Business

Those ‘1 Percenters’ Do It Again: Charitable Donations Rose in 2011

2011 was a good year for many nonprofit organizations as they saw an uptick in multimillion-dollar gift donations.

“The biggest gifts announced by Americans totaled more than $2.6-billion, compared with $1.3-billion in 2010 [emphasis added],” reports Philanthropy.

Although the amount in 2011 was less than 2009 ($2.7-billion) and nowhere near close to 2008 ($8-billion), the total amount is nevertheless impressive — especially when you take into account the weak economy and the concentrated, anti-business rhetoric emanating from the White House.

The number of donations of $100-million or more last year was also impressive.

“Ten people committed that much, an increase from 2010, when only six philanthropists gave $100-million or more, and from 2009 when seven donors announced gifts of that size,” reports Philanthropy. “What’s more, gifts of $1-million or more totaled $5.4-billion in 2011, compared with $3.6-billion a year ago.”

The biggest single amount in 2011 was a donation put towards the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art.

“Crystal Bridges, which opened last month, was the brainchild of Alice Walton, daughter of the Wal-Mart retail-chain founder Sam Walton,” writes Philanthropy. “She convinced her mega-foundation to support the ambitious 201,000-square-foot museum.”

Unsurprisingly, aside from Miss Walton’s “brainchild,” the majority of multimillion-dollar contributions made in 2011 went towards universities.

These are just some of the donations made towards academia (via Philanthropy):

  • A $350-million pledge from Charles F. Feeney, a co-founder of the Duty Free Shoppers Group, to help Cornell University build a technology campus in New York City.
  • William S. Dietrich II, a steel supplier who gave $265-million to Carnegie Mellon University. Mr. Dietrich made another of the year’s biggest gifts—$125-million to the University of Pittsburgh—soon before he died in October.
  • The University of Southern California, which announced this year that it would seek to raise $6-billion, more than any other nonprofit has ever collected in one drive, was the only institution to receive two donations on the list. It received $200-million from the businessman David Dornsife and $110-million from the energy entrepreneur John Mork.

Exit question: Considering the massive amount of charitable donations these universities receive, and the fact that they usually come from businessmen, isn’t it slightly puzzling that many of these institutions have  embraced and supported what appears to be the feverishly anti-business message of the Occupy movement?

Read the full article here at Philanthropy.com

Comments (55)

1 2
  • BurntHills
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:32pm

    imagine that, the 1% are all obama communist democrats.

    Report Post » BurntHills  
    • BurntHills
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:34pm

      why did the “1%” give ANY money to the communist UNIVERSITIES who want to destroy them. well, they acted STUPIDLY.

      Report Post » BurntHills  
    • chicostix
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:53pm

      lawl Shill please.

      Report Post »  
    • Komponist-ZAH
      Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:04am

      “feverishly anti-business message of the Occupy movement”

      I think the Occupiers are more aptly described as anti-market (or, perhaps, anti-economic?) than anti-business—though they probably are that, too—, and the anti-market mindset is far more insidious.

      Report Post »  
    • poorrichard09
      Posted on January 3, 2012 at 8:34am

      Since when are universities with multi-million or BILLION dollar endowments “charities”???

      Report Post »  
  • chicostix
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:14pm

    Yet these same 1% made a $16,000,000,000 profit from WWI.

    Report Post »  
  • pmjr-jones
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:44pm

    a tax write off then tell they’re employees they have no money!?

    Report Post »  
    • pmjr-jones
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:51pm

      make sure sickly skinny and greedy looking to have my priorities straight!?

      Report Post »  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:46pm

    See , they should only give to government approved charity, that way the Feds can skim their 40 %….

    Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on January 3, 2012 at 8:04am

      No what they should do is start their own housing projects where the people whop live there are responsible for the up keep and utilities. That way they could have a perpetual tax write off and actually help people.

      Report Post »  
  • psadie
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:37pm

    When so many people are out of work and losing their homes and jobs, why are the 1%’ers giving more money to universities who are floating in cash and continue to raise tuition? Put your money where it will actually do some good. Invest in Americans. Help them get back on their feet.

    Report Post »  
  • Netsurfer2
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:32pm

    I still never have understood why it costs so freaking much to go to college (particularly a University) if they are getting money hand over foot by everyone??? It just doesn’t make sense of why tuition is so costly! I say make it affordable for everyone who has a brain to go to college and make something of themselves if that is the case! We probably wouldn’t have half the problems if people were more educated!

    One thing that bothered me during the New Year, I went out to dinner at a classy restaurant and everyone wore jeans with leather jackets! No one dressed up except for me! I find this disturbing in Seattle. It seems as though hardly anyone knows to how to dress during celebrations in Seattle!

    Report Post » Netsurfer2  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:49pm

      Seattle is no good, come to the good side, Bellevue. That’s where all of the cool folks are. We vote republican and live in big fancy houses. Much better here on the eastside, Seattle is full of relaxed liberal types or the young hipsters. Universities, even the university of WA, are a giant racket. They take in huge donations and disgusting amounts of tuition, force people to take classes which have nothing to do with their career path and accept more out of state students than in state to get more money. Have you seen the new uw football stadium plans? Ticket prices just skyrocketed.

      Report Post »  
  • Derek01
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:33pm

    Imagine that. Good people giving out of the kindness of their hearts to help fellow Americans in ways that work, NOT trying to buy votes

    Report Post »  
    • Hobbs57
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:06pm

      My question is ( as a 36 year old college student), why is it that Pitt and Penn State, cried their eyes out about how their Universities couldn’t possibly make it with the state funding cut the Governor brought in as he is trying to balance the budget after the Obama, as we recall, cried that all the teachers and police officers would lose their jobs if we didn’t give him 700 billion then another 38 billion(just for these public servants), and though the schools were warned to spread out the money because Obama was trying to sure up the union for elections, instead they all increase their budgets and spent every last penny. Now they are crying because the governor cut the budget and they have to raise tuition now. I mean, with donations such as this, which is more than the state even gives them to begin with, where does all the money go ?? Pitt is like the PATT ( the bus company), they are partly private and partly state funded. Seemingly, neither can ever balance the budget and while having the ability to make profit, they still end up in the red each year. The bus drivers are paid the most, the system is bloated, and the retiree’s benefits now cost more than their actual cost for employees who are still working. No business could run like this, nor would they have possibly gotten themselves into the position they are if not for government infusions of cash. Grrrrrrr Enough is enough already. Oh yeah, Pitt, while a state school, cost as much as a private school. Sickenin

      Report Post » Hobbs57  
  • mcgrawactor1
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:19pm

    Jesus said give to the poor. He did not say, let it be taken from you so that we can redistribute your wealth. People like Jim Wallis (the so-called reverend, and spriitual advisor to Obama) have so distorted this essential truth and it scares me that mainstream Christians and whole churches are falling for it. DON’T GET SUCKED INTO THE MYTH THAT IS SOCIAL JUSTICE. We give, because we love our neighbor, because we give freely and joyfully, even when it is a sacrifice. We need not feel compelled or coerced into charity. (Charity is actually translated, love). We need no other motivation, since giving is to show love, and that is what God wants us to do. That simple. End of argument.

    Report Post » mcgrawactor1  
  • beebacksoon
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:02pm

    We are all aware the 1% donate and do things, for the most part, perfectly legal to do. The tax code (loop holes) need to be changed/eliminated (Fair Tax (not Flat Tax, or VAT)!). You know as well as I, if WE were part of the 1% we’d be hiring a tax attorney to look for and use every single loop hole available. Do any of the 100% of taxpayers want to give the government more than they have to?? Hummm?

    Report Post »  
    • drphil69
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:31pm

      No.

      Report Post »  
    • Bucknutpete
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:25pm

      I work with several libs, pretty good people. One who is a DR. and make very good salary says he does feel he should and could pay more in taxes. I said good for him to be able and willing. But when I said “go ahead, the government will accept it” he backed off! They want to tell others to give more ( against our will) but if they are so willing, just go ahead, it will make you feel good. Not!

      Report Post »  
  • wordweaver
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:04pm

    Doggone it, you 1 percenters! You take your hard-earned money and generously give a large chunk of it to support a variety of causes. You are ruining the president’s plan to forcibly take away that money in higher taxes so he can waste it on government projects that go nowhere, $16 muffins, etc. You have a lot of nerve going all philanthropic with your own money – giving it to people and organizations who will use it wisely instead of a government that specializes in wasting it. Geez.

    Report Post » wordweaver  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:26pm

      The fact that this article even exists should tell you that the 1% are walking around with enough expendable cash that they can donate high numbers. More than I can say for the middle class.

      If you weren‘t so drunk on the Kool Aid here then you’d be calling this a planned pr stunt.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • drphil69
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:26pm

      @Bible – I am no where near the 1% and I donate a lot more than Joe Biden. So don’t speak for me as part of the middle class – if you don’t donate that is on YOU.

      Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:29am

      So Bible, that means you have the right to tell someone how much money they should get to make or keep?

      Report Post »  
  • garbagecanlogic
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:23pm

    Betcha the charities didn‘t receive much from the OWS’ers.

    The U.S. Out Of The U.N.
    The U.N. Out Of The U.S.

    Report Post »  
  • adastra2005
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:20pm

    Bravo America, the most giving people on earth. However, the universities should not be the recipients … they are a scam and do not deserve it.

    Report Post »  
  • Rational Man
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:01pm

    There is a difference between “charities” and “non-profits”.
    I don’t consider charities to be Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art and re-education, propoganda, revisionist history, “art” and the like from universities.
    Money wasted when people are hurting, IMO.

    Report Post » Rational Man  
  • DESKOCCUPANT
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:23pm

    Hooray for the wealthy who give to charity. So many do! What would happen without their philanthropy? I wish I made more so that I could give more. Even so, on 40K a year, we make a point to give to charity year after year. Thank God we have the health to work and are not laid off.

    Report Post » DESKOCCUPANT  
    • beebacksoon
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:30pm

      Oh, heaven forbid the 1 percenters continue to do what they’ve always done…donate to some; and provide jobs to others.

