Americans Gave $390 Billion To Charity In 2016

The Giving USA Foundation reported that Americans gave $390 billion to charity in 2016 -- and giving by individuals was especially strong, at $282 billion.

"Americans remained generous in 2016, despite it being a year punctuated by economic and political uncertainty," said Aggie Sweeney, the chair of Giving USA Foundation. "We saw growth in every major sector, indicating the resilience of philanthropy and diverse motivations of donors."

While the wealthy account for a large share of giving, Giving USA said there were large numbers of smaller donations from less-wealthy donors.

"In 2016, we saw something of a democratization of philanthropy," said Patrick M. Rooney, associate head for academic affairs and research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, which writes the report. "The strong growth in individual giving may be less attributable to the largest of the large gifts, which were not as robust as we have seen in some prior years, suggesting that more of that growth in 2016 may have come from giving by donors among the general population compared to recent years."

Giving to all major categories increased. Religion remains the largest recipient of charitable dollars, increasing 3 percent last year to $123 billion. Education ranked second, taking in $59.8 billion, up 3.6 percent; human services increased 4 percent to $46.8 billion, and giving to health rose 5.7 percent to $33.1 billion. Giving to arts and cultural organizations increased 6.4 percent to $18.2 billion, while giving to international affairs increased 4.6 percent to $22 billion. Giving to environmental and animal organizations increased 7 percent to $11 billion.


Read more at http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/2260/Americans-Gave-390-Billion-To-Charity-In-2016#8FEoqvx8yLUO2m25.99

So is this thread written in praise of the ''generosity'' of the Americans?


But this charity business in the US is not a question of ''generosity'' at all. It is simply the chosen system of the US,  for looking after the poor. There are other systems used in other countries that are NOT charity-based.



Eg in the UK, there is  free education for all, free healthcare for all, welfare benefits for the poor, disabled, sick, jobless, maternity salary, maternity grants, child benefit payments and child tax credits. So, no need for US-style charity.


I am NOT saying one system is better or worse than the other, I am just saying that there are two completely different systems


If the US had our system of state sponsored care for the poor, and yet they still made all these huge charity donations, then it would be worth making a noise about.

Wow, way to go knocking down all those who have given to charities and given money themselves

This is a good news story and it should always be highlighted when people are generous

Thorin wrote:Wow, way to go knocking down all those who have given to charities and given money themselves

This is a good news story and it should always be highlighted when people are generous

Not knocking no one.
This is not news, either. This has always been the status quo from day one.


Here the state uses taxpayers taxes to fund health, education, childcare, social welfare benefits, etc,
Over there the taxpayer funds the poor directly, via charity, without state acting as the middle man.
Two completely different ideologies .... but why praise one ideology over the other?

Jules wrote:

Thorin wrote:Wow, way to go knocking down all those who have given to charities and given money themselves

This is a good news story and it should always be highlighted when people are generous

Not knocking no one.
This is not news, either. This has always been the status quo from day one.


Here the state uses taxpayers taxes to fund health, education, childcare,  social welfare benefits, etc,
Over there the taxpayer funds the poor directly, via charity, without  state acting as the middle man.
Two completely different ideologies  .... but why praise one ideology over the other?

Its not to you to decide whether this is news or not.
Again people have given freely and many have benefited from this.
Maybe you can tell those who have, your views.

On that I wish you good luck

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:

Not knocking no one.
This is not news, either. This has always been the status quo from day one.


Here the state uses taxpayers taxes to fund health, education, childcare,  social welfare benefits, etc,
Over there the taxpayer funds the poor directly, via charity, without  state acting as the middle man.
Two completely different ideologies  .... but why praise one ideology over the other?

Its not to you to decide whether this is news or not.
Again people have given freely and many have benefited from this.
Maybe you can tell those who have, your views.

On that I wish you good luck

I have not "decided" anything.
Saying I don't think it's news does not mean I am deciding anything, it means I am just giving my opinion.
As you  sit here give opinions  from dawn to dusk, I'm stunned that you resent other people giving their own opinions too.


The charity-based system is how the US cares for its poor.
The taxation benefits system is how the UK cares for its poor.
Nowt new about that.

Which shows you are making assumptions off not knowing the many charities in the US.

Like I say its not for you to decide whether its news or not, of which you did. You stated this is not news. I disagree, so there you go.


Seems you are looking to argue again

So I shall leave you to argue with yourself

Enjoy

OK let me put it another way.

I am not criticising you in any way, I am simply trying to inject some context and perspective here.

IMO you are simply praising them for doing what they have always done, as if it's some brand new thing.


I feel my views are fair and logical.

I praise people who are willing to help and give.

The more who do so, the less people have to struggle

2016 was a year of uncertainty? Unemployment was under 4%. In the California bay area, it was around 2.4 - 3% During the Obama administration, we have had the best of times in the millennium.

Charity, while nice, is not an institution that should be depended upon. It is voluntary, and therefore not reliable. Besides, it's not the job of good hearts to support society; it's the job of government.

Jules wrote:OK let me put it another way.

I am not criticising you in any way, I am simply trying to inject some context and perspective here.

IMO you are simply praising them for doing what they have always done, as if it's some brand new thing.


I feel my views are fair and logical.

yes they are and that is true

there are many things Americans have to turn to charities for that we just take for granted are supplied to all citizens through taxation.

The United States has always depended more heavily on their charities, in comparison to many other Western socities, for one very simple reason :

The many shortfalls, gaps and shortcomings in the US 'welfare' and health systems has left American society being more reliant on those charities to look after their poor and downtrodden...

Look to Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the likes, though, and the governments actually provide much more aid to poorer people --  and because the population expects to have our governments helping more, via taxation and far superior welfare systems, the amounts given to charities are inevitably slightly to somewhat lower than in more "capitalistic" societies like the USA and Japan.

Wolfie, Vera, Quill, watch these two vids when you have time. 8minutes altogether. They will show you everything you need to know about why some people are so suspicious of charities.

They will also show you how the staggering stupid Eric Trump made some very incriminating revelations and in addition it goes a long way to understanding the "Russian connection" with the Trump clan.

Even a brief glance at wiki will show how Eric is up to his eyeballs in charity fraud.