for all? The cuts in taxes were the same for all taxpayers? What the hell are you saying? Are you saying that Jim Bob, who makes $20K a year has access to the upper tax bracket proposed cuts because he lives in this country and should get a better job? What are you saying?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Super rich have the best tax lawyers and pay less then many.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Yes everybody except for the last 2 Brackets hmmm maybe the last braket for that matter . And what is funny as hell is you dont even understand why thats the shame of it !!!

The reason he had to leave those 2 brackets out is they already get a bigger credit than their total tax bill !!! Yes believe it or not our tax system works as a welfare system for those in the bottom 2 brakets . So Chad please explain to the class how you can give further Tax relief to people who already dont pay cent 1 into the Tax fund !!!! please by all means explain how and why they should be elgible for Tax relief !!! this should be extreamly rich ! Dude remove head from ass get with it !!!!


The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit


The law above is basically what created a tax system that is also a welfare system . What you crying for is to make it more of a welfare system which is just plain stupidity !! :cursin:
 
Last edited:

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
Nice article, though it might be a bit too broad to mean that much.

Definitely reminded me I never give quite as much as I should or could. Thanks a lot!! :cursin:
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Chadman said:
So, are you saying - I can't believe this - that Bush's proposed tax cuts were equal for all? The cuts in taxes were the same for all taxpayers? What the hell are you saying? Are you saying that Jim Bob, who makes $20K a year has access to the upper tax bracket proposed cuts because he lives in this country and should get a better job? What are you saying?

And yes Jim Bob has access to the same cuts as everybody else does except Jim Bob Prolly dosent own a buisness or pay much interest he is probably renting but that sure as all hell isnt anyones fault but his own ! other than that the only thing Jim Bob dosent have access to is paying 33% taxes he only pays 20 something % and of course always gets a refund because his credits out wheigh his maybe $4000.00 max that was collected to begin with !! :cursin:
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I will defer to your knowledge and expertise on taxes, you obviously know far more than I do on this subject. Which is fine. I know a little about a lot, I will admit. This is what I am referring to with the newest cuts:

>>> Debate will be considerably more rancorous today, when the House votes on a $56 billion tax package, the centerpiece of which would extend the 2003 cuts on the tax rates on dividends and capital gains through 2010. Those provisions alone would cost the Treasury $20.6 billion through 2010 and nearly $51 billion through 2015, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Some moderate Republicans have expressed misgivings about those cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit affluent investors, especially as Congress moves to cut programs for the poor in the name of deficit reduction. <<<

I think we all can agree for the most part that Bush's tax benefits generally benefit those who have the most discretionary income. If not, then, I don't know what to tell you. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Two more things...I don't think there should be more tax cuts for the low- income Americans. Not sure where you got that. I agree with you there.

Finally, I was not suggesting that anyone is responsible or required to donate to charity. That is not for me to say. I should do a lot more in that regard, although I try to do a lot with my time, in positive ways to help the community and especially kids. I should give more financially than I do, though. Not saying anyone else has that responsibility. That's a personal choice, in my view.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Well Notice Chad nobody is kept from taking part in buying stock and collecting dividends . My advice Be the Investor and take advantage of those breaks . Believe me when I say we used to get so many more breaks its rediculous . We used to be able to write off 100% of our interest even on credit cards . Today its 10% of your interest on your home or buisness or 2nd home mortgage and zero % of your credit card interest . they have been taking tax breaks away for 50 years and the blame lands on both parties !
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top