

The Charitable-Giving Divide - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html?ref=magazine

======
GiraffeNecktie
Please don't alter the original title of an article (in this case "The
Charitable-Giving Divide") to reflect your editorial opinion, especially when
your new title is not supported by the content of the article. This article
does not actually say that tax breaks for the rich don't help the poor, it
says that rich people don't give as much to charity as poor people.

Personally I think it's true that giving tax breaks to the rich is not a great
way to help the poor (i.e. the trickle down effect) but that's not what this
article is talking about.

~~~
abrown28
Bilking the rich through higher taxes does not help the poor either.

~~~
OpieCunningham
Sure it does.

If X is the cost of running the country, including schooling, roads, public
transportation, etc, and the rich pay a higher portion of their income into X,
the poor need pay a lower portion of their income into X in order to have the
same level of access as if rich and poor paid the same portion of their
income.

------
thecircusb0y
I'm fairly young, so I ask this question to the more experienced in life.
Isn't this always the case? The rich stay rich by keeping their money and the
poor stay poor by never keeping their money. So what is the tone and point of
this document exactly, to fix the rich or fix the poor? Or am I overdoing it
by looking for a side in this? I'm not trying to be a troll or start a
flamewar, but when I read these articles all that I can think of is, "so are
we going to redistribute the wealth communism style, or teach people to build
their OWN wealth?" Reasons why I can't be a politician or a leader in society,
I don't want to be the one that determines whats fair for the people, and
define whos the slacker and whos truly in need. Who the hell am I to judge?
and who the hell are you to take away my hard earned paper? Thats just what
goes through my mind, and I comment here to see if anybody can help me out
with my thought process.

~~~
jameskilton
I wouldn't think too deeply about it, I read it more as an attempt at a wake-
up call to all the right-wing supporters who insist that trickle-down
economics works (even though it's never, ever worked). "The rich get richer
and the poor get poorer" has been the mantra as long as mankind has existed on
this planet.

Now I, for the very reasons you gave, will never support or suggest any sort
of "wealth redistribution," it flies in the face of capitalism and has been
proven to only breed discent and anger. What _should_ happen is that the
government stops treating the rich like special citizens. Warren Buffet has
said before that he's paying fewer taxes now than he ever has in his life, and
it's sick how the richest people in the country get the most help / special
attention from the government, help none of them at all need.

The problem is that the GOP have a very long history of getting into power,
then passing laws that help line their own pockets and protect their wealth
from being "stolen" by the government (aka, themselves, it doesn't makes sense
to me either). This view then leaves the other 90% of Americans as "well you
should have tried harder, this is what you can do when you're rich!" while at
the same time somehow convincing this 90% that the GOP in power is the best
thing for them.

That's what I see when I read these kinds of articles.

~~~
fondue
"The problem is that the GOP have a very long history of getting into power,
then passing laws that help line their own pockets and protect their wealth
from being "stolen" by the government ..."

Clearly we should elect more Democrats! Oh, wait, they have a history of
getting into power and then passing laws protecting unions and paying off
organizations which help them steal votes.

In so far as trickle-down economics is concerned, it certainly worked better
than the command-driven economy the Democrats and current administration are
pushing us towards.

