Charitable Giving: What's a fair percentage of your income?

WWRD wrote:

-I hate being strong armed into charity...happens to me at work...we're bludgeoned with e-mails...even calls...forced to give to places like the United Way...I may make a stand this year due to the latest in a long line of fraud at these large "charitable" institutions.

PS: I give every year to multiple charities without being coerced, that's as it should be, hence the difintion of charity!

I agree. My former employer basically forced me to donate to United Way. My first year, I initially elected not to contribute, and I got a nasty letter from an executive VP more or less telling me it was required. I'm sure I could have made a stink and really fought them on it, but decided it would make my life easier just to write a $10 check and be done with it. All done so the company could advertise that 100% of their employees gave to charity...

Why should his wife stay home and take care of the kids? What if she clears 75% of the family income, that would be pretty dumb huh.

And I fail to see how this guy will be in a better financial situation if he does all this stuff to save $$, and then gives the savings away to charity. That goes against the whole point of your post, how 'bout take the 10-15% and put it into savings. But yeah, if you are strapped for cash you shouldn't have car loans.

Amazing that anyone has the nerve to complain in this country today, eh?

lpkoji wrote:

I'm not a financial genius, but how is giving away a dollar to get a quarter a tax strategy?

I've often wondered the same thing. I give a little bit of money to the university from which I graduated. Every year, they send me a "financial planning guide" in which their financial advice is to give more to the university so I can get a bigger tax deduction. Okay...

There are plenty of good reasons to give to worthy charitable causes. The associated tax deduction ranks way down on the list.

Sagarin wrote:

Count me in that group, as well as someone who has helped African-American refugees assimilate into this country,

Post of the day!

sn boy wrote:

Stupid. I refuse to live like a pauper while we are young and healthy. Life is too short.

With an income of $200K I'm pretty sure you can be able to afford to cut back a little on spending without living like a pauper.

What exactly would you do if suddenly you household income was cut down to 75K? Shit like that happens. Does dropping below 6 figures mean your family would be living on the street like rats?

Suze Orman wrote:

Good God. Making over 200K and struggling?

1. Sell the cars, buy used.

2. Forget the live-in-nanny, send your kid to daycare. Better yet, have your wife stay home and don't let someone else raise your child.

3. Consolidate and refi the student loans - over 20 yrs.

4. Forgo cable, golf, eating out (ahem, restaurant dining is what I mean here), or whatever else is eating away your monthly income.

5. Save 10-15% and give whatever you can to a charity of your choice.

6. Watch how much happier you become.

I can't believe I'd ever say this on here, but you need to go talk to Flagpole...

No need to have him come talk to me -- you've done yourself proud there Suze.

Reality:

McCain would preserve all of the Bush tax cuts, while Obama would let them expire for those making more than $250,000 a year. McCain would also double the child tax exemption to $7,000 and reduce business taxes. Obama would reduce income taxes and provide credits for people earning less than $250,000 a year. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would amount to a tax cut for 81 percent of all households, or 95.5 percent of those with children. The center calculated that by 2012 the Obama plan would let middle-income taxpayers keep about 5 percent more income on average, or nearly $2,200 a year, while McCain would give them an average 3 percent break, or about $1,400. The richest 1 percent would pay an average $19,000 more in taxes each year under Obama's plan but see a tax cut of more than $125,000 under McCain.

Too much in there as a response to me. I commented to you because you said tithing was more of a tax management thing than a charitable tenet. With that I disagree. A person can keep more money if they don't give (except in rare circumstances as I mentioned before). People give to charity (churches and so on) primarily because they either want to help or they feel called to do so as a practicing member of a certain religion.

There are some very convoluted tax strategies that highly encourage charitable giving. It's not always as simple as giving a dollar to save $0.25. That was a general reply to the board.

This is not only factually inaccurate (Obama's tax plan is complex and includes some tax credit repeals as well that are not so advantageous to the "middle" class) but very disingenuous. This isn't a repeal of tax breaks for the "affluent." This is a repeal of tax breaks for capital investment and job creation, which is why Obama is growing more silent about his "actual" plan by the day. You want to do a real disservice to the middle class? Encourage an exodus of capital out of the country or into tax-sheltering instruments via some very inane, but politically expedient tax policy at a time when the economy is starving for capital.

Sagarin wrote:

There are some very convoluted tax strategies that highly encourage charitable giving. It's not always as simple as giving a dollar to save $0.25. That was a general reply to the board.

No, it isn't, but that's a good rule of thumb. It is rare that someone makes more money (tax savings) than they give. Vast majority of people who give do so out of the goodness of their hearts. The working poor give a higher percentage of their income than any other class of people, and they sure aren't having accountants find serious tax savings for them.

hes the motherf**king modern day robin hood and he can't even admit to it...

watch this...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eLScGUJ7zNI

the idiot has the nerve to call income redistribution neighboriliness!!!

Also dig alittle deeper into those numbers because that 95% number is very misleading. obama usually says hes going to cut taxes for 95% of americans...the funny thing is that only 60% of americans even pay income taxes. I don't fall into the 250K+ category but i dont see how its fair that they automatically have to pay more taxes...oh thats right its patriotic...right joe biden???

To Sagarin's point...

I've spoken with many manufacturing companies and many of them have two capex plans...one if obama wins and another if mccain wins.

Guess what...if obama wins much of the capex will be done overseas under most of the plans.

when the church asks for 10% in voluntary tithing, many call it fascist.

when the government takes 30% involuntarily, it is charity and service?

judge juddy wrote:

when the church asks for 10% in voluntary tithing, many call it fascist.

when the government takes 30% involuntarily, it is charity and service?

No, it's the patriotic thing to do!

Sagarin, you post frequently about the horrible effects raising capital gains rates would have on the economy. Obama simply wants to raise them, for people with high income, back to the 28% rate that existed prior to Bush's tax cuts. That was the rate under the Clinton years and prior to that. I don't recall it being such a problem back then.

A total ruse, but a popular one. Clinton was hamstrung by a fiscally conservative (whatever happened to that novel idea?) Congress and a "Contract with America," had the tailwinds of a once-in-a-generation technology and productivity boom, and enjoyed a Fed that was inflating the money supply (sound familiar?) and we all know how that ended in 1999-2000. Now, we are in round two.

And Clinton acually CUT the capital gains tax, as did JFK. Obama is no JFK. We now have the headwinds of a much more difficult and deleveraging economic environment, a changing demographic, and an evolving GLOBAL capital market structure that threatens to further undermine the demand for sub-prime US paper. Policies that further dissuade investment would be suicidal. I wish people actually UNDERSTOOD the dynamics of the Clinton era, rather than merely have fond remembrances of it.

no but here is the problem...

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don’t propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don’t increase spending unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue. That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.