Bifurcation: The charity of wealthy conservatives

[ribozyme]

From my post here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217220&page=21

Who puts their own money where their mouth is? Looks like it is not liberals. I think anyone who wants to cast general broad-based aspersions on Catholic conservatives (by definition religious in the study) should at least consider the facts and read this book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” which was written by an liberal academic as well as the Catechism on “Offenses against the Truth.”

abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.

Why aren’t the rich munificent? Must we “steal” from them? Guess they didn’t read Carnegie’s The Gospel of Wealth. I guess charity is a regressive tax… too bad that the wealthy do their best to evade that “tax” too by paying less of their income. Thanks for showing the unreliability of charity with the your link and I didn’t have to spend an hour reading a long paper to find that out.

It also stands to ask what do the wealthy (conservative) people give to… they are unlikely to need charity. Oh wait, they do… corporate welfare.

The wealthy conservative families that have been the early bread and butter of the movement and continue their support are relatively well known at this point, including Scaife from Pittsburgh, Lynde and Harry Bradley from Milwaukee, Joseph Coors from Colorado; and Smith Richardson from North Carolina. Important networking goes on at the Philanthropy Roundtable, where groups are showcased.

But the key today to keeping the message machine fed is what Stein calls the “investment banking matrix,” which includes key conservatives like Grover Norquist, Paul Weyerich, and Irving Kristol, who raise, direct, and motivate. Stein estimates there are about 200 key people who invest an average of $250,000 a year and about 135 of them also serve on the boards of the Big 80 groups

alternet.org/mediaculture/21192/?page=2

Now do you have any evidence that the tax cuts that they received now go to private charities? Want to find a study on it for me.

I guess conservative charity is far more effective; the progressive cause is heavily outgunned:

For example:

15.4 million for CBPP
+
5.5 million for Economic Policy Institute

vs.

33.7 million for the American Enterprise Institute (and that is only one of the policy institutes that they have)

And yes, we do believe that the government should intervene… One way to fight poverty is to formulate effective programs against it and to understand its etiology. However, I do think it is better for one to donate to charities such as MSF as they help people who do not have a government to rely on.

It does not seem likely the poor would have their needs satisfied when the “government can be drowned in a bathtub.”

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. - Grover Norquist

It seems that a Pareto optimal environment cannot serve the poor adequately. I do not want to hear about the virtues of charity; I am only interested whether it will work to serve the poor. Anyone want to submit a paper to the Economic Policy Institute that says that charity can serve the needs to the poor and government spending is unnecessary?

Charity is virtuous, redistribution is utilitarian.

 

[JimG]

Just a few random thoughts.

It might be that most people, the wealthy included, would be more apt to contribute directly to charitable relief activities, if they were taxed less. Since the government operates so many Federal relief and welfare programs, people may see the need for direct charity as diminished, since their money already goes to those purposes being routed through the government. It’s a rather modern phenomenon for the government to assume the work of charity, and there may be some displacement at work.

When we try to help the poor in countries whose governments are ineffective or corrupt, often the majority of the aid goes into the pockets of the corrupt government officials and never makes it to the poor. Some governments in fact, are the cause of the poverty of their people. In those cases, we might help the poor best by forcibly overthrowing such governments and replacing them with something better. Is it possible that some peoples were better off under colonial regimes than under independent but corrupt governments?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just a few random thoughts.

It might be that most people, the wealthy included, would be more apt to contribute directly to charitable relief activities, if they were taxed less.

It might also be that the figures are bogus – the basic source is the IRS, and believe it or not, there are people who do not deduct every penny (or pair of worn underwear) they give. Some of these people are pretty wealthy.

 

[SoCalRC]

Just a few random thoughts.

It might be that most people, the wealthy included, would be more apt to contribute directly to charitable relief activities, if they were taxed less.

I see two basic problems with this. First, a lot of charitable giving among serious wealth is encouraged by the estate tax. Although we have only limited data in our experiments to phase it out, as the exemption goes up, giving seems to go down.

Second, despite the incessant whining, Americans are taxed fairly lightly compared to most industrialized nations, our wealthy particularly so. But there is nothing to suggest that America’s wealthy are more charitable as a group than the well-to-do in other nations.

Verns argument also does not make sense to me. Granted, I don’t bother listing every small dollar donation I make to random charities, but when it comes to donations of any real size, I have to keep track lest I run afoul of other laws. Remember, we are talking about percentage of income, not total dollars, so even a few percent is hard to reach with Girl Scout cookies or wraping paper type donations (though I’ve spent a couple grand on Girl Scout cookies for Operation Gratitude the last few years from our Parish troops).

Also, we have more data than just the IRS and they all point the same way, giving and volunteerism is regressive. Several Archdiocese in the US have looked at the giving habits in parishes and found the same thing. As have several academic studies.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It might also be that the figures are bogus – the basic source is the IRS, and believe it or not, there are people who do not deduct every penny (or pair of worn underwear) they give. Some of these people are pretty wealthy.

I would imagine that the wealthiest 1% give in a different way that the average american. For example, they are probably more likely to give appreciated securities, by which they both avoid capital gains taxes and get a deduction. In this case, they would have a significant incentive to deduct the contribution, which might make the IRS data fairly reliable.

 

[JimG]

Also, we have more data than just the IRS and they all point the same way, giving and volunteerism is regressive. Several Archdiocese in the US have looked at the giving habits in parishes and found the same thing. As have several academic studies.

So, it would appear that giving is regressive but taking is progressive. Should we encourage people to give less to charity while encouraging the government to take more from the wealthy for purposes of redistribution? Ultimately, one would have to look at the causes of wealth creation, since we can’t re-distribute what isn’t there.

 

[Hastrman]

So, it would appear that giving is regressive but taking is progressive. Should we encourage people to give less to charity while encouraging the government to take more from the wealthy for purposes of redistribution? Ultimately, one would have to look at the causes of wealth creation, since we can’t re-distribute what isn’t there.

Yes, but that economics is a science should never stand in the way of people feeling self-righteous while taking others’ money–and still not helping the poor!

Wasn’t it Mencken who said “when a bunch of businessmen get together and talk about Service, you can bet someone is about to be swindled?”

Soros is a businessman–though admittedly not in any business requiring actual work.

 

[ribozyme]

So, it would appear that giving is regressive but taking is progressive. Should we encourage people to give less to charity while encouraging the government to take more from the wealthy for purposes of redistribution? Ultimately, one would have to look at the causes of wealth creation, since we can’t re-distribute what isn’t there.

Yes… do you have any evidence that the wealthy will give to the poor with their tax cuts. I’ll present one example:

When Scaife refocused his political giving away from individuals and toward anti-communist research groups, legal defense funds, and publications, the first among these was the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.

Through contacts made at Hoover and elsewhere, Scaife became a major, early supporter of the Heritage Foundation, which has since become one of Washington’s most influential public policy research institutes. Later, he supported such varied conservative and libertarian organizations as:

American Enterprise Institute
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
David Horowitz Freedom Center
Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives - a Harrisburg-bsed libertarian think tank [15]
Federalist Society
Foundation for Economic Education
Free Congress Foundation (headed by Paul Weyrich)
Freedom House
GOPAC (headed by Newt Gingrich)
Independent Women’s Forum
Intercollegiate Studies Institute (which operates the Collegiate Network)
Judicial Watch
Landmark Legal Foundation
Media Research Center (headed by Brent Bozell)
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pittsburgh World Affairs Council
Reason Foundation

By 1998 his foundations were listed among donors to over 100 such groups, to which he had disbursed some $340 million by 2002.

Scaife has also supported non-political groups. He is a key benefactor of a number of Pittsburgh-based arts organizaions. Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, the Sarah Scaife Galleries at the Carnegie Institute of Pittsburgh art museum, the Brandywine Conservancy, the Phipps Conservatory, and the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, as well as Goodwill Industries of Pittsburgh. He and his foundations have contributed to Sarah Scaife’s favorite causes: population control (e.g. Planned Parenthood), environmental conservation, and hospitals; Jonas Salk developed his polio vaccine in a Sarah Scaife-funded laboratory. He also supports a variety of educational institutions, notably the University of Chicago, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Carnegie Mellon University, Boston University, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Rochester, Smith College, and Bowling Green State University.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

He gave to Goodwill at least.

The question is whether wealthy people like him will donate to charities that will replace government programs. I doubt it.

And George Soros has used some of his fortune to help bring down the Soviet Union.

 

[SoCalRC]

So, it would appear that giving is regressive but taking is progressive. Should we encourage people to give less to charity while encouraging the government to take more from the wealthy for purposes of redistribution? Ultimately, one would have to look at the causes of wealth creation, since we can’t re-distribute what isn’t there.

You are talking about two different subjects, rather taxation impedes giving and rather taxation itself is reasonable.

Wealth creation is a bit of a red herring. Some of our largest historical expansions in wealth have involved a lot of government taking and redistributing. For example, taking massive amounts of North America away from the Native Americans and redistributing it created a ton of wealth. The GI bill after WW-II caused an explosion in the middle class as well (though it’s funding was both gambling and taking, in several senses). That’s not to say that investment and business does not create employment and wealth. I employ a lot of people and quite a few of them have become wealthy by most American’s standards. But is it particularly effective for domestic growth in a global economy? That is hard to say.

So far, as domestic policy, trickle down economics has been a bust. Rather than means that the theory is utterly bogus though is another question. The $200-$350B deficit investment we made in the top 1-2% of Americans over the last few years might be creating lots of economic activity, just in China and Dubai instead of here.

As far as the ‘rob from the rich to give to the poor’ thing, I’m not sure I get it. As it stands now, we pretty much spend most our money on defense, servicing our debt, and health care. Since we haves are getting more than our share of deficit spending, it seems reasonable for us to pay at least our share of servicing the debt. Similiarly, since we have the most to lose, it seems reasonable for us to care at least as much about defense as anyone else. Health care is an interesting subject in its own right. We are pretty much alone in the industrialized world with no national health care system, which results in us paying the most for the lowest return. We stick with this system primarily because of the huge amount of money it funnels through private hands. Since Medicare props up the private health care industry by taking on the most expensive segment of the population, and props up the middle class by getting grandma and grandpa’s staggeringly expensive care out of the way of homes and college educations, fair share, again, seems reasonable.

Personally, I think this would justify a modest progressive tax system. I get the most out of society, so I should pay a bit more in - especially since I can more afford to do so without effecting my access to basic necessities. But what we currently have is a near flat, or slightly regressive system. When you factor in all taxes, it is pretty much flat across the socio-economic spectrum (say 3x poverty up to 150-200,000 per year), with only a slight 1-2% regressive tilt (in terms of percentage of income paid in tax). The two exceptions are the poorest, who pay higher percentages and the very richest, who pay a lower percentage.

So I’m not sure what you are arguing. I already pay a bit less than my ‘fair share’, by virtue of being affluent. Are you saying that I should just pay my fair share, or that society is better off with most Americans subsidizing me? I feel like I owe more than the family just getting by, but I could understand the argument that just leveling our system out a bit would be ‘fair’. The idea that society should continue to reward me for being really well rewarded? That I don’t really get, but am certainly willing to listen to arguments supporting it.

 

[ribozyme]

Soros is a businessman–though admittedly not in any business requiring actual work.

What? What is that supposed to mean? He is, at least, unlike most wealthy people such as Scaife, interested in charity.

 

[Hastrman]

What? What is that supposed to mean? He is, at least, unlike most wealthy people such as Scaife, interested in charity.

Or in other words, “Service.”

Read that Mencken quote again.

What don’t you understand?

Philanthropy, from guys like Soros, is always a scam–trying to make people ignore the fact they’ve got their boots on the necks of the poor. It’s all only to make themselves feel better–Kapo Soros, especially. If I were a Jew who’d been a running-dog of the Nazis, I’d need some way to feel better, too. He also intentionally sabotaged the Hungarian economy to make a quick buck in the currency market. They call that “securities fraud,” Ribo.

Not to mention that every one of those “charities” is an affront to human dignity and national sovereignty. Donations to the Manson family wouldn’t impress me either, no matter how generous.

 

[ribozyme]

Or in other words, “Service.”

Read that Mencken quote again.

What don’t you understand?

Philanthropy, from guys like Soros, is always a scam–trying to make people ignore the fact they’ve got their boots on the necks of the poor. It’s all only to make themselves feel better–Kapo Soros, especially. If I were a Jew who’d been a running-dog of the Nazis, I’d need some way to feel better, too. He also intentionally sabotaged the Hungarian economy to make a quick buck in the currency market. They call that “securities fraud,” Ribo.

Not to mention that every one of those “charities” is an affront to human dignity and national sovereignty. Donations to the Manson family wouldn’t impress me either, no matter how generous.

Do you have any evidence that Soros worked with the Nazis?

 

[po18guy]

I would imagine that the wealthiest 1% give in a different way that the average american. For example, they are probably more likely to give appreciated securities, by which they both avoid capital gains taxes and get a deduction. In this case, they would have a significant incentive to deduct the contribution, which might make the IRS data fairly reliable.

Well, is owning a company or corporation that employs citizens and keeps them from needing charity also considered as charity? No one operates in a vacuum, as the owners benefit, so do the employees. The premise of this thread seems akin to the old freedom vs. license contrast.

 

[Hastrman]

Do you have any evidence that Soros worked with the Nazis?

It says so right in the wikipedia article, though it’s quick to put a positive spin on it. He despises Israel and funnels money into several organizations that actively aid its enemies–like your precious Human Rights Watch. What about the human right not to be blown up by a suicide bomber?

Think a little before you go and make somebody your idol. Or, better, don’t make anybody an idol. Kill the Buddha.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Consider John D. Rockefeller … the original.

