Column: 1 percent does most of giving

[theaocp]

The civil rights center bearing the name of Detroit's Judge Damon Keith was dedicated last week at the Wayne State University Law School. Its mission is to protect the legal rights of the nation's most disaffected and powerless citizens, continuing the work to which Keith has dedicated his life.

And who do you think paid the $5.7 million tab for building the Keith Center?

Not the government. Not a dime of taxpayer money went into the construction. Not Wayne State — universities are too cash-strapped today to fund such ambitious projects.

The center that will stand up for the poorest of Americans was paid for by some of the wealthiest members of our community — that 1 percent being so harshly targeted by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111023/OPINION03/110230308/Column--1-percent-does-most-of-giving#ixzz1bckUcaQG

--

This asshole is a right-wing tool. Feel free to email him to tell him so.

[grasswire]

1. a tax deduction for that donor --------- did the writer mention that?

A 5.7 million dollar tax deduction!

[Chih]

7. Subsidizing giving encourages more giving...nothing wrong with that.

[ldf]

15. let's see....

giving tax write offs to the rich to encourage them to give to charity, reduces taxes paid.

it encourages others who are rich to also give to charity, for the tax write offs, which reduces taxes paid.

so the giving to charity is specific. you give to the charity of your choice.

the tax deductions aren't. the rich can support those they agree with, and make sure, at the same time, social safety nets get less to help the masses.

what is wrong with that picture?

how about they pay their fair share. period.

edit to add....

take away the tax write off and see how much they give. they would show their true colors, very quickly.

[Chih]

23. Bureaucratic mismanagement of the economy also reduces one's tax liability.

It is not right for those who created the problem to inflict further injury on the poor by limiting charitable giving.

There are several charitable organizations that have demonstrated an ability to do very good things, with very little G&A/OH costs. During tough economic times, there should be more incentives to give--not less.

[90-percent]

2. Additionally

If other similar donations are an indicator, I suspect that this generosity comes with strings attached.

sometimes benefactors are indeed socially responsible and generous, but they can also "give to get".

-90% Jimmy

[rucky]

3. Let's see how well a church functions without their large donors.

Of course they depend on them to keep running. So does the government. So what?

[jwirr]

11. Ever belonged to a church that owed a great deal to the richest

patron? Favoritism is not pretty.

[rucky]

12. Actually, I've found them to do a surprisingly good job in redistributing the wealth.

Funny how that's okay for some conservatives when a church does it, but god forbid when the government does it...

[Nevernose]

4. Their budget last year was $900 million

At least two-thirds of which (probably more) came from taxpayers and tuition.

[woo me with science]

5. Same tactic: Trying to make this about human beings versus human beings.

It is not. WE are the human beings with families and neighbors and children. We are fighting a corporate STRUCTURE that is not human and has no empathy. It is motivated by profit alone and uses up human beings like any other resource, for that end.

Token acts of charity by the very wealthy do not erase the fact that the structure in place is bleeding ordinary Americans into impoverishment and death. We need to change the structure.

[GoCubsGo]

6. The One Percent have the most to give. By far.

So, some wealthy fucks coughed up a few bucks in order to get a tax deduction and a pat on the back from the ass-kissers in the media. Whoppdeefuckingdoo. I suppose they want a medal, too. Instead of giving these poor people a "center", why the hell don't they bring some industry there and give them the jobs they need far more than they do any sort of "center"?

[aquart]

8. If I had billions, I'd give away millions, too.

That ass might want to look at what people give as percentages of income and see how the generosity stacks up.

[hunter]

9. Yes, the very wealthy do buy names on buildings, tax breaks, and ego boosts...

... but that's not quite the same as "giving."

There's a story in the Bible about that...

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6.2-4

[jwirr]

10. Okay if that is true what did they ask in return? When the 99% give

they usually do not have all kinds of strings attached.

[sulphurdunn]

13. This propaganda flack is trying to create

some misdirection. The major issues before the 99% are: war, poverty, taxation, unemployment, political corruption, debt relief, home foreclosures, the financial regulation of Wall Street, justice and equality before the law...not philanthropy.

[grasswire]

14. those with less give proportionally more to charity than those with more

That is a long-standing principle of fundraising.

[theaocp]

17. In my past, I've worked serving tables and

those of the working class ALWAYS gave better tips than those of the wealthier classes. Interesting.

[Bigmack]

16. I is grateful, massa... grateful and humble. Can I have some more crumbs? nt

[Shandris]

18. If I give a dime, will a newspaper write about me?

That's proportionately about the same amount, after all, when incomes are taken into account. In fact, since it mentions member(S), it's far more likely that a dime of mine would be 5 to 10 times as generous.

[TBF]

19. If the 99% could afford it they would give too - and likely more generously -

but we're plum out after funding all the investment banker's bail outs.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. One reason the first and second estates were destroyed during

the French Revolution is that each was seen at having outlived its usefulness to the people.

Is this the only reason for the continued existence of the 1%, that they give to charity? If so, then I say let's expropriate the wealth and distribute it ourselves.

[DirkGently]

21. Deliberately obtuse. It's the influence of money in politics, not money itself, that's targeted.

And they know that. Noblesse oblige is one of many tired rationalizations for why we shouldn't be bothered when a few control the many. They'll throw you crumbs, if you'll only kiss their ass.

[Lyric]

22. If the "donor" gets a tax deduction, then it's really like the government donated that money.

OUR government. The one paid for by the 99%.

[Egalitariat]

24. Please explain. If that's true, why doesn't the government give 100% of that guy's money to charity