On 12/16/13, 4:51 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:12:18 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/16/13, 4:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:49:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The rich give to help the rich:

As an article published on Salon recently pointed out, the rich have a
tendency to give generously to institutions and endowments that serve
“their kind� and not the needy.

[A] large portion of the charitable deductions now claimed by
America’s wealthy are for donations to culture palaces – operas, art
museums, symphonies, and theaters – where they spend their leisure time
hobnobbing with other wealthy benefactors.

Another portion is for contributions to the elite prep schools and
universities they once attended or want their children to attend. (Such
institutions typically give preference in admissions, a kind of
affirmative action, to applicants and “legacies� whose parents have been
notably generous.)

Art museums and Ivy League schools need money too, of course, but so do
the nation’s hungry and homeless. A dollar donated to an art museum
gives you the same amount of tax deductions as one spent at a soup
kitchen. The numbers do not favor the poor, either. The Washington Post
found that around 70% of all charitable contributions went to charities
that do not specifically help the poor.

http://tinyurl.com/qhxbmlj

It is interesting watching Harry trashing places of arts, culture and
universities.
I bet you don't talk like this among your elitist friends.



I am not trashing "places of art, culture and universities." Perhaps if
your language skills were of a higher level, you'd realize that. I
merely lifted a few quotes from an article. It points out that
charitable giving, which many people think helps the poor, too often
does not.

I'll be on the lookout for articles that discuss what really happens to
funds donated to christian churches that take those funds and
build...larger churches, bigger homes for their pastors, et cetera.
That's not the same as running a homeless shelter, a soup kitchen, or
distributing food and clothing to those in need.

You are making it sound like these are not worthy of being called
charity.
I have no problem with that.
It bothers me a little that they just announced there are over 40
university presidents making more than a million a year. That is not a
charity.


I think universities can qualify as non-profits...but charities? I don't
think so, in most cases. I'm not offended by a university president
making a million a year...universities are big business, with lots of
assets, staff, competition, et cetera. It's not as if they were being
paid at the level of corporate execs.

I would eliminate the tax-free status of churches for enterprises and
properties that aren't deeply involved in helping the poor or the sick
or the injured. Why should funds that go to build a new church be tax
deductible? Why should that church be deductible from real estate taxes?
Now if the church runs a legitimate shelter, or food bank, or clothing
giveaway facility, sure, donations for those operations should be
deductible. But for proselytizing? No.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.