E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAmericans gave a total of nearly $347 billion to charity in 2011, a 7.5 percent increase over 2010, according to a report released Tuesday by Atlas of Giving.
The group, which measures and forecasts charitable giving in the United States, said giving expanded at a faster rate than overall economic growth for the year.
Total giving to U.S. nonprofits increased by $24.2 billion over the 2010 total of $322.69 billion.
Atlas of Giving forecasts that overall giving will grow at a slower pace of 3.9 percent in 2012.
“2011 giving growth was fueled by strong stock market performance through July, low interest rates, an improving economy, modest inflation, and aggressive solicitation” Rob Mitchell, Atlas of Giving CEO, said in a statement. “However, the increase was not enjoyed by all nonprofits. Organizations that rely on many small gifts from many small donors are still greatly impacted by the effects of continuing high unemployment.”
The giving includes donations to education, human needs/disaster relief groups, churches and other types of organizations.
Tax forms released by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Tuesday showed he donated about $4 million to charity in 2011, about $2.6 million of which went to the Mormon Church.
Religion was the largest recipient sector overall. Giving to religious organizations dipped slightly, from 37 percent in 2010 to 36 percent in 2011.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Cockfighting: Feds should butt out, defendants argue
- Boy honored for saving younger brother with Heimlich
- Forecast: North set for colder months, South warmer
- Number of homeless female veterans more than doubles
Leave a Comment:
We need charity...sh!t, I need charity...gov is bending me over...can barely live as it is...
Given the heavy involvement of the church in politics, giving 10% of your income to the church amounts to a tax free contribution to a PAC.
We gave more because the trickery surrounding the definition of Not-For-Profit and tax-free religious entities have increased ten-fold. It's not uncommon to find either of these as fronts to non-disclosed PACs.
Forgive me for doubting our increased generosity... I just don't see it.
LMarcT, # 1.1- I recognize your name from the past. Long time. Nice to run into you, again. I'm so glad somebody said it. Trickery = FRAUDULENT! Surrounding is more like "permeated". Where is the Justice Department in all of this? Under the haystack~ ~ ~fast asleep? Purposeful Misrepresentation IS Fraud. And the Victims are the ones who are not receiving what is supposedly charitably going to them; and the rest of us who are continually subjected to these inflicted PR scam spins that purposefully keep the Public scammed and taken in by all this supposed, but phony, charitable giving BS. There needs to be some serious Justice Department auditing for all supposed "Not-for-Profits".
Yes, but your church is a tax deduction...stupid is as stupid does...sorry if you are stupid
@big mac-4590839 - Are you having a conversation with yourself?
Why should charity be a tax deduction? ''Religion was the largest recipient sector overall.'' I am not anti-religion in any way but why should the US govt. subsidize religion?
Whenever money is given away, it buys something. In this case, it buys that warm and fuzzy feeling of having helped someone out, possibly earning you points for the afterlife. This is why giving drops off during dire economic times, when that money tends to be spent on one's person. People give only when they have more than enough for themselves, not "till it hurts."
@Optimist-2618173 - Please choose a better screen name.
I worry with the talk both in Congress and the White House that they will make changes on tax deductibility on money given to charity. I think this would be a big mistake. When I give money to charity I hold the charity accountable. If they miss use my money or do not show results, I give my money somewhere else. The government on the other hand can waste my money and does not need to show results. Most people do not realize that the government did a three year study on Head Start and it shows it does not benefit children that much. Now if Head Start got its funding from donation it would need to perform. This is whats wrong with government programs. They compete against no one for results or funding and can non-perform. If we change tax law which would hurt people giving to charity then government will need to take over that roll. This will gives us less performance and increase the cost. I think we would be better to change the law so more people would donate and the charities through competition would give better for less
That IS beginning to change under Obama. He's limited against the bought and paid for congress, but he has worked hard to shift budgets away from bad programs to ones that work. He does have a long way to go though.
I get it - he is shifting the oil transport money from Keystone (potential jobs for many) to Warren Buffet undoubtedly one of the richest billionaires for a few Railroad jobs. What an improvement!
How about this one? Shutting down the gulf oil exploration for months so the oil exploration compaines sent 2/3's of the drilling rigs to Africa and Brazil - and gives the Explorer crews that were idle food stamps and unemployment. The guy is an absolute genious!
You're not being fair. He's re-aligned a lot of money from bad programs to ones that get results.
For the record, rail is our way out of our energy dependence, not shale oil. You hyper-partisan right-wingers never stop do you?
Yak.
A pipe line requires even less energy and are far less risky to transport the petroleum. It's kind of like the CFL, yes, it will save energy, even cause less mercury to be released immediately into our are, but the final judgement on savings was half as advertised AND people don't dispose of them properly so the mercury content of our land fills is going up.
You would be far better off to get the LED's which aren't poisonous, last 4 times longer, and use up to 1/8th the energy of and incandescent.
I hope you enjoy the
electriccoal burning cars too.A study-I think by Cato Inst. showed that every light rail and high speed trains are money losers. The best way to move people around is a bus
BK...What jobs...after the pipeline is installed...how many engineers (like ME) will have a job
Dumb a$$
You missed my point DB. ALL transportation of goods should be on rail as much as possible. Pipelines are fine for oil, but that particular pipeline was for export to other countries once refined to gas. It's nothing but an oil company welfare program and spending my tax dollars on it is ridiculous.
@yakfitguy
ROTFLMAO! Oh, please do give examples of this glorious work done by our illustrious leader. As if you could.
01812...
Our new governor in Connecticut is going to take the federal funding for high speed rail that has been turned down by state after state...because it's a revenue-negative enterprise. Connecticut would never have seen this money if other states like Florida hadn't rejected it because we have such a liberal Democrat state here that any Democrat running for almost any office has a guaranteed 60% vote majority. Mr. Obama could launch a missile strike at our state and would still draw 60+% of the votes.
The main chunk of the high speed rail runs from Hartford, CT to Springfield, Massachsetts...two depressed cities of about 150,000 population or less. You can drive from one to the other in about 20-25 minutes. It would take longer to get off the highway, park your car in the train station parking lot, board the train, and wait for departure.
The governor also is spending nearly $600 million on a new "busway" from that same pit called Hartford to another depressed city half it's size. Before our Democrat legislature overwhelmingly approved this plan...the math was right there in the newspaper. If the buses run at full capacity...that our governor said they would...it would require 50 people boarding one of the buses every five minutes, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. If that many riders actually show up...which is a pipedream...our state will lose about $2.5 million in the first year of operation, with losses growing every year after that. I believe that every single Democrat in the statehouse voted to approve this ever growing financial sponge of a plan.
I never have to spend 10 seconds of my life wondering why my state and this nation continue to slide down the financial crapper. It's right there in black and white in the news every day. And it never ends.
Even when I'm broke, I give what I can to charities. There is always someone worse off than me.
This is way more than any other country, including in percent of national income.
Just think how much more in charity Americans would give if Democrats hadn't farmed out charity to government via Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, welfare and food stamps and the taxpayers had all that tax money back in their own pockets to help people.
The liberal ideal of forced charity giving, mainly from the rich, really kills off charity for most people, as we see in Europe, where the % of income donated to charities is pitiful, and less than 1%.
People just think, well the govt already taxes me for that, (or the rich), so I don't have to think about it.
Wow. Just wow. Why on earth do you think those liberal programs were enacted? Do some history research buddy. The poor and elderly died in the streets from the bountiful private charity system you long for.
The whole western world knew that in order to compete militarily, economically, and politically, the rich MUST help provide a safety net for the middle-class and poor. The Kaiser in Germany and Winston Churchill were champions of this truth. A country sinks or swims as one.
In 1945, the GI Bill was put to work and our country soared ahead with a 20% college graduate rate, 3x what it was before. We OWNED technology and the world's destiny.
