However, a Fox News report about the taxes paid and donations made by those who constitute the nation's 1% indicates that even among the 1%, there are "have's" and "have nots." This disparity is something The Motley Monk had never realized.
Between 2000 and 2004, Barack Obama's tax returns for 2000-2004 indicate that he and his wife donated $10,772 of the $1.2M they earned to various charities. That's <1% of their joint income. The couple's donations increased between 2005-2006 when, as an Illinois' Senator, Barack Obama wrote a bestselling book. Over those two years, the couple donated $137,622 to charities. That's ~5% of their $2.6M income.
In contrast, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination Mitt Romney and his wife donated $2.98M of their $21.7M income to various charities in 2010. That's 13.73%. The couple estimates that in 2011 they donated $4M of their $20.9M income to various charities. That's 19.14%.
That's quite a disparity in charitable giving, isn't it?
The Motley Monk wonders whether the reason the percentage of the Obamas' charitable donations pales in comparison to that of the Romneys' is because the Obamas belong to the 99% of the nation's millionaires. These are the millionaires who the U.S. tax code treats unjustly. Since the Romneys make millions of dollars more than the Obamas, the Romenys should be expected to donate a much greater percentage of income to charities because, after all, the Romenys belong to the 1% of millionaires who the U.S. tax code treats rather generously.
Let the discussion begin...
To read the Fox News report, click on the following link:
Not sure I followed all of this explanation, however, it seems to me that Mitt Romney and his wife are observant Mormons who tithe, in accord with their church's principles. Tithing among observant Mormons means just that: 10% of income BEFORE TAXES goes to the church. Whatever other charities the Romneys support will obviously explain the remainder of the percentage of their income that they donate.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the taxing point was inelegantly expressed?
ReplyDeleteThe point is not that the Romneys practice "tithing plus"---the biblical injunction is 10% of gross income not net income---and the Obamas do not.
Maybe The Motley Monk was being "clever by one half" and not stating his taxing point clearly.
Instead, the point that The Motley Monk intended to convey was that, like the Occupy Wall Street people, the Obamas could claim that, as the 99% of millionaires, they are donating their fair share to charities. In contrast, the Romneys belong to the 1% of millionaires who should donate more to charities than the 99% of millionaries should.