      Report Post »  
  • Redistributor
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:17pm

    These donors know how to play the system. They donate all that money to schools and don’t think for a second they are not getting a return on their investment. When they want something development or researched…guess where the money comes for that. Taxes. When whatever is developed, guess where the business goes to make whatever it is that was research/developed? You guessed it…the donors.

    Report Post »  
    • ninja
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:11pm

      Let’s make it illegal to contribute to Universities then.

      Report Post »  
  • Cuthalu
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:07pm

    Chances are, probably most if not all of those donations were not that acts of chairity it is being protrayed as. The reason why? Tax deductions. When people “give”to charities and the like then turn around and get the money back on their tax return, that is not giving if you are getting it all back. As christians we do not need that crutch, we SHOULD be giving and not expecting it returned to us. That is not the bigger issue I have with the tax deduction. The bigger problem is the fact progressives use it to finance all their pet projects in the guise of charity, turn around and get a tax deduction that WE end up paying for. So in essence, they are using our own money against us. Using our tax money to fund programs to dismantle to US, the constitution and help bring in their socialist “utopia”.

    Report Post »  
  • Mess23
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:04pm

    I am not a 1 percenter and I am not a 99 percenter, I think I am of the 53% that WORKS and PAYS TAXES. Oh, and I gave to charity too. Giving people a hand up.

    Report Post »  
  • COFemale
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:13pm

    I guess “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” does not resonate with everyone.

    Even though I am technically unemployed; working only part-time, I still managed to donate money every month to Compassion International to keep sponsoring my child in India. I am not looking for accolades or kudos from anyone. I just wanted to point out even poor people donate money.

    Republicans give more money, Democrats only give up time.

    Report Post » COFemale  
  • Sicboy
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:02pm

    Don’t get all big headed now. While there’s no doubt America, primarely Conservatives give to charity more then anyone else. America as a whole is getting fatter. And greed runs rampant.

    Report Post » Sicboy  
  • RightThinking1
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:02pm

    I noticed that giving to local charities is up this year. My conclusion is that the truly charitable (those who consider it a personal responsibility rather than the government’s responsibility) are giving as much as they reasonably can in hard times.

    Report Post »  
  • gmoneytx
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:53pm

    And just think, those evil rich people with all the money giving some away to charity…

    Report Post » gmoneytx  
    • PRRedlin
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:02pm

      The great thing about people being rich in a FIAT currency is that they do not need to spend their money in order for society to continue to function. Under a FIAT currency, when wealth is horded towards the top, the issuer of currency (in our case, the federal reserve) can print more money to replace their funds in the monetary system. This was not the case under the gold standard, as there was limited amounts of money that could be issued based off of the amount gold held in reserves.

      The age old adage of “eat the rich” no longer holds standards as we are no longer under the gold standard. If we were under the gold standard, then it would make sense to tax the rich at much higher levels to return these funds to the middle and lower classes. As it stands now, every time the Federal Reserve prints money, rather than decreasing the value of your dollar, it decreases the value of “their” dollar, by reducing the difference between the money they horde compared to the money that is available to the rest of society.

      This is why, however, if you do not choose to tax the rich higher, then you must be for expanded stimulus. To neither tax the rich, nor expand stimulus, results in a higher wealth differences between classes, which is what the Republicans have fought for since the Gold Standard was eliminated, unfortunately.

      Cheyney was correct in saying deficits do not matter under a FIAT currency system.

      Report Post »  
    • Komponist-ZAH
      Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:56am

      Pr—

      Please see:

      The Curse of Fiat Money
      by Thorsten Polleit
      http://mises.org/daily/4684
      ——————————————–
      “As it stands now, every time the Federal Reserve prints money, rather than decreasing the value of your dollar, it decreases the value of ‘their’ dollar, by reducing the difference between the money they horde compared to the money that is available to the rest of society.”

      Huh? What is this suppose to mean?
      a) Inflation decreases the value of everyone’s dollar, so it can’t “reduce the difference” between anything or anybody. If anything, fiat money negatively effects the poor and middle classes *more* than the rich.
      b) Do you mean “the money they gather together, move, or live in a large crowd or mass”, or “the money they live together in a nomadic group”?

      Report Post »  
  • Therightsofbilly
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:48pm

    Imagine that

    Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:51pm

      Imagine how much would be given if they had more of their own money left over to give?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Eleutheria
      Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:44pm

      My family is barely in the top 50% and we give throughout the year with added charity through the holidays and around tax time.

      Report Post » Eleutheria  
  • Jackie Rogers, Jr.
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:48pm

    I am pleased to announce the creation of the Jackie Rogers, Jr. income tax endowment. Donations accepted until April 15th.

    Report Post » Jackie Rogers, Jr.  
  • SREGN
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:48pm

    Be interesting to see what percent those on entitlement programs give. Should be more, right, considering its not their money they’re giving to charity.

    Report Post »  
  • hersey10
    Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:45pm

    Those evil bastards !!

    Report Post » hersey10  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love