Rich Americans are less charitable than the poor

Monday, October 6, 2014

Good morning:

Just in case you think the rich give a damn about what is happening to the rest of us in this moribund economy, the Chronicle of Philanthropy is reporting today,

The wealthiest Americans—those who earned $200,000 or more—reduced the share of income they gave to charity by 4.6 percent from 2006 to 2012. Meanwhile, Americans who earned less than $100,000 chipped in 4.5 percent more of their income during the same time period. Middle- and lower-income Americans increased the share of income they donated to charity, even as they earned less, on average, than they did six years earlier.

I am not surprised.

Are you?

Jesus said,

Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:23-24

I wonder how many of them believe they are good Christians.


10 Responses to Rich Americans are less charitable than the poor

  1. bettykath says:

    I was involved in a game where we were divided into teams of 5 +/-. Chips of different colors were used, each color a different value. Each participant was given a few chips. Trading allowed. Each person counted up his/her take, score noted. Team with the highest score won a prize. The only chip that really mattered was the gold chip. After a few rounds a few things became clear, at least to those who had very low scores:
    1. The game was rigged.
    2. The teams with the lowest scores readily opened their hands to share what they had, a quick decision on who got all the chips; cooperation and sharing.
    3. The individuals with the highest scores went off by themselves and peeked at what they had, no sharing of anything with anyone. 4. The teams in between the low scores and the high scores didn’t think the game was rigged and really thought they had a chance to make it big. They were totally befuddled by the reaction of the “losers.” Those with the high scores also didn’t believe that the game was rigged but further, they really believed that they were entitled to their high score, they were smarter and more clever than everyone else.

    Sound like our society? Well, let me tell you how the game ended: chaos and revolution. Those with nothing, those who could see the game was rigged, revolted. The game stopped b/c of the chaos. There was no order so more chips couldn’t be passed out. In some of the games, those setting up the game had to intervene to prevent physical altercations. In at least one instance, the “losers” stole the prize and left the building!

    I was extremely fortunate to be on the losingest team. I learned so much from the experience. It’s really too bad that everyone didn’t have that same experience. Some of those who didn’t “get it” may very well be among those who are doing very well and who still don’t share b/c they believe they are entitled due to being smarter and more clever.

    • Malisha says:

      They tell themselves the poor “deserve” to be poor; this protects them by faulty logic: if the poor “deserve” to be poor, obviously the rich also deserve to be rich! So why “give” to charity? It upsets the natural order!

  2. a2nite says:

    Yeah, I read that but didn’t share.

  3. a2nite says:

    Actually, if they donate money, they are buying something or making an investment for a future return.

    Or it may be to make themselves look less evil like Carnegie or Rockefeller.

  4. a2nite says:


  5. Malisha says:

    It makes sense because charity, as opposed to payment of expenses, requires empathy. It’s easy for the poor to feel empathy for the destitute. The rich have become so dependent upon the fictions they tell themselves (about their superiority and the good reasons for others to have less) that they lack empathy.

    • Someone could be starving and they would refuse to give them some money or something to eat because doing so would “encourage” them not to seek employment.


      • racerrodig says:

        Isn’t that something the Republicans say at election time…..or is it after ? No matter, that’s what they say.

        • Yes, it is and anyone who isn’t in the top 0.01% income earners per year who votes Republican is voting against their own best interest financially.

          The rich are not job creators. The trickle-down theory does not work and it has never worked.

          Increased demand for goods and services creates jobs for people to provide those goods and services. Increasing employment means more people have money to spend and that increases demand for even more goods and services.

          Killing off the middle class reduces demand because no one has any money to spend. Reduction in demand means people get laid off and the economy goes into the toilet.

          This is not complicated

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: