IBJNews

Wealthy Americans cut back on giving in 2009

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
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If the estate tax were repealed, 43 percent of wealthy households would somewhat or dramatically increase the amount they leave to charity.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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT