IBJNews

Wealthy Americans cut back on giving in 2009

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

Wealthy Americans scaled back their charitable contributions nearly 35 percent in 2009, a recently released study of wealthy households shows.

The Bank of America Merrill Lynch Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy for 2010 found that average charitable giving dropped from $83,034 in 2007 to $54,016 in 2009, after adjusting for inflation.

Wealthy philanthropists drew the purse strings tightest on health organizations, where the average gift dropped 63.7 percent, from $12,430 to $4,511.

The study, conducted every two years in partnership with the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, examines the habits of wealthy households, which account for about half of all charitable giving in the United States.

Researchers surveyed more than 800 randomly selected households where income was greater than $200,000 per year, or net worth, excluding the value of the primary residence, was at least $1 million. The average wealth of respondents was more than $10 million, and half of them had a net worth between $3 million and $20 million.

The decline in giving reflected wealthy people’s own financial situations. Although total charitable dollars fell, giving as a portion of income remained somewhat steady at 9 percent, compared with 11 percent in 2007.

Wealthy philanthropists appeared to adjust their priorities in response to the recession. The portion who gave to basic human needs rose from 75 percent in 2007 to 85 percent in 2009.

Some types of not-for-profits received bigger gifts on average. Arts, which are already supported to a greater degree by wealthy people, saw the average gift rise 11.6 percent, to $5,531. Gifts to international causes and the environment and animals grew as well.

Tax issues are a significant motivator, researchers found. About two-thirds, or 67 percent, of wealthy households reported that they would somewhat or dramatically decrease their contributions if they were to receive zero income-tax deductions. That was up from 47 percent in 2007.

If the estate tax were repealed, 43 percent of wealthy households would somewhat or dramatically increase the amount they leave to charity. That was up from 36 percent in 2007.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

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.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  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