A man earning $30,000 giving $300 to charity sacrifices more than a Billionaire giving away millions

[Tom Rinaldo]

The creed of false equivalence gets used to bludgeon common sense, and often obscures our grasp of true morality. A portion of every persons income is needed to support life itself. Another part allows for simple pleasures. Beyond that lies realms of ascending privilege, that lead toward self aggrandizement, and ultimately wanton gluttony. Once the latter was viewed by Christianity as a sin.

It is good when those with wealth donate large sums to worthy charities - that money is sorely needed for important causes and wealthy individuals are blessed with the means to give ample assistance to them. Our society does not shun nor shame those who choose not to become benefactors, so it is therefor appropriate to acknowledge those who take on that role voluntarily. Yes it is good that Mitt Romney gave millions of dollars to charity, but the fact still remains that he has150 million put aside in an IRA and untold amounts more stashed away in secret bank accounts.

It is not a matter of begrudging anyone success. There are very few among us who would not gladly embrace similar good fortune should riches somehow come our way. But keeping perspective is important, especially during a political year when talk about the need for Americans to make sacrifices to reign in future entitlements is a common refrain. Perspective is needed when negative aspersions are cast upon those who labor at minimum wage jobs because, unlike those who receive much higher compensation, they don't make enough to pay income taxes.

The working poor never earn glowing headlines when they donate $25 to their volunteer fire department's annual fund raising drive, or when they buy 5 boxes of girl scout cookies to help a neighbor's kid afford some enriching experience. But their charity comes at far greater personal sacrifice than the millions that someone like Mitt Romney is in a position to donate. Some people simply have plenty they can give without hurting, and some people's survival isn't at risk when they are forced to "sacrifice" just a little bit more for the essentials of life.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. Absolutely true because it cuts into their actual living expenses. RobMe has more than enough to

live where he can have not only what he needs but anything he wants. Except the presidency, of course.

[liberal N proud]

2. The same goes with the tax cuts

They (the rich) keep selling Americans on the myth that giving more to the rich makes them job creators. When it is the extra cash in the pockets of the people making $30K that spurs the economy and in turn creates jobs due to demand.

The poor and middle class are being screwed by the rich.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Yup. IF they create jobs they OFTEN are overseas. And corporations and large businesses are awash...

...in cash that they are holding back from investing in "job creation" now. The poor and middle classes aren't in a position to hold back money - we spend it and support economic enterprise here at home. Not only are the super wealthy likely to invest overseas, they are also far more likely than most Americans to spend large sums overseas also.

[hollysmom]

3. It has been shown over and over the less you have, the more you share.

[Honeycombe8]

5. If a rich man disagrees with you, point out that.....So saith the Bible.

It's a pretty famous story in the Bible.


Mark 12:41-43

King James Version (KJV)


41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Thanks to you and AnneD for remembering this parable

This passage from the Bible should be quoted more often in the face of so called Christian Republicans in light of Romney's derogatory 47% comments.

[susanr516]

30. You should have included the next verse

To paraphrase: the rich gave from their abundance, while she gave everything she had.

[AnneD]

6. The parable of the widow's mite.....

Luke 21:1-4
The Message (MSG)
21 1-4 Just then he looked up and saw the rich people dropping offerings in the collection plate. Then he saw a poor widow put in two pennies. He said, “The plain truth is that this widow has given by far the largest offering today. All these others made offerings that they’ll never miss; she gave extravagantly what she couldn’t afford—she gave her all!”

[OnionPatch]

10. I was thinking of that verse when I read the post title.

Isn't it strange that the (self-appointed) party of "Christians" don't seem to have ever heard this quote from their savior?

[AnneD]

29. There is more written in the bible...

About charity toward the poor. Too bad some of these folks never sat through a Sunday school class or read that bible they carry carry around and use to pound the rest of us over the head.

[Honeycombe8]

8. This is why a flat tax would be SO unfair.

I tried to explain it to someone, who didn't understand, or pretended not to understand. But it's so basic, how could anyone not understand?

5% from someone who has 50% expendable income is one thing. 5% from someone who has 0% expendable income is quite another. That means the 5% will have to be taken from another NEED.

The 5% has a different weight on the person, depending on his/her income. That's why we have a progressive income tax system.

I'd like to see an increase in federal and state income tax, and a doing away with sales tax. Much simpler, and fairer.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. For a number of years the Democratic Party too often shyed away from forcefully making this case

Much of the reason for that I think can be laid on the corrupting influence of money in politics. But the Democratic Party is showing some signs of returning to bedrock core values - none too soon I might add.

[Zax2me]

11. Not really.

I mean, as a charity, which would you rather receive - millions or 300 bucks?
Okay then.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. OK what?

The concept being discussed is degree of personal sacrifice, not simple arithmetic. Next thing you know you will be pointing out that Warren Buffett pays more taxes than his secretary.

[bluethruandthru]

13. It's hard to explain this concept in a soundbite or bumper sticker...which is why so many on the

right don't get it. I'm sure that's why I still hear so many "middle class" friends arguing for a flat tax.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I think you are right abougt that. On the other hand...

...it is not exactly an alien concept to defend either. Most people have an innate sense of fair play. The basis for Progressive income taxes is a concept that continually need renewal in the public sphere. In a way it's like a product brand name, you simply can't coast on prior market acceptance continuing indefinitely in the face of opposition without investing some political capital in promoting it, or it ultimately will go the way of Ipana toothpaste. That is what has been happening for years. It is all part and parcel of the retreat from standing up for liberal values while Republicans kept calling them Un-American.

[siligut]

15. I agree. And want to add that Mitt's charity is real iffy

Romney’s charities of choice are diverse; in fact, through 2010 the Tyler Foundation had made grants to nearly 100 distinct organizations. Many of the grants have gone to youth programs or health related charities. Of the bunch, the following are Mitt Romney’s top 10 favorite philanthropic targets in terms of total dollars awarded by the Tyler Foundation since 2000:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: $4,781,000
2. Brigham Young University: $525,000
3. The United Way: $177,000
4. Right to Play: $111,500
5. The George W. Bush Library: $100,000
6. Operation Kids: $85,000
7. Center For Treatment of Pediatric MS: $75,000
8. Harvard Business School: $70,000
9. City Year: $65,000
10. Deseret International: $50,000
Weber State University: $50,000

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/17/an-inside-look-at-the-millions-mitt-romney-has-given-away/

The Mormon church should not be considered a charity, it is a business and I really don't get how Harvard and the Bush library qualify either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. It is quite top heavy toward his regligion

And even without debating whether his religion should be considered a charity, as a practicing Mormon who accepts the teachings of his church Romney is required by his religion to tithe. It is more telling how relatively little he gives to causes he is not required by his faith to support.

[HopeHoops]

17. Agreed. My daughter held four years of break-a-thons (karate) and we took at least...

... a $200 hit each time to cover shit we couldn't account for (like boards that arrived broken, people not turning in pledge sheets, etc.) We don't make very much, but it was worth it for the charities she donated it to. It's all a matter of perspective. I doubt rMoney has ever seen a $20 bill, much less a penny.

[DesMoinesDem]

18. Charity isn't about the sacrifice of the person giving.

It is about those in need. The person that donates millions of dollars does far, far, far, far, far more good than the person that donates 300. Sacrifice is just a way for a person to think of themselves as better than the big donors. The only person that cares about sacrifice is the person that donates 300.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I strongly disagree with your premise

Again it's a case of a false equation. Charity and sacrifice are different concepts though of course there is some relationship between them when you are literally talking about money going to people in need. Sure, absolutely, it is better when people in need can receive more essential charity than less, or put another way, when more people can be helped because there are more resources available to help them with.

That has nothing to do with sacrifice however. Sacrifice is real when something of significance is done without so that another can receive that which is essential. It is not just a made up feel good concept for people to flatter themselves with. Of course not all sacrifices are equal and I never said they were. But some acts of charity require no sacrifice whatsoever, just a caring heart which is great in and of itself, I am not putting that down. But it is not the same as doing without so that others can have.

Do you rise to object when politicians speak about the need for shared sacrifice when what that means to them is that some families will have to lose federal food assistance causing children to miss meals while others will "suffer" from allowing TEMPORARY tax cuts on the top 2% to lapse back to the rates that were paid during the Clinton economic expansion?: Will those 2% top income people think that families doing without food are making an undue fuss over their sacrifice when the top 2% would actually giving back more money individually to the government than the cost of the food stamps the low income family will no longer be receiving?

[DesMoinesDem]

25. Sacrifice is irrelevant to charity.

Charity is about the people that receive it. The people that talk about sacrifice with regards to charity want to make it about themselves. They only point out their sacrifice to make themselves feel better. Ironically, they are very selfish. The donation isn't about someone else, it is about them. Charity is voluntary. If your 'sacrifice' to the charity is too much, don't donate. No one is forcing you. You are not a better person because your much smaller donation was a greater sacrifice for you. The people receiving the charity sure as hell could care less about how big your sacrifice is. The only thing they care about is how big the check is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. You are using a straw man argument

Charity and sacrifice are different concepts and I don't think I was confusing them in my observation.

First off, very few people of average means or less make an effort to make the world know how much they are giving to charity. I am the one raising the element of relative personal sacrifice here in a sociological context - because it echos themes current to the political debate; notably who is or is not mooching, and who is or is not in a position to be asked to make "sacrifices" during efforts to reduce federal deficits.

The people who call attention to their civic charity are usually the ones who like to have buildings named after them in recognition of their generosity, and they are very large donors who almost always have substantial wealth. I have no problem with that when it happens, but poor people seldom get recognized for their generosity.

Actually what solid charities care about is whether their mission will succeed. A strategy that focuses on soliciting the support of people who can write big checks is often productive toward that end but not without some exceptions. Sometimes a strategy that focuses on winning the active support loyalty and involvement of a broader cross section of the population turns out ultimately to be more fruitful

And of course a charity in the normal course of affairs does not care how much of a sacrifice a donor is making by giving, although in some cases inspirational publicity focused on the sacrifices some make to support a cause indeed can benefit that cause.

I wrote this OP in the context of the current debate kicked up by Mitt Romney's comments on the 47% of people who he stated he will never be able to convince to care about their own lives because their inability to pay income taxes somehow orients them toward a dependent mind set which leaves them thinking of themselves as victims who the government must support. The aura of moral superiority here was seized by someone who attributes those who can afford to pay income taxes as having a finer character.than those who can not.

Sacrifice may not be highly relevant to charity but the concept of shared sacrifice certainly is to our nation. I suppose you could turn my argument on its head and point out that the well to do are denied the chance to show how generous of spirit they truly are because almost by definition it never really hurts them to give. But this nation needs a President with a deeply held understanding of what it actually means, what the repercussions are in each case, to ask people of differing financial situations to give up something for their nation's overall needs.

We can leave to another time a discussion of whether or not our nation, or even a major charity, is well served by having such a great percentage of our nations wealth owned by such a small percentage of her citizens. Given the status quo, of course major charities seek help from major donors. For the same reason why Willy Sutton frequented banks.

[hfojvt]

23. see my example here

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/145

Oh, what the heck, I will quote it for you.

"And I suppose one final point might be in order. Once upon a time (I think it was 1997) a rich person offered $1 million to match any donation over $25 to a food bank. Hearing this, I donated $35 to the local food bank, thinking it would double to $70. As it turns out though, the participating food banks raised something like $23 million, so the $1 million was proportionally divided among the participating food banks instead of donations being matched. The point that illustrates was that one rich person gave $1 million, which IS a huge donation, but all of us little people chipping in $25 or $30 or $100 gave over $20 million.

The wealth of the top 400 is astounding, but the combined wealth, income and time potential of the bottom 299,999,200 is pretty astounding as well. Not all of US are doing our part (one minor example, our Congressional candidate got about 40,000 votes in the district, which wasn't bad at 32% for a candidate with no money and no name recognition. If half of those voters had given just $5 to her campaign, she could have done much better with $100,000 to spend.)

Which, of course, morphs into a sales pitch. I have tickets for upcoming Kiwanis pancake breakfast to sell. Consider buying one. (Also the Rotarians are having their yearly Irish Stew dinner next week. I always goto that.)"

[upi402]

19. Alert the media!!!

Oh wait, they don't give a damn... almost forgot.

[annabanana]

21. "The widow's mite"

So many "Godly" people forget this story.

[hedgehog]

26. +1

[hfojvt]

22. Well, $300 would be a pittance

People are supposed to tithe, that would be $3,000.

And $30,000 isn't really working poor, unless that is household income and you said "when a man" not "when a household'.

I am expecting to make $32,310.20 this year and I am planning to give $3,900 to charity, not including small items, nor what I give through Kiwanis, which costs me over $650 a year, nor the 150 or so hours that I volunteer, nor money that I donate to candidates (I know conservatives probably won't like that, but I consider that giving $25 to Rob Zerban to try to defeat Paul Ryan as something of a noble cause. So I think of it as charitable giving, but don't include it in my total.)

And I know other people who give lots of time. I wonder how they can keep up as they seem to be heavily involved in everything.

So, at least where I live, I would not consider $300 out of $30,000 to be very good at all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Well, I agree. $300 from a $30,000 salary would not be very much nor "very good".

But an average person with a $30,000 a year income is most likely settling for less of some things important to them on a routine basis, so even that $300 is money that they could have used personally without earmarking it toward anything lavish. That was my point in using that figure. The money might otherwise have gone toward buying better rain gear, or repairing the back deck, or attending some career goal related weekend seminar. Obviously a $300, donation from someone making $12,000 would entail more of a degree of personal hardship.

[HiPointDem]

24. Few rich people give away anything. They buy things: good PR, tax deductions, influence over

policy, influence over policy-makers, influence over the thoughts of the masses, etc.