How Much Should Wealthy People Donate To Charity?

One must do what one must do.

 

And let me tell you....your excelling yourself!

Regards
Highlander

 

Now that I like.

Why should the rich be required to donate anything ? Charity doesn't come with a minimum. Another class warfare straw poll, wooho.

 

Spoken like a true socialist. Who are you to engage in your own little personal class warfare attack? Stay home and zip it, and I won't ask you to do the right thing by sending 30% of your paycheck to the Republican National Committee.

 

I don't feel I have the right to force the rich to donate the same PERCENTAGE of money as the rest of us (many of them under-donate) but I do feel I have the right to condemn them for their comparative selfishness. I don't see how that makes me a Liberal or a non-Christian.

 

Is your condemnation based on facts? Or opinions? Do any of, "the rest of us," whoever they are, under-donate too? Is your charitable donation any of my business??? NO! Is my charitable donation any of your business?? NO!

 

Who are you to define "happy", or decide what a person "needs", or decide how much people should "donate" (its not a donation if its forced), ?

I'm a rich guy now. But my first job was cleaning toilets. After starting my first company, my annual income was less than $7k (way below poverty level), thats with a family of 5 and a mortgage. Even then I gave up paychecks to pay my employees. Can you say the same? I paid my dues, and what I make today is my return on all the sacrifice and work it took to get where I am now.

And NO I never took any govt welfare.

You "spread the wealth" idiots think everyone was handed their wealth on a silver platter. Most of us worked dam* hard to get it, and still work hard. Instead of pissing all over yourself about me having more than you, get off your as* and make your own fortune.

 

There is no such thing as making too much money, assuming the money is made ethically and legally (drug kingpins need not apply). Neither should people be forced to donate a certain percentage of their income, as forced charity is no charity at all. That kind of rhetoric is the worst sort of left-wing liberalism

What can be done is to funnel tax dollars to particularly effective charities (rather than let an inefficient government do the job) and make sure that the rich are being taxed at the same percentage as the middle class so that some of their money ends up making sure minimum needs are met (and no, that's not a euphemism for "give the useless lots and lots").

The long term stability of our society demands this be achieved and the people benefiting the most from that long term stability should be contributing their share. To say otherwise is the worst sort of right-wing non-responsible idealistic capitalism.

 

No government program of any kind has ever been or will ever BE, more efficient than a private sector program. Only total brainwashing would allow a sentient being to ever think so.

 

http://library.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161

One bright spot for the social conservatives: born-again Christians tend to donate at quite a higher rate than the rest of us. Apart from that comment, my fact-based condemnation stands. As for whether ONE person's donations is any of my business, the answer is no. But if you ask whether the aggregate percentage donations of a particular income group is my business, the answer is yes. I do have an understandable democratic right to know whether the rich are selfish and tight-fisted compared to the rest of us.

 

No you don't! You may have the desire to know, but you have no right to the private doings of any individual or group. The Bill of Rights has a right of PRIVACY. It has no right of Nosiness.

 

So according to Dan40, corporations shouldn't be made to reveal how much profit they make each year. The government shouldn't be allowed to ask how much money you made for the purposes of income tax. The behavior of a certain group of people AS IT AFFECTS THE REST OF US still has no relevance to me, apparently.

In fact, the Bill of Rights grants of privacy, even by conservative interpretation, does not grant the privacy Dan40 says it does. Read this link carefully:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

As to the actual text:

Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy
Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III
(Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
(Pivacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
(More General Protection for Privacy?)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.

IT WOULD BE NICE IF PEOPLE ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE THEY POSTED ON THE FORUM. THIS IS NOT EXACTLY CONCEALED INFORMATION!

 

Publicly held corporations have to reveal their profits to their OWNERS, the public investors. Privately held corporations DO NOT have to reveal anything. They only have to file their tax returns.

Shall we review that knowing what you're talking about baloney?

And thanx for proving my statement. There is no right to nosiness in the bill of Rights. If a person or a group donates to charity, it is absolutely NONE of your business. If a publicly held corporation donates to charity, how much and who is contained in their annual reports. A privately held corporation, screw off nosy.

 

This thread is ridiculous, absurd, and nothing but jealousy.

First of all, it's not your job to judge how much people can or cannot make. Unless you're Karl Marx, get over yourself.

Second, "rich people" - like anybody else - are free to DONATE however much they wish. That's why it's call a DONATION.

 

5% for government costs? Could anyone with an actual brain believe that?

10 private charities chosen at random A Children's hope fund
Administration and FUNDRAISING 00.07%

American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine
A&F costs 14.5%

Catholic Charities CYO
A&F costs 12.3%

Cancer Aid and Research Fund
A&F 3.8%

Disabled Children, Adults & Seniors: Lives Enhanced by FODAC
A&F 4.4%

Food for the Hungry, Inc.
A&F 5.1%


Government Accountability Project
website :www.WhistleBlower.org
A&F 21.3% [This one struck me as funny]


Heart Disease Research Institute
A&F 1.7%


Jewish Council for the Aging of Greater Washington (JCA)
A&F 15.5%

Lupus Foundation of America
A&F 27%


National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
A&F 7%


Make-A-Wish Foundation® of America
A&F 23.5%

Next time try passing off your complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) non-information to someone that cannot do basic research.

The Government would be highly pleased to utilize 70% of every dollar. They are nowhere near that.

5% is too ridiculous to be considered a joke.

And your links, one is there to raise funds and the other 2 don't work.

I.E. NO VALUE.

 

Good luck with that. Libs are all about do as I say, not as I do. Why would they lift a finger to help, when people can forced to "donate".

 

Typical liberal, you make remarks about things I never said or inferred. My guess that is your sadly inadequate liberal education showing its insufficient head.

 

The amount they donate would be none of your business...but liberals wouln't understand that concept at all!

 

I think this thread has misinterpreted the definition of the word "Donation"

Maybe a better question would be, "how much would you donate, if you were wealthy?"

Donations are 100% optional.
This allows you to support causes you believe in.
And only causes you believe in.

If you dont believe in anything, or dont trust where your donations are going, you have every right, NOT to donate.

 

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

 

Why so low? If a mugger steals twenty bucks from you, would you really fell better if he handed you ten back?

 

Exactly, you should vote for Ron Paul!

With that said, I donate roughly 5% of my income to charity (when I'm working). I make roughly $30,000.

If I made more I'd probably donate a bigger percentage of my income, but that is up to me to decide.

If I made a million dollars this year, I might donate a decent amount, but I also want to buy property, maybe a house for my mom too; so that million would go quick. I don't think that is greedy at all.

If you make over $23,000 a year you are the top 10% of the world. I hope you donate some of that to help out those less fortunate, but I also understand if you spend all of it on yourself and your family.

The world will be a better place in your eyes when you take care of the problems you see. No one else is responsible for doing that for you, and you can't force others to help you. If you work hard and are true in your cause, you'll find others to help, and you'll start to see progress. If you are not involved you won't see progress. Pretty simple.

 

I did not vote on this poll because there was no option that simply said "no".

I don't believe it's right to tell anyone they have to donate their own money to anything.

Even the rich.

I don't mind taxing them, but they decide how to spend the money they keep.

 

It is not your business if or what people should donate.

Do you not get that?

Other peoples' moneys are not your business.