He made his money by cutting the cost of oil for the average person so it was affordable.

Then he gave a lot of his money away by funding libraries all over the country. And there was still a lot of money left over.

Consider Tom Monaghan who founded Pizza Hut. When he sold it and took out his money, he funded a wide variety of Catholic-oriented charities. He didn’t publicize it, but the word got out.

There is also a “command” of sorts … that if you give to the poor, you’re not supposed to publicize it.

So, I would suggest that a lot of charity by wealthy conservatives is conducted anonymously. Consider the work of the various St. Vincent de Paul societies.

I have witnessed countless charities of Catholic orientation, … and when a priest stood up and said he needed a certain amount of money for something very specific … meaning that the money would not be spent on “overhead” or anti-Catholic efforts … the money POURED in.

There was one case in which the week BEFORE the priest gave his talk, the money started to pour in. The word had gotten out and wealthy people were more than willing to help.

But folks get put off by appeals that are for non-specific purposes … “to help the poor”, without specifying exactly what is the help the money will be spent for.

There was a recent case … a major public scandal … in New York, where huge amounts of money were collected … and it was never distributed. It just sat there. A lot of people needed that money but even after detailed forms were filled out, the “administrators” said … well, no … and the millions went undistributed.

So, folks are legitimately cautious and suspicious.

One pastor I know set up a finance committee … so that he would never have to touch the money … there would never be any question of impropriety … and so there would be thorough, prompt, public, and complete accountability. He never had trouble collecting money for projects. In fact, money was over-subscribed … so much so that he proposed doing additional projects … and even more money poured in.

This has always been the case. During WWII, Cardinal Spellman collected suitcases full of money from wealthy New Yorkers and hand carried it under diplomatic passport to the Vatican where the Pope used to money to feed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who he had smuggled into the Vatican City. A man named Angelo Roncali acted as forger-in-chief and gave them all phony Vatican City citizenship papers, which the Nazi’s respected. The Jewish refugees were then taken by Vatican railways to the port where they were taken by boat to safety. To this day, that operation has never been publicized. We do not know the destination of the Jewish refugees … probably nearly a million of them. Pincus Lapide put the number at 685,000 (whose lives were saved by all manner of subterfuges by Pope Pius XII ) … and the Pope’s housekeeper [Sister Mary Pascalina Lehnert] reported the event in her memoirs. All of it funded by the charity of wealthy conservatives. Read “Greatness Dishonored”.

And we are talking about money contributed by wealthy people. The poor and middle class working folks didn’t have that kind of money.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I got timed out.

Here’s a bibliography of books and article on Pope Pius XII;
“Greatness Dishonored” appears among them.

ratzingerfanclub.com/PiusXII/

Not off topic because it speaks to wealthy conservatives funding the Pope’s rescue work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would imagine that the wealthiest 1% give in a different way that the average american. For example, they are probably more likely to give appreciated securities, by which they both avoid capital gains taxes and get a deduction. In this case, they would have a significant incentive to deduct the contribution, which might make the IRS data fairly reliable.

The wealthiest man I ever knew was Winthrop Rockefeller. While much of his giving was through a foundation, and reporting was mandatory, what he gave from his pocket was often undeclared.

He also had two children with Downs Syndrome – one of them adopted.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The wealthiest man I ever knew was Winthrop Rockefeller. While much of his giving was through a foundation, and reporting was mandatory, what he gave from his pocket was often undeclared.

He also had two children with Downs Syndrome – one of them adopted.

While I don’t doubt that some of the rich give anonymously and are not concerned about the tax deduction. The question is how prevelant such behavior is and what is the magnitude of nondeducted contributions to deducted contributions. All I know is that the rich have an incentive to deduct their contributions. And the rich didn’t get that way by paying more taxes than they need to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

While I don’t doubt that some of the rich give anonymously and are not concerned about the tax deduction. The question is how prevelant such behavior is and what is the magnitude of nondeducted contributions to deducted contributions. All I know is that the rich have an incentive to deduct their contributions. And the rich didn’t get that way by paying more taxes than they need to.

On the other hand, the middle class have **more **of an incentive to deduct charitable donations. WinRock could give a million or two and not notice it. People in 9-to-5 jobs need the deductions more.

 

[Al_Masetti]

While I don’t doubt that some of the rich give anonymously and are not concerned about the tax deduction. The question is how prevelant such behavior is and what is the magnitude of nondeducted contributions to deducted contributions. All I know is that the rich have an incentive to deduct their contributions. And the rich didn’t get that way by paying more taxes than they need to.

There are caps on how much you can claim as a deduction from your income on your tax return.

So, the so-called tax deduction only works for lower-middle and middle-class wage earners.