And the right called it welfare.
Yak - apparently you have never stayed in the streets for one day. Lucille Ball once played a street person. Having trudged around in streets I can tell you the movie didn't do too bad at capturing the reality.
We have so many charities that there should be NO NEED for the government to step in. Even with the government programs people refuse to use the government programs!
I would never think of the GI program as a charity. Those people risked their lives, physical, and mental well - being. Surprisingly, as many as came forward it still isn't used by those who should use it.
While the far majority would agree that help should be there for those who need it, it still be for those who do not have family, or simply refuse to accept charitable organizations help.
You get 79 cents of value out of federal programs, where most charities use 90 - 100% of the funds directly to the work.
The reason Mitt's tax rate was so low is he gives 15% of his income to Charity. At his tax rate the government gave up about $1 of tax for the Charity to recieve $3.00. given the efficiency fo government, it would need $3.61 to do what the Charity does for $3.00.
You lived on the streets before the 1930's? You must be really old.
Yak...
The "safety net" has grown out of control. In my state, it was widely reported this week in the news that in year 2008, taxpayers spent $137 million in various goods and services to deal with 2817 new teenage "mothers" and their new babies. That's about $48,500 per child with a child. They remain on the program for five years...to the tune of about a quarter million dollars each. There are 2500 to 3000 children being born to older children every year here. So the spending compounds like a growing fungus.
In many of the articles, it was stated that over half these girls were hispanic and excuses for this behavior were off the charts. The article stated that because many of these folks are religious, they don't believe in contraception. So it's OK for one's 15 year old daughter to be having sex and getting pregnant...and birth control is frowned upon for 'religious' reasons. What a crock !
And taxpayers...some rich and some not so rich...hand over their hard earned cash to pay for this human disaster. The 'safety net' you demand the 'rich' pay for is simply stretched beyond any rational thought or explanation. For the cost of a crate of condoms, millions are being spent on the expenses from these teenage prenancies. Program officials quoted in the article said that the rest of us must "understand...not judge...the cultural differences" that have created this financial sinkhole.
Will the "safety net" correct any of this problem...doubtful...it was also stated in the article that children bone to teenage mothers tend to become teenage mothers themselves. Ain't that sweet !
We don't need charity, we need change.
yes, we need the super wealthy too stop putting their swantz in our back side ... of course that is just my super intelligent opinion (IQ 165)
Big Mac if you are so smart why aren't you super wealthy- most super wealthy are college drop outs- says a lot about your supposed intelligence- you can teach theory but it does little to improve your financial ratiocination- aka money intelligence
Almost all charities, if not all, are scams.
YEah and who gives to charity? The conservatives. Obummer and his miserable lot hardly donate. Romney gave 3 million but he should be taxed more according to Obummer and the liberal loons. Why don't you see much Obummer or Joe "foot in the mouth" Biden contributed?
Yep and I bet most of the money came from Republicans!
In looking at some of the previous posts, it is clear that limited knowledge is known about charities and their finances. Most of the non-profit organizations whether fully supported by donations or government are severely underfunded. I have worked in the offices of several non-profits and have seen both the donations and the needs. The need and mission of most charities far exceed the donations given. Some of the homeless do not want to comply with the rules and regulations, making them compliant with donor and govermental demands for accountability, of an organization. To be blunt, go to a local food pantry and talk with those that work there. The need outstrips the donations; a food pantry is a non-profit that supplies food to those that cannot otherwise afford to buy food, just in case anyone is confused about food pantries. In that line are the homeless, college students and individuals that are underemployed (with 2-3 jobs). If you are brave enough to ask someone in that line, most likely they will tell you that sometimes they are able to give, and they do.
Something to keep in mind is that charitable giving to churches often includes tithing or 10% of income. In Romney's case he is securing his place in celestial glory and setting up his own godship through "giving" to the Mormon Church. I wouldn't question his motives but his charity seems to provide some great personal benefits.
yes, people do tithe to their churches but it's not for "glory", it's because they sincerely believe this is what God wants them to do. Plus, while some of that money is used to maintain the church and pay the staff, a large percent is used for charitable purposes.
For example, my husband was on the finance committee of our last church, and among the things the church did:
- paid for "grandmothers" in Romanian orphanages who played with the children, read them stories, cuddled them, etc. Prior to a movement to do this by American churches, babies and children in these orphanages got only the minimal care with no interaction, and thus were emotionally and developmentally stunted. Churches in America have joined together to pay for women to come and cuddle and talk to the children, to provide toys, books, blankets, warm clothes, etc. for the children. Ladies in the church knit hats and jackets for babies and twice a year people go to Romania to monitor that the children are thriving.
- building houses for the poor in Mexico. Our church donated the funds and the people to build 6 houses for homeless families in Mexico. Volunteers from the church actually built the houses.
- feeding the local homeless. Our church, along with other churches, run a food kitchen where over 300 meals a day are served. The church contributes the resources to pay for the meals and the rental on the hall, but church members volunteer to cook and serve.
- when Katrina hit, our church opened up its basement and conference rooms as temporary shelters for displaced families. We had 8 families stay there for up to 3 months. We also provided them with grocery money, donated clothing, toys, diapers, etc., and church members took them to see doctors, grief counselors, etc.
- after school outreach for disadvantaged kids. Our church's youth center is used during the week as a safe place for kids from broken homes and poor neighborhoods to play basketball, ping pong or volleyball, study or use the computer, etc. Volunteers from the church mentor the kids, helping with homework and acting as sports referees, making sure they are safe, and church members have donated computer equipment, sports equipment, etc., so the children can study, play, etc.
- clothes closet and pantry for poor families - our church and several others in the area work together to staff and provide the resources to stock a food pantry and clothes closet for the poor.
- counseling services to anyone who needs help, regardless of whether they are a member of the church
- visitation to the elderly in nursing homes - our church has volunteers who visit nursing homes in the area and they visit people who are not visited by anyone else. often they also bring little gifts for the elderly (such as scented lotion) or take them out for a meal, because these people are on very limited budgets.
- scholarships for summer camp for disadvantaged youth
- Christmas angel program, where each Sunday School class adopts a poor family and buys them Christmas dinner, gifts for the children - both toys and needed clothes - and sometimes pays things like an electric bill if needed.
- back to school program where school supplies are donated to help poor children.
- free Christmas concert of Handel's Messiah, open to the community
- funding for the high school kids to do an annual mission trip. For example, during the catastrophe in Haiti, they went there and brought supplies like bottled water, food, diapers to the displaced, worked with people in shelters, etc.
- Social activities for church members including transportation for older members who can no longer drive and a bi-weekly "parents' night out" for the married couples in the church where they can drop off their school age children for a few hours and a weekly "mothers with children" program where mothers can drop off their children with volunteers for a few hours to get a break. While these activities are obviously for the benefit of church members, they help the community at large by helping families and providing a sense of community.
@sum1hoonose
Why the parenthesis around the word giving? Does it somehow count as less of a charity because it went to a church? I'm not one for religion myself and personally believe Mormonism is one of the wackier of the lot but there is no denying that the Mormons do a hell of a lot more for the less fortunates of the world than most. I'd bet ANY amount of money that they do a better job, dollar for dollar, than our government does.
First we need to start taxing political campaigns and PAC's, then make donations to them not tax deductible. Then take away religious tax exemptions and tax deductions for those donations.
I gave a little bit more last year.
Charity begins at home. So why does the government believe it is its job to tax the hell out of us, take a big chunk of what it collects, and then dole out what is left as social programs?
What government ought to do is make it easier for people to keep their money, lower taxes and then more people would have more money to donate directly to charities. Donating directly more of the money gets used to actually help people instead of being used to provide government jobs doing the same thing.
Lower the tax rate on the rich and make it advantageous to donate. Instead the government has to stick its hand into it, robbing some of the money meant to help people.
Several Church's in my city have gotten together to assist the Salvation Army to provide meals for the homeless. Regular people getting together, making meals and helping people. If the government took over it would cost more and help fewer people.
The government is supposed to do what we can't easily do for ourselves. But government is greedy and wants to control everything. No thanks.
In the end, I have far more faith in my fellow man than i do the revenue collection/distribution system in place at the federal level. When you give from your heart to any place that your goodwill is being sent to, you are able to feel hopeful and somewhat confident that a direct donation is a direct request that good be done.
When you give via a general OBLIGATION to the federal collection system, it seems its been very hard lately to feel hopeful that there are assurances that accountability and design methods are working.
I would rather see direct participation/recipient systems designed locally and at the state level rather than at the federal level for most (not all) aid programs. i think the the effect of gratefulness and connection to each other would be far stronger wondering "could it have been him" who helped me out with fuel assistance or my childcare needs. I just feel that the social aid system in place today has done far more to create distance and coldness than warmth, gladness and gratefulness. We give to give and we choose causes and organizations that we hope will have a direct affect on the well being of the recipient. i know I have my favorite non profit that i will give to for as long as i can. I like being asked not obligated. 99.99% of the time when someone asks and then receives, they usually say thank you for your kindness. Federal distribution that is all about class division today is making no one say thank you. It's making a lot of us feel cold and angry at how things are being commanded of others in name of moral obligation. i think this article proves how many good people are morally persuaded to give in the name of hope and betterment. We are good people. Great people because we want others to shine or at least twinkle with a quiet donation and a wish that goodness arises from our care. Taxes and general obligations and screaming radical mantras about high earners being immoral for not paying an equal percentage income as another make me really wonder about whether this really is about caring for others or about making a statement about others.
BUT... this doesn't count the "donations" we've all made thru our taxes ... 80% of which are eaten up by greedy politicians and their buddies who have gutted our treasury in the name of "helping the less fortunate."
We don't need 14 battalions of paper shufflers in D.C. to process our charitable donations. We need to do it in our own communities, face to face, where we see the people we help put OUR money to good use. No politician gives a fart in a whirlwind about how recipients spend what government gives them.
Obama gave 1% ......He's such a generous, kind caring soul...with your money.
This conversation has been just great. Now please figure out a way to give back. If not in money, time. Thanks
Besides owning my own business and employing 48 people, I volunteer 10+ hours per week, every week, and have for over 30 years. In 2011, I continued to give to charities of my choice, 12%+ of Gross personal income. The 50%+ I pay in federal, State and Local taxes could be considered charity to all those who pay little or nothing themselves. I read these posts about crooked/fraudulent charities and shake my head. Do research before you give, or just give where you have first hand knowledge of how and where the money is distributed. Most of the posters here probably don't give much of anything themselves in either time or money. Crying shame!
I give my hard earned Social Security money to the Catholic Church and the Latinos who stole that Church away from American Catholics are using it to support the illegals that are stealing US resources from the American poor.
When are these cowards going to be exposed????
this shows how the private sector always works better than gov't- taxing the rich more will have more of a negative effect on charity- the gov't will waste the extra taxes on junk program that don't help the poor anyway- did the libs give Romney credit for the 3 million? What did Obama give? They didn't highlight Obama's gaffs- remember the Lazy Amercian one and he said in another speech there were 57 States- would you rather have a pres who knows how to spend money or make it- why it's the economy Watson-
I would like to see how much of those charitable monies were taken in by Islamic mosques.
how many left wing liberals democrats and OBOMBO and Bill Ayers and
Van JOnes, Wasserman, Chris Matthews and the psmnbc OBOMBO
machine liberals, shoney boy Michael Moore and other hollywood
big mouth liberals gave their own money? not charity events or
photo ops but their own real money? ............i hear crickets.....