Your approach to giving

December 5, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
A study put out yesterday by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University says that about two in three American households made donations in each of the three years it followed.

The center also found that slightly more than half of households gave during each of the three years.

Nearly half donated to houses of worship and other religious organizations, while more than half gave to secular groups and about a third gave to both.

Weâ??re in the midst of a season of giving, if for no other reason than to reap those last-minute tax deductions.

How do you make decisions about giving?

Read the story.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • philDecember 5, 2007 1:21 PM
    My policy is, and has always been, to empty my pockets of change and $1 bills on my way out from a business which has a kettle out front. Sometimes this can be quite a bit, other times, not. And I don't go out of my way to pay a cashier such that I won't have any $1s When taking care of a lot of errands, it just trickles out.

    Another method someone might want to adopt is to drink one less alcohol-based dring and drop the price in a kettle. You aren't digging deeply into your pocket because you would have spent it anyway.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • TheresaDecember 5, 2007 1:28 PM
    I donate the most to the nonprofits I'm directly involved with - thru volunteering, board membership, etc. That way I know how the money is spent, and sometimes have a say in it.

    My methods of payment are thru payroll deduction and weekly/monthly checks. I do NOT give to United Way as they do not support th organizations I believe in.

    I now donate to fewer organizations but give more overall.

    Central Indiana could use more focus on individual giving v. corporate.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT