Hey all you blood sucking leaches!

[Peter_Puget]

A Jan. 1 New York Times article " ...the 400 richest Americans were responsible, by themselves, for 7 percent of all charitable contributions deducted on tax returns in 2000."

 

PP

[allthumbs]

who cares? STFU

[Stonehead]

A Jan. 1 New York Times article " ...the 400 richest Americans were responsible, by themselves, for 7 percent of all charitable contributions deducted on tax returns in 2000."

 

PP

 

Yeah like that justifies the most inequitable society in the history of the world. Tool.

[Dru]

A Jan. 1 New York Times article " ...the 400 richest Americans were responsible, by themselves, for 7 percent of all charitable contributions deducted on tax returns in 2000."

 

And how much tax did they actually pay? Probably none

 

[dberdinka]

I did a little research using census data and forbes magazine. Those 400 richest had a net total wealth of 1.235 trillion dollars in 2000 (forbes). Total household wealth in 2000 was 17.228 trillion dollars (census; 104,644,000 households * $164,635 mean assets).

 

Do a little math. Those 400 richest hold 7.2% of total wealth in this country.

 

7.2% of wealth, 7% of charitable contributions

 

AT BEST they are contributing no more than the average percentage of ones wealth contributed by all Americans in general.

 

Considering that we all need to build a certain amount of wealth to provide economic stability throughout our lives, the less wealthly need to focus on their own financial security before they can make significant charitable contributions. As a result you would expect the wealthy to be able to share a much greater portion of their wealth than the average American. But..they don't as you have so nicely brought to our attention.

[willstrickland]

[scott_harpell]

A Jan. 1 New York Times article " ...the 400 richest Americans were responsible, by themselves, for 7 percent of all charitable contributions deducted on tax returns in 2000."

 

PP

 

Yeah like that justifies the most inequitable society in the history of the world. Tool.

 

aint a history major are ya cheif?

[Fairweather]

 

 

Yeah like that justifies the most inequitable society in the history of the world. Tool.

 

That is the most idiotic statement I've seen here in a long time. Did your buddy Noam tell you to say that? I believe the label 'tool' has a better home with you.

[girlclimber]

or, that statement may be what is known as an exaggeration

[EWolfe]

or, that statement may be what is known as an exaggeration

 

There will be none of that nonsense around here, young lady!

 

Harumph!

[Fairweather]

or, that statement may be what is known as an exaggeration

 

Sounded sincere to me. Maybe you should let Stonehead do his own backpedaling.

[Peter_Puget]

1 Are you sure of your mean asset number

 

2 I would note that irs data was used for gifting this understates actual gifting and excludes foundations and such that are no longer part of someones wealth.

[AlpineK]

I give money to the Sierra club...Not because I like the Sierra club but because Fairweather hates it so much.

[Dru]

You could give money to Earth First too but they'd never take it from your sap -stained hands, TREE KILLER!

[Fairweather]

I give money to the Sierra club...Not because I like the Sierra club but because Fairweather hates it so much.

 

I'm sure they'll put it to good use by litigiously locking you out of your favorite climbing area where the 'solitude' does not currently meet their ideal.

[cj001f]

I'm sure they'll put it to good use by litigiously locking you out of your favorite climbing area where the 'solitude' does not currently meet their ideal.

As opposed to the Cato Insitute which will price us out.

[EWolfe]

You could give money to Earth First too but they'd never take it from your sap -stained hands, TREE KILLER!

 

I prefer to think of him as a liberator of tortured tree spirits.

[willstrickland]

That's the best you can do Pete? Darren just tore your pathetic spew apart and the best you got is "Are you sure?".

[lI1|1!]

You could give money to Earth First too but they'd never take it from your sap -stained hands, TREE KILLER!

 

I prefer to think of him as a liberator of tortured tree spirits.

 

[Stonehead]

Looks like some buttons got pushed. Bwahahahahaha!

 

That's right brand it as heresy, ridicule it, laugh about it but don't try to see the other viewpoint.

 

"Since the early 1970s the average annual salary, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $32,522 to $35,864 -- according to a Fortune magazine study -- an increase of approximately 10 percent. In that same time the annual compensation of this country's top 100 CEOs has increased from $1.3 million to $37.5 million -- according to the same Fortune survey.

 

Over this 30-year period, we have seen American CEOs earnings increase from 39 times the pay of the average worker to more than 1,000 times in 1999.

 

In comparison the CEOs of major corporations in Great Britain and France earn only 22 times the wages of their average workers.

 

But remarkably, as we approach a presidential election year President Bush and his Republican Party are doing their best to ignore these realities, while the Democrats seem incapable of framing new ideas to correct them."

Forum: Stop the plutocracy

[Peter_Puget]

Hey Will “I gotme an equivalent of a minor in economics from a prestigious university” Strickland – You crack me up. Granted the terminology used was a bit ambiguous but given that I was referencing IRS data it should be obvious that the top 400 was a reference to AGI not wealth. I thought about commenting on this earlier but didn’t. Household wealth and AGI are in fact two different measurements. Here is an example to illustrate the difference simply:

 

My parents have net wealth many times my household yet my households AGI was significantly higher than theirs. Why? One contributing factor is that my parents have a large landholdings in California. One that they get multi million dollar offers on quite frequently. This counts as wealth but not income. Anyway to mistake wealth for AGI is simply an error. An error similar I suppose to confusing weight with mass.

 

From what I can gather the wealth of the 400 top AGI taxpayers is nowhere close to what Darren is claiming the average wealth of the Forbes 400. Contributions bye the AGI top 400 as a % of total Contributions is as follows: ’97 – 2%,’98 – 3%, ’99 – 3%, ’00 – 7%. Remember that the return contribution totals understate actual giving.

 

Cheers!

 

Pp

 

NB - Why don't you check out the top 400 of AGI v total AGI. You might find that an interesting number.

Edited January 7, 2004 by Peter_Puget

[chucK]

Remember that the return contribution totals understate actual giving.

 

This is a bit confusing, but as I understand it, wouldn't this mean that the actual giving of the "other" 93% of the pie is also understated? Thus, logically, this rebuttal really doesn't?

[dberdinka]

... that I was referencing IRS data it should be obvious that the top 400 was a reference to AGI not wealth.

 

Peter_Puget are you sure you know what underlying data is being used to make your original quote?

 

" ...the 400 richest Americans were responsible, by themselves, for 7 percent of all charitable contributions deducted on tax returns in 2000."

 

"Richest" general implies wealth not income. Furthermore the only people who care to compile such lists are at Forbes.com. Go there, look at their website. Their list of 400 richest people is based on wealth.

 

Seems to me you're now making invalid assumptions about the underlying data in an attempt to maintain a postion that your very own data doesn't support (i.e. the mega-wealthy are far more generous than the rest of us)

 

 

Please do tell how you know that the orginal article was referencing income and not total wealth. Does the full article reveal this? have you contacted the author?

[Dru]

they met at the rand orgy while enjoying a fine bbq'ed peasant.

[Peter_Puget]

Chuck – I thing your analysis is wrong for the following reason: A lower % of AGI taxpayers do not reach their charitable contribution ceiling than higher AGI taxpayers.

 

Darren – I did not contact the author but I have reviewed his source of data and despite the confusing nomenclature the top 400 are in fact related to AGI not wealth. I invite you to check for yourself. As a sidebar I would also like to comment that these “top” 400 “whatevers” are not a static group but that membership is extremely fluid in both the numbers joining and leaving the group.

 

You suggest that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. Ok let’s assume I agree. If someone makes a lot of money and they then have the obligation to share the wealth, I do not a see how people who for selfish reasons (like spending the summer climbing) choose to reduce their income/wealth can avoid a similar obligation at the assumed income/wealth levels they have voluntarily chosen not to achieve. Wow that’s a bad sentence that can be reduced to “Hey you are all blood sucking leaches.”

 

PP

Edited January 7, 2004 by Peter_Puget