Posted on 09/27/2006 10:05:42 AM PDT by SmithL
California is packed with wealthy people, but when it comes to charitable giving, they're relative cheapskates, according to a study by a nonprofit philanthropic research organization.
The state has 407,000 households with $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income, according to a review of IRS data for tax years 1999 to 2004 by NewTithing Group of San Francisco. That means the nation's most-populous state also accounts for the largest number of wealthy households. New York, with 231,000 households in that income bracket, and Florida, with 157,000, came next.
Those Californians hold $1.04 trillion in investment assets, such as stocks and bonds, not counting the value of their homes, retirement pensions and investment real estate.
Despite ranking first in wealthy people, California ranks 21st among states for actual gifts per wealthy filer as a percentage of assets. Affluent Californians donated an average of $19,000 per household -- 0.74 percent of their investment assets and 3.24 percent of their adjusted gross income. Using the percentage of assets as a measure corrects for cost-of-living differences.
In Utah, the most-generous state, gifts per wealthy filer averaged $38,000, which came to 1.63 percent of assets and 7.4 percent of adjusted income. Utah's population was 62.4 percent Mormon in 2004, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Mormon adults are expected to tithe 10 percent of their incomes to the LDS church.
Wealthy people in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Minnesota and Georgia were the next most-generous.
When people budget for charitable giving, they should consider assets, not just income, NewTithing says. Assets provide a more accurate picture of their ability to donate, the group said.
"If wealthy Californians were as generous as affluent households in the most-charitable five states, California giving would increase by $3.7 billion,"
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Liberals only want to help people with OTHER people's money...
Backs up previous studies that show 'red states' surpass 'blue states' in charitable giving.
You mean the libs are not willing to put their money where their mouths are?? I'm shocked!! /sarcasm off
First of all, whatever moneys are earned by the rich (well, anybody for that matter) is THEIRS!
Add that to the extraordinary taxes they pay (almost confiscatory), I say GET YOUR HANDS OUT OF THEIR and OUR POCKETS AND LEAVE US ALONE.
I wonder how much the giving of Bill Gates has skewed these figures. If his donations (annual) were subtracted, where would California stand?
$200k....ain't rich.
no but here in flyover country it's a decent living, LOL
As my daddy always says, "Them that has is them that keeps".;)
(source: NewTithing Group, T: 415-274-2754 www.newtithing.org)
1Affluent Filers: Income tax filers earning $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income.
2Generosity: Actual gifts relative to investment assets. Identical percentages for generosity listed in this table occur because the percentages are rounded to the nearest hundredth. The numerical rankings reflect NewTithing Group's estimate of generosity by state.
Washington, at #35, is already far below California, at #21, so taking Gates out of the equation would have no effect on California.
If I remember correctly, Mississippi is first in giving, per capita?
A modest, conservative state.
$200k....ain't rich.
no but here in flyover country it's a decent living, LOL
______
In SW Missouri, you can live like a king on 200K.
Is this connected with Al Gore moving to San Francisco?
Agreed. My favorite example of this was John Kerry's last pre-Teresa tax return (1995) where his charitable deductions line was just over $1,000.
Wasn't AlGore's something like $300 in 1998 or 1999? Cheap bastards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.