On my way to work this morning, I heard a story on NPR about a new study by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. The bottom line: People on the low end of the income scale give a greater proportion of their discretionary income to charity than people at the very top. The striking key findings:
The rich aren’t the most generous. Middle-class Americans give a far bigger share of their discretionary income to charities than the rich. Households that earn $50,000 to $75,000 give an average of 7.6 percent of their discretionary income to charity, compared with an average of 4.2 percent for people who make $100,000 or more. In the Washington metropolitan area, for example, low- and middle-income communities like Suitland, Md., and Capitol Heights, Md., donate a much bigger share of discretionary income than do wealthier communities like Bethesda, Md., and McLean, Va.
The 1 percent really are different. Rich people who live in neighborhoods with many other wealthy people give a smaller share of their incomes to charity than rich people who live in more economically diverse communities. When people making more than $200,000 a year account for more than 40 percent of the taxpayers in a ZIP code, the wealthy residents give an average of 2.8 percent of discretionary income to charity, compared with an average of 4.2 percent for all itemizers earning $200,000 or more.
You can also look at giving and income across geographic regions (indexed by zip code). In my neighborhood, where the median income is $53, 273, giving was 5.6%. In a wealthier section of the city, where median discretionary income was $85, 397, giving was only 4.1%.
Read more about the role of religion in giving and the differences between red states and blue states. There are some surprising findings in there!
Comments
Squeezing the middle class squeezes the poor
In her landmark study of the effect of two working parents on household finances, Elizabeth Warren pointed out that the bulk of charity to the truly poor comes from the middle class. She further point out one area in which trickle down economics actually applies--as the middle class becomes more poor, the impoverished receive even less help. Just another way in which a vital middle class is essential to the kind of healthy society progressives seek.
yep... always figured that was true...
i think most of the rich like the Romneys just like bragging about their charity without looking at the actual numbers/percentages and no one calls them on it cuz it seems like a logical thing - if you have more you give more... so not true though...
and look at any food bank or soup kitchen. most of those volunteering their time are not going to be the richest folks either... the rich folks just like to talk the talk, and not actually walk the walk...
great find type1! :D
Look at what type of people many of the rich are,
silver spooners that think they deserve everything, assholes that stomp on people on their way to the top, cheaters, liars, psychopaths. Not all of course and the rich don't have a monopoly on assholishness, but I think overall the rich have a much larger percentage of assholes, therefore a smaller percentage of compassionates. Just the way it is. It's kind of like what kind of people become politicians.
To the wealthy barons, charity is a tax write off, nothing more
geomoo's reference to Elizabeth Warren's point is solid. Thank for the reference, type1error. I've seen BS assertions to the contrary peddled in conservative books(along with other BS like rich Conservatives hug their kids more and shit like that).
BTW we need to use the word wealthy baron more
when people hear rightful and accurate attacks on the "rich" it turns them off because they think of themselves as rich, just not yet. Sad but true.
Why am I not surprised.
Thank you for posting this.
This is the case throughout the advanced capitalist world
and is well-known. I also think that it is probabaly generally the case and it occurs for many reasons beyond the one that I often see explaining it from an individualist perspective. I have read in many mainstream discussions that those on a lower income are closer to the situation itself and give to the poor in the hope that they will be covered if the worst happens. However, I think that it is a more communalist perspective which can be used for explaining this phenomenon and that is because for those that have less, they have learned that sharing not only in the family but helping others is a correct moral principle. For the wealthy that have learned the lessons of selfishness and individualism, helping others comes less naturally as they believe their privileged position is earned rather than due to an accident of birth or luck. Those on lower incomes know better and know that we function better as a community helping those in a bad situation is not only morally correct, but normal and correct behaviour for functioning in a community.
I think so, too.
"Those on lower incomes know better and know that we function better as a community helping those in a bad situation is not only morally correct, but normal and correct behaviour for functioning in a community."