4 ms·

This may just be me, but the article did not answer the question at all. At the end, the author basically washes his (her?) hands of the question and says that

This may just be me, but the article did not answer the question at all. At the end, the author basically washes his (her?) hands of the question and says that there is no reliable data to make a decisive statement. So, I'm not so sure about Bill Gates' statement about the "noveau riche" being more generous. Maybe at the billionaire level, but what about the measly millionaires? Are they also generous? Also, what kind of charities do they give to? Giving money to their alma mater to build a statute or to name a building is quite different than what Bill Gates is doing.

dlokshin 16y ago
This is a quote from a HNews submission a couple of days ago: "'A lot of wealth holders were very sincerely concerned about others and were doing something about it.' His recent papers, many co-authored with John Havens, the associate director and senior research associate at the center, have done much to exonerate the rich from the charge that they are more tightfisted than the non-rich. (They’re not, Schervish and Havens say: as individuals move up the wealth scale, they give away a greater share of their assets.)" HNews discussion link: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2364922 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2364922
- jhamburger 16y ago
  I don't know how relevant it is to generosity that the rich give away a higher percentage than the non-rich. Gates and Buffett could give away 99% of their earnings if they wanted to. If I did the same, I would be more in need of charity than those I was giving to. It would make more sense to deduct an amount similar to the "consumption allowance" in sales tax proposals to account for manditory or quasi-manditory spending like food, shelter, health care, etc, and judge only income above this level.
arethuza 16y ago
Another factor is probably timescales - if your family has been wealthy and powerful for the best part of a thousand years (which isn't that uncommon in places like the UK) then the primary concern is to pass that wealth and power onto the next generation.

dlokshin 16y ago

This is a quote from a HNews submission a couple of days ago: "'A lot of wealth holders were very sincerely concerned about others and were doing something about it.' His recent papers, many co-authored with John Havens, the associate director and senior research associate at the center, have done much to exonerate the rich from the charge that they are more tightfisted than the non-rich. (They’re not, Schervish and Havens say: as individuals move up the wealth scale, they give away a greater share of their assets.)" HNews discussion link: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2364922 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2364922

jhamburger 16y ago
I don't know how relevant it is to generosity that the rich give away a higher percentage than the non-rich. Gates and Buffett could give away 99% of their earnings if they wanted to. If I did the same, I would be more in need of charity than those I was giving to. It would make more sense to deduct an amount similar to the "consumption allowance" in sales tax proposals to account for manditory or quasi-manditory spending like food, shelter, health care, etc, and judge only income above this level.

arethuza 16y ago

Another factor is probably timescales - if your family has been wealthy and powerful for the best part of a thousand years (which isn't that uncommon in places like the UK) then the primary concern is to pass that wealth and power onto the next generation.