Charity: The Poor Give More Of Their Income Than The Rich
Posted: 22 March 2013 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Link

There’s a lot of correlation going on, but the crux seems to be that people who are insulated from the hardships and need of others are more self-interested and less likely to be charitable.

Also:

Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.”

LOL

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2013 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2676
Joined  2011-04-24

Not surprising at all. It goes not only for money,but for time as well.

The soup kitchens in Baltimore and Philly are almost completely staffed by the poorest of the poor.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2013 05:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Hmmm.  I wonder if I work hard to get rid of my empathy for others if I’ll become rich?  smile

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2013 06:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Occam. - 22 March 2013 05:38 PM

Hmmm.  I wonder if I work hard to get rid of my empathy for others if I’ll become rich?  smile

Occam

It may be worth a try! it works for a lot of people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 06:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3153
Joined  2011-08-15

There’s a lot of correlation going on, but the crux seems to be that people who are insulated from the hardships and need of others are more self-interested and less likely to be charitable.

That’s the thesis and I agree that the rich, who isolate themselves within their own communities whether gated or just clustered in more exotic areas have no contact with those who need help. But you don’t have to be wealthy to isolate yourself from the poor. I would like to see the stats on the middle class as well. Also, there are are two classes of wealthy, old money and nouveau riche, e.g. Andrew Carnegie. He began life in extreme poverty and ended by becoming a wealthy philanthropist and there were and are many more like him, despite the problems they created while clawing their way to the top. Those who experienced poverty, or a lower class existence don’t often forget what it was like. Old money wealthy however on average feel no connection with the lower class with the exception of those few who felt an obligation to society as a whole e.g. Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy and even they felt a kinship with the working class through their exposure to via their war experiences among others. I often wonder how lottery winners spend their money after buying all the frivolous things they dreamed of when they weren’t rich. Do they generously give to their poorer neighbors or move to Florida, buy a condo and collect cadillacs?

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Dead Monky - 22 March 2013 10:15 AM

Link

There’s a lot of correlation going on, but the crux seems to be that people who are insulated from the hardships and need of others are more self-interested and less likely to be charitable.

Also:

Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.”

LOL

I think it’s obvious.  The poor need each other more, they realize that to get through life they need to stick together and help each other.  Most know they will never have the advantages of the rich. If they are to survive they need a village. 

.....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2013 10:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1764
Joined  2007-10-22
Lois - 23 March 2013 09:23 PM
Dead Monky - 22 March 2013 10:15 AM

Link

There’s a lot of correlation going on, but the crux seems to be that people who are insulated from the hardships and need of others are more self-interested and less likely to be charitable.

Also:

Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.”

LOL

I think it’s obvious.  The poor need each other more, they realize that to get through life they need to stick together and help each other.  Most know they will never have the advantages of the rich. If they are to survive they need a village. 

.....

That is the reason many of them belong to a church.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2013 10:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  169
Joined  2011-11-06

And this is why America voted against Romney [and his fake smile of concern].

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2013 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03

Its unfortunate the article fails to realize that ‘the rich’ pay an exorbitantly high percentage of all income tax, while the lower brackets pay none.
ie, the top 1% pay 33% of all federal income tax, though its laughable to assume they consume the proportionate amount of public resources.
It is also the former group that are ‘rich’ not because they’ve amassed a large pile of doubloons under their mattress, but because their wealth is productively engaged, running enterprise and investing in others.
The article is a poorly written diatribe condemning elitism.
bottom line, you can do more with the job and purchase choices created from someone who pays nearly half their income and millions to public services, then from the dollar the kind hearted soul gave you from their monthly government pittance.
-Rob

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2013 11:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
rbairos - 01 April 2013 11:32 AM

ie, the top 1% pay 33% of all federal income tax, though its laughable to assume they consume the proportionate amount of public resources.

The top 1% owned 35.4% of US net worth in 2010, and 42.1% of total financial (non-home) net worth.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2013 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
dougsmith - 01 April 2013 11:51 AM
rbairos - 01 April 2013 11:32 AM

ie, the top 1% pay 33% of all federal income tax, though its laughable to assume they consume the proportionate amount of public resources.

The top 1% owned 35.4% of US net worth in 2010, and 42.1% of total financial (non-home) net worth.


Excellent.  So someone who owns a company, providing hundreds of jobs and pays a significantly larger portion of the wealth they generate (in both relative and absolute terms) to public services, is somehow less community minded or charitable than the unfortunate soul earning very little, and paying little to no taxes, and supplying zero jobs, services or products.
Great article.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2013 05:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
rbairos - 01 April 2013 12:07 PM
dougsmith - 01 April 2013 11:51 AM
rbairos - 01 April 2013 11:32 AM

ie, the top 1% pay 33% of all federal income tax, though its laughable to assume they consume the proportionate amount of public resources.

The top 1% owned 35.4% of US net worth in 2010, and 42.1% of total financial (non-home) net worth.


Excellent.  So someone who owns a company, providing hundreds of jobs and pays a significantly larger portion of the wealth they generate (in both relative and absolute terms) to public services, is somehow less community minded or charitable than the unfortunate soul earning very little, and paying little to no taxes, and supplying zero jobs, services or products.
Great article.

-rbairos.  Are you any good with math?  1% of any population controlling 35% of the wealth is unhealthy.  Flat out.  You’re gonna argue against this?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile