United Way turns to the rich

August 10, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The wealthy in the Indianapolis area arenâ??t carrying their weight in supporting United Way of Central Indiana, according to an analysis by the not-for-profit    comparing places including Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Columbus, Ohio.

The Indianapolis chapter has 22 â??principalâ?? donors, defined as giving at least $25,000. Thatâ??s a fraction of top-level donation activity in the other, similar-sized Midwestern cities, IBJ reporter Kathleen McLaughlin wrote in this weekâ??s issue.

Local officials think they can double the number of principal donors if they target them with the right kind of pitch â?? possibly as an investment in the community rather than as an obligation.

What are your thoughts on giving? Speaking more broadly than just United Way donations, a study two years ago showed households with at least $200,000 in income or $1 million in assets donated an average of 9 percent of their incomes to charity. A different study had households with $50,000 or less in household income giving an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes.

Do the wealthy do enough? Or are they already giving more than their share?
  • Maybe the United Way should figure out a way to give VALUE to those who they feel should GIVE them money. Because of who we are is hardly a reason. Or, maybe the United Way has just outlived its useful life now that the Internet allows smaller agencies which used to rely on United Way an effective way to reach out on their own. United Way's arm twisting tactics, from how they approach executives with the threat of public shame to how they make executives influence subordinate employees at all employees has always been inappropriate and distasteful.
  • This article disturbs me. Let me start by saying that I am not what one would consider wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. The United Way like most other charity type programs is a great concept. But that is just what it is...charity. By definition this is people willing to give of themselves to others via money or time. I wish I was wealthy. I work hard every day trying to achieve some sense of personal financial freedom, but this is a free country. If you work hard and you end up wealthy, that doesn't mean those of us who are not have the right to expect that they give all their money to others. This is a personal choice of what, how much and when to give. If you feel charity is important then give until your heart is content. It is not our right to decide for anyone else but ourselves. You may consider it selfish if someone chooses not to give as much as you think they should....and that is your right to think it...but it is others right to be selfish and give nothing if they so choose. Success should not be penalized in this country... but strived for. If more people worked hard trying to succeed, there would be less need for charity to begin with, and more people that could donate to it so more people could be helped. It's a cycle.

Post a comment to this blog

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.

Sponsored by
  1. By the way, the right to work law is intended to prevent forced union membership, not as a way to keep workers in bondage as you make it sound, Italiano. If union leadership would spend all of their funding on the workers, who they are supposed to be representing, instead of trying to buy political favor and living lavish lifestyles as a result of the forced membership, this law would never had been necessary.

  2. Unions once served a noble purpose before greed and apathy took over. Now most unions are just as bad or even worse than the ills they sought to correct. I don't believe I have seen a positive comment posted by you. If you don't like the way things are done here, why do you live here? It would seem a more liberal environment like New York or California would suit you better?

  3. just to clear it up... Straight No Chaser is an a capella group that formed at IU. They've toured nationally typically doing a capella arangements of everything from Old Songbook Standards to current hits on the radio.

  4. This surprises you? Mayor Marine pulled the same crap whenhe levered the assets of the water co up by half a billion $$$ then he created his GRAFTER PROGRAM called REBUILDINDY. That program did not do anything for the Ratepayors Water Infrastructure Assets except encumber them and FORCE invitable higher water and sewer rates on Ratepayors to cover debt coverage on the dough he stole FROM THE PUBLIC TRUST. The guy is morally bankrupt to the average taxpayer and Ratepayor.

  5. There is no developer on the planet that isn't aware of what their subcontractors are doing (or not doing). They hire construction superintendents. They have architects and engineers on site to observe construction progress. If your subcontractor wasn't doing their job, you fire them and find someone who will. If people wonder why more condos aren't being built, developers like Kosene & Kosene are the reason. I am glad the residents were on the winning end after a long battle.