Americans give record $295B to charity

[Truth-Bringer]

Should we put collectivists and liberals on suicide watch?

People helping people with no intervention from government. Imagine what it would be if there were no income tax...


Americans give record $295B to charity

NEW YORK (AP) — Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year, setting a record and besting the 2005 total that had been boosted by a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and the Asian tsunami.

Donors contributed an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006, a 1% increase when adjusted for inflation, up from $283.05 billion in 2005. Excluding donations for disaster relief, the total rose 3.2%, inflation-adjusted, according to an annual report released Monday by the Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.

Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2% rise as stocks rose more than 10% on an inflation-adjusted basis.

"What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said.

Individuals gave a combined 75.6% of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4%.

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8%, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9%, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.

About 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.

"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.

Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

Mega-gifts, which Giving USA considers to be donations of $1 billion or more, tend to get the most attention, and that was true last year especially.

Investment superstar Warren Buffett announced in June 2006 that he would give $30 billion over 20 years to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of that total, $1.9 billion was given in 2006, which helped push the year's total higher.

Gaudiani said that gift reflects a growing focus on using donated money efficiently and effectively.

"I think it's also a strategic commitment to upward mobility exported to other countries, in the form of improved health and stronger civil societies," she said.

The Gates Foundation has focused on reducing hunger and fighting disease in developing countries as well as improving education in the U.S. Without Buffett's pledge, it had an endowment of $29.2 billion as of the end of 2005.

Meanwhile, companies and their foundations gave less in 2006, dropping 10.5% to $12.72 billion. Jolly said corporate giving fell because companies had been so generous in response to the natural disasters and because profits overall were less strong in 2006 over the year before.

The Giving USA report counts money given to foundations as well as grants the foundations make to non-profits and other groups, since foundations typically give out only income earned without spending the original

Link

 

[heyjude]

I can imagine. No roads, no airline inspectors, no army, no CIA. The trouble with charitable giving is that people choose what to give, and what to give to,

I'm not overly impressed with a man worth multi-billions gives money away. Do you have any idea how much money one billion is. You could burn a million every day and not put a dent in it. It makes the donor sound great, and doesn't hurt them even a little.

One other thing. A lot of that money goes to things that taxes should never support. The opera. Your religious orginizations building fund, etc. Give me a break. If they want to impress me, let them pay for the total cost of giving medical care, including preventative care, to all the poor children in America. Instead of churches spending millions to fight against two consenting gays/lesbians getting married.

 

[Hard Driver]

How does one turn the generosity of this nation into an attack on liberals...

Only a right wing wacko has the irrational mind to think there is anything here. But I guess if you have no legimate arguements to make, you make your own strawman ones to support your distorted views.

 

[invest07]

Charitable giving vs Welfare

One of the reasons the Great Society has been a dismal and total failure is the ineffficiency of government in adminstering transfer payments.

Out of every dollar conficated from taxpaying US citizens for welfare, only 29 cents reaches the needy. The government manages to waste 71 cents out of every dollar adminstering the program.

According to Charity Watch, a private charity is considered to be inefficient if it has adminstrative costs over 30%. Most large charites have adminstrative costs of about 15% and there are several with admin costs less than 10%.

So every welfare dollar gets 29 cents to the needy.
And every private charity dollar gets 85 cents to the needy.

Now let's look at this $295 Billion figure. The private charities who received this would have returned around 85% to the beneficiary so they put $250B in the hands of the needy. If the $295B were tax dollars, the needy would have received $85B.

For every dollar collected, private charities put 3 times as much money in the hands of the needy as government can.

I propose doing away with all forms of public assistance and replacing it with private charities. Private charities are far more efficient than government and react faster. Many private charities are local within a specific area and know and understand the particular needs of that area better than any bureaucrat in DC.

Is this a slam on liberalism? Definitely. Transfer payments are one of the legs of modern liberalism. And like most liberal doctrine, it is a total and dismal failure.

Deep six all welfare and replace it with private charities.

 

[heyjude]

Lol. I thought it was the liberals who would object. I guess being a Libertarian means being an equal opportunity offender.

The post starts out, "Should we put collectivists and liberals on suicide watch?" A collectivist is essentially a communist. And I am certain that the writer thought that the difference was minimal.

I pointed out that contrary to the subtle suggestion in the article, charitable giving is not going to replace taxation. Much as I object to taxes, even Libertarians know that some of them are necessary. And as to the rich giver, are you as horrified by Jesus' story of the widow's mite? A poor person giving a few dollars that actually hurt was in His opinion doing a far greater thing than a rich man who gave much, to no personal pain.

 

[heyjude]

I disagree with the idea that most charities administrative costs are between 10% and 15%. Would you care to provide a link to that claim. I think that claim is way off base, but since it is your claim, I think you should back it up.

You are right about public charity. It is administered at very high cost. Partly because of the necessity of investigating the finicial status of every applicant. I don't think most of us want to accept their word that they truly are in need of our money. Many religious charities do.

The major problem with private charity is that most of them are religious. And they all ready have me giving them my money through taxes I violently object having to give them. Secondly, why do they need my money if they are able to do the job? And third, they make the donee dance to their tune. That is not right. You do have the right to insist that a donee find work, but not that they find religion.

 

[SW85]

Only a right wing wacko has the irrational mind to think there is anything here. But I guess if you have no legimate arguements to make, you make your own strawman ones to support your distorted views.

Only a left-wing whacko lacks the sense to distinguish a right-winger from a libertarian. :lol:

 

[heyjude]

Personally, I'll be happy when both the left and right get their hand out of my pocket. The Democrats are willing to take money from me for welfare for the poor, and the Republicans are willing to take money from me for welfare for the rich. Lets keep those businesses sucking on the public. What ever happened to free enterprise?

And now the Republicans want to take my money and give it to their religious organizations. I believe in free enterprise for them too. If the members of your religious organization can't get people to donate enough money to them to save the whole world, what makes you think they should do that.? Maybe they are not fit to succeed. Leave me alone. You, the Democrats and the Republicans are flip sides of the same coin.

 

[invest07]

heyjude
My source for the overhead factors is Charity Watch. This is a watchdog organization that audits private charity's books and reports that information for free. If you are approached about giving to a charity you know little about, look them up on Charity Watch.

 

[heyjude]

invest07, I tried the link. Did not give me information about that. I spent about 10 min. trying every option available on the site, and none of them helped.

 

[invest07]

heyjude
Try this specific link:
http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html
Charity Watch gives out a "top rated" rating to charities with overhead factors less than 25%.

 

[heyjude]

Thank you,invest07. I wasn't suprised to find "mission charities." That was what I expected. And I will say that religious charities have every right to be proud of what they do. And do well.

Most charities have to pay employess, while religious people frequently volunteer their time, and should be commended for doing so. And even their paid personal are giving up big salaries.

Non-religious charities often give only 30% to 10% of the money they collect to the people they collect it for. And salaries are their big expendirtures. The head of the Red Cross makes more than most business CEO's. This turns a lot of people off from making donation. However, back to topic, or maybe it is off topic, the federal government does far better at welfare costs than most charities. Just a fact.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Lol. I thought it was the liberals who would object. I guess being a Libertarian means being an equal opportunity offender.

It means being a bringer of truth, and the truth not only offends many people, but it is met with violent opposition in many cases.

The post starts out, "Should we put collectivists and liberals on suicide watch?" A collectivist is essentially a communist. And I am certain that the writer thought that the difference was minimal.

There are varying degrees of collectivism, but if you believe the government should control a certain percentage of the economy and have the ultimate say over peaceful, honest, voluntary activities in the marketplace, then you are indeed a collectivist on some level.

Much as I object to taxes, even Libertarians know that some of them are necessary. And as to the rich giver, are you as horrified by Jesus' story of the widow's mite? A poor person giving a few dollars that actually hurt was in His opinion doing a far greater thing than a rich man who gave much, to no personal pain.

You need to tell the whole story about Jesus:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=955

 

[berreal]

same tripe from the right. It reminds me of this week bridge collapse incident ...where bush and others were talking about ...."the amazement of people helping people"...citing how much this is an American value!!

Utter garbage ... people help people ..because they are people ..in fact many of those doing the helping were immigrants ..and possible ...illegal!

Now back to this ridiculous post!! First American give because they have the means to give ...after all our wealth is no secrect! But one must also look at the lopp-sidedness of the giving!! I'm sure you'll find that those doing much of the giving has more of this wealth! Then you must understand why they give ...can you say tax write-off?

And finally ...here we have the right berating the government on every turn ..... and yet they hide behind the millitary every chance they get!

The fact is ..their disdain for the government includes the military ..evidenced by their absence in enlisting!! Can't be such a great organization when we have for example a young-republican gathering where the cameras caught every last one of them giving a reason for not enlisting! You've seen the CHICKEN-HAWK video on youtube .... http://youtube.com/watch?v=3inspkrGVbw

And their utter disdain for the goverment ...clearly tells me they have very little perspective on the reality of things!

Just look at one model country that operates without a government .... IRAQ!!!

Yeah ...thats what we want here!!

Seen any of the debates from the right... a bunch of obscured candidates ...trying to be bush the 3rd ...without being bush the 3rd!! What a predicament ...yeah baby ...follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell ...LOL !!!

 

[heyjude]

A Republican judge who is nominated for the Appeals Court, a lifetime appt., was asked to respond in writing, one time he had reached out and helped a person in need. One month later he still can't think of one time.

The Bushies are amazed at people helping people. Its not their way. They don't do that. Why would they? If God loved those people, bad things wouldn't happen to them. Jerry Falwell taught them that. Bad things are God's revenge.

And one of the reasons they allow us to live, we defend them against their enemies. Those who would deny them more riches.