blog banner
Why the Rich Don’t Give to Charity

Why the Rich Don’t Give to Charity

sis of your story from the atlantic there were apparently uh… fourteen charitable gifts that topped one hundred
million in the last year showered with attention hundred fifty
million from carl icahn to mount sinai school of medicine one twenty five from phil knight to the
organ health and science university three hundred from paul allen to the alan institute for brain science
in seattle marty sass come in endow the more mortimer b zuckerman mind
brain behavior institute and as such ken starr and writes you’d be forgiven for thinking the story
of charity this country’s history of abit generosity and the part of the american rich however twenty eleven the wealthiest americans those with
earnings at the top twenty percent contributed on average one point three
percent of their income to charity by comparison americans at the base of the income
pyramid those in the bottom twenty percent joe dated three point two percent of
their income and keep in mind folks that are like a middle-class and wealthy
donors people living in the bottom twenty
percent of the income spectrum in this country really more last to not get tax
deductions you know i don’t know as their
deductions on their income tax returns why is this some experts have as speculated that we we don’t know i obviously there’s really no specific way but some
experts have been speculate according to this piece that wealthy people just in the main are less generous that deep personal drive to accumulate
wealth may be inconsistent with the idea of communal support it was a report by paul half a
psychologist at u_c_ berkeley shut the research that said that while correlated correlated without unethical behavior quote from pulpit while having money
does msn i make anybody anything he said to new york magazine the rich
are away more likely to prioritize their own self-interest above the interests of
other people they are a quote more likely to exhibit characteristics
that we would start out typically associate with saying a holes he actually uses the entire work last year now one of the top fifty
individual charity charitable gifts the biggest fifty charitable gifts in the country
not one of them went to a surly social service
organization or your charity that principally serve
the poor dispossessed think about that patrick rooney beginning at the indiana
university sis cool felicity said that greater exposure to identify
identification of the challenges bt basic needs they create higher empathy among
lower-income donors not words the rats live in such a bubble that they think at the biggest needs for charity or the most ethically they can feel are with like the needs of co helping with higher education i’ve gotta get my money to the elite
institutions of higher education to help them continue line and or i want the elite of our society to pass through doors buying game about it that’s basically what it comes down to i
think i can build the big building like
trumpet or i can have ticket donate the money to university or
to a medical institute and have people go in and out people who are specifically going to be creating other things in
society other institutions so they can perceive medium migrate greider two guests well the people who live in homogeneous
lee affluent areas areas were more than forty percent of
households are get least two hundred thousand a year were less generous in comparably wealthy people who lived in more economically diverse
surroundings so there you have it out

  • That isn't really true.

    It's very multi faceted.

    Due to the wealth disparity, someone rich can give 0.1% of their wealth and the same amount would take over 100000 normal people to match.

    This while, nouveau riche (that usualy were poor at one point or another) of the flavor of artists, athletes, celebs, etc, give less, waste more, yet they do often work for charities in their careers.

    It's no use to brand them the same. There are some charitable rich. Buffet and Gates being great examples.

  • I just want a nice house and a hot wife. You can take millionaires at 60% if you want, even if I'm one of them.

  • I dont know why all of this is a suprise to Seder. You dont need statistics to understand all this stuff. If you are on the extremes of the spectrum when it comes to fight for survival and you are rich, you tend to be to removed from the rat race to understand the collective wellbeing and good. That is because everyone is not necessary. if YOU were necessary to that person survival, they would care if you survived or not. Fundamental principle of nature!

  • 1% of the wealth from the wealthies Americans is a lot of money. I think they should donate more, but it's their money and they should choose what they want to do with it. Just like everyone else.

  • Yes? And?

    I didn't see the point in me giving examples of the kind of rich, people that watch Sam more then likely know all to well.

    I however won't have it said that all of them are like that.

    That's just as bad as all the generalizations made by racists, religious people and right wingers that pretend everyone with less then them is lazy.

    I'd hope that for most, the point of being progressive is to have thought trough ideology, not diametrically opposed yet equally impertinent drivel.

  • They don't give in the way we know it, they invest. Either for prestige, or a return for their own families or tax brakes. I'm curious to learn if there is a correlation between 2 and 3rd generational rich giving, and newly wealthy giving, what they give, and how they give it.

  • or when the time comes the gatekeepers of said elite institutions will accept my bratty ass self entitled offspring when the time comes for enrollment

  • Except they can use their money to lobby government to make laws that takes more money away from and gives it to them. You know the 30 richest guys could eradicate 3rd world debt? All those people living miserable lives so half a bus full of people can compare who has the most money they'll never be able to spend. You think that's better and more moral than lining 30 guys up against a wall, shooting them and ending 3rd world debt? Any apologist for the rich is culpable for their crimes.

  • Speaking ill of rich people is akin to racism? That's absurd. If very wealthy people feel like they're so downtrodden and unfairly vilified, they can solve that problem easily by giving away their fabulous riches. Either that or comfort themselves by buying something fancy and remembering that all of western civilization has been designed to make them happy, oftentimes on the backs of millions of *actually* disadvantaged people.

  • If they have a huge amount of money to spare (some of these people are billionaires who couldn't spend all of their money if they tried), they should give a *higher* percentage of their income away than poor people, not lower. 3% of a poor person's money is sometimes the difference between having a place to sleep and living on the streets. For a rich person, it's driving the Bugatti you already have for another year instead of getting a new one.

  • but a libertarian will tell you that the fact that we have some taxes and market regulation somehow makes it so the rich don't donate.

    if we had no taxes and no market regulation, suddently the rich people will start caring and they will donate enough money to private charity that all of the world's problems will be solved (at least to the extent that they can be solved)

    which makes sense… but only if you are a libertarian

  • except that nobody says that. we just think that if you want to help someone, you should do it with your own money

  • You're right, it is a shame that some of those people who are extremely wealthy do that. However, it would also be a crime to force them to donate more to charity. Anyone should have the right to choose how much money they spend or give away.

  • It fascinates me (and kind of horrifies me, to be honest) that in US you calculate your own taxes. Over here in Finland we just get a letter from the Gov. telling us: this is what we calculated your taxes should be, is this OK with you? If not, please correct us with this form included. And you don't even have to use the form, you can do that online now. Our system just seems *SO* much better than what you have over there. I can't imagine the shit creek I'd be in if I lived over there.

  • No, they got rich by providing society with a good or service at a better price than anyone else. You literally cannot get rich any other way.

  • "…not one of the top 50 individual charitable gifts went to a social service organization or to a charity that principally served the poor or dispossessed."
    Good. I'd rather see the money go to science, education, etc. – stuff that benefits EVERYONE, especially the middle class. There are enough programs for JUST the poor already (food stamps, WIC, Section 8, Pell grants, etc.)

  • Are you an idiot?
    There are *plenty* of ways to get rich that do not fit that description.
    Hell, there are whole *systems* of wealth generation for the rich that do nothing but parasitically draw wealth from the system with *no* value added.
    If you are unaware of this, you are *very* fucking uneducated.

  • man, Sams voice does not sound healthy. You should stay home and rest. Colds spread via airborne infection. You also will not recover quicker, if you start too fast again with working. Quick recovery to Sam!

    And yeah, rich people are often assholes. That is why they got rich, because they screwed somebody and ignore other people's poverty. Typical behavior is also: They look down on poor people and compare themselves to richer folks.

  • Ever heard of mutual aid societies? Those used to provide even the homeless with health care before government got involved.

  • and liberal retards believe stealing income from their fellow working man to feed welfare scum will solve all of societies ill. Strawmen are fun aren't they libtard?

  • There is no point arguing with these idiots. Governments generate zero wealth and these morons are just mad they'll never make more than what they can steal through taxation. Fuck them all, and ship them out to the USSR if you ask me.

  • And libertarians call social security a ponzi scheme just so they can pass off privatization as a 'solution' for the sole purpose of funneling our tax dollars into the hands of a chosen few, a chosen plutocratic few who just so happen to give block grants to libertarian think tanks. See? I can do this too!

  • Who said anything about mass privatization? If you are retarded enough to give your money to some un-elected bureaucrat fuckwit, go right on ahead, but you idiots and your idol FDR made it mandatory for all Americans to have their money stolen to this Ponzi scheme. I don't give a fuck what you do with your money, if you want to give it to some suit in Washington good luck with that shit. We just want the option to keep our property for ourselves. Its called voluntarism. Look it up sometime.

  • Also dude, you're the ones on trial here, not us! If you libertarians are gonna pass off private charity as a solution, you'd better be ready to explain yourselves when it doesn't. Historically, it didn't do what you people said it would in any instance.

    Still waiting on that explanation…… Any century now will be fine.

  • Living in an echo chamber must be great for you libtards. What makes you think that the grassroots Libertarian such as myself actually gives a fuck about the "1"% or whatever scapegoating ad lib you call those evil "300" people. How fucking idiotic do you have to be to disagree with something as basic as keeping the money you earn? This has nothing to do with Fox news, dem evil corporationz, or Ron Paul's nutsack.

  • You're replying to the wrong guy, as I disagree quite a lot.
    Without government spending your hard earned tax dollars you wouldn't have the internet to bitch about how shit the government is.
    Government spending *always* generates a portion of GDP, this is inarguable, and western countries RELY on it (protectionism, subsidies, infrastructure etc)
    Also, without those tax dollars, the government wouldn't have been able to fight the cold war and you'd be under soviet rule right now.

  • Volunteerism?

    Sigh….Another instance of libertarians using logocide for the sake of poisoning our cultural vernicular. Nothing new to see here folks….

  • Read the pixels on your screen shit for brains. I don't care what they, or you, or John Travolta's ball greaser does with the property they earn. If anything the precedent we set for SS when it collapses will be one for future generations who will grow up in this impoverished nation, that trusting their income to the chains of bureaucrats who siphon the SS funds for war proved that Liberalism was not the path for them to tread.

  • "Who said anything about mass privatization?"

    You all say shit about privatization being the answer to everything all the fucking time! When I was a member of the Libertarian Party, that's all I ever heard from you Von Mises worshiping fruitbowls!

  • A lot of us dislike Mises for that very reason, but once again had you read my maxim on letting people do what they want with their income it'd probably make more sense. But hey, keep letting the government steal money from working people like you and me to build bases overseas, fund baby mommas shitting out their kids, paying for some Mexican's college, and useless state parks. Your system is collapsing around our very eyes. This is fact not fiction.

  • First off it's "Vernacular", secondly logocide is not a term I'm aware of, and thirdly I have no shared culture with you or anyone else here. Try again.

  • And who usually does the siphoning for SS funds into wars?

    Answer: 9 times out of 10 it's gonna be a GOPer who worships Fredrick Heyek as much as you Terry Nicholes candle-light vigil holding Libertardians! The only difference between conservatives and libertardians are the stances on social issues that the co-opt and use as window dressing to grandfather converts into their Austrian School quackery!

  • Of course you don't. Many libertarians don't even acknowledge the very existence of society but you sure love to take words and inject your worldveiw's poison into them, twisting their meanings. You do this under the false premise that you libertarians have a monopoly on certain things. As a former libertarian, I've dealt with enough of you. I was part of the cult too…

  • I think that's a fundamental disconnect right there. We fully acknowledge society, what we don't acknowledge is the inherent evil and coercion of the state that makes society far less desirable than it ought (normative statement) ought to be. People buy products, people share ideas, governments restrict, destroy, and do not innovate. Society=good Massive government=bad.

  • You keep spouting this anarchocapitalist drivel but all I'm hearing is "I'm a selfish little narcassistic twat! I read Ayn Rand when I was 16 and it told me everything I wanted to hear and believe! It vendicated my immature selfish teen behavior with positive reenforcement! I want govt off my back so I can crush the weak just like her idle Jeffery Dahmer did! Damn those do-gooder liberals and their traditional communitarian values!"

  • I don't worship the GOP, nor do I pretend that a gold standard, unlimited corporate power, and idealistic trust of corporations are good things. Fucking A, you people get all wound up when talking to someone that just wants to control their own lives and the money they make. How weird can you get!

  • I don't give a flying fuck about spelling! My spellcheck doesn't even work! I care about the fact that you are morally wrong on 75% of the issues!

  • No, we get worked up at a person retaining a worldveiw that is prime breeding grounds for a future potential moneyed plutocrat!

  • If you were a member of the Libertarian party, and assuming you believed in the precepts of voluntarism and non-interventionism, than wanting to become a "plutocrat" would be immaterial, now wouldn't it?

  • It does. The lack of charity results in poor people starving or dying of easily preventable diseases. What did you think they meant?

  • That 1% by the rich is still more than the 3% from the middle/lower class. The rich invest their money to grow the economy, progress society and essentially grow their profits. The fact is that if the rich make money society makes money. They are a-holes, much like a lot of people who get to the top in their profession. People like PhD holders, CEO's, even Seder. To make it to the top you have to have a different mind set to get there.

  • Inherit money from your parents.

    Steal money from shareholders.

    Get money by betting against the economy and then bankrupting the country.

    That's 3.

  • The rich invest their money to make more money. They don't care what happens to the economy as long as they make a buck. They even bet against the economy and make money when it crashes.

    They make money because people buy their products or services. That's it.

    No shit that 1% is more than that 3% from the middle/lower class. But it effects the poor far more to give 3% than the rich to give 1%. Not hard to figure that out but you gladly ignored it.

  • I'd add more, but I see you got flooded with replies already.
    I assure you, separating a sucker from his money had always been a legitimate way to get rich, and its why regulation has always been necessary.
    Regulation in history may have involved more retribution and murder than proactive prevention, but there's a reason the magna carta was signed, and it sure wasn't that the king was delighted to sign away his authority.

  • Keeping money you earn is good.
    But currently, money you earn is taxed at a higher rate than money you get given through dividends.
    Investment is apparently valued more highly than actual work.
    You libertardians just fail to look at the bigger picture, because you literally lack the empathy or the capacity to reason.

  • Old money used to believe in something called oblige noblesse.
    Basically, in less enlightened times rich people believed that they were lucky bastards, and had a responsibility to those less fortunate than themselves.
    Silly bastards, aye?
    Okay, sarcasm off, that system was shitty too, because often that sense of responsibility was expressed more as a mandate to look down on the plebs.
    At least it fundamentally acknowledged privilege, unlike new money and libertarianism.

  • I don't invest so that statement is meaningless to my individual life. You libtards believe theft is the only means of accumulating money, as the government generates jack shit in terms of income other than taxation. When it all comes crashing down you people will be the ones to be blamed. In a just world, modern libtards would be hung drawn and quartered for destroying the US.

  • ?
    Are you *really* this stupid, or are you just trolling.
    You're a libertarian, except anyone that doesn't agree with you should be murdered.
    Great ideology you have there.
    Just look up *actual* economic history.
    All those "good times" we've had, they involved government spending and taxation.
    Lowering taxes and deregulation… not such a positive effect.
    You want to see how a real free market works, look at *anywhere* without competent governance.
    What you'll see is poverty and exploitation.

  • The rich invest money to make more money. If the economy does well then they do well. At the same time if the economy is bad then they will have the ability to make money. We have to get the economy better that the rich will want to invest in so everyone wins, not just the select few.

  • I'm in agreement about the inheritance part and the people who commit fraud/cons. When I made my comment I was referring to people who made the money themselves and legally, not trust fund babies or criminals.

  • So I have a question for you. If Romney hadn't bought those companies and gutted them, they would have failed (as you said) and all of the employees would have lost their jobs. So do you see no value in firing half the employees (but retaining the other half) and keeping the company alive, as opposed to just letting the entire thing fail?
    I'm genuinely curious and want a real discussion – maybe you support a government "bailout" program as opposed to private equity buyouts?

  • The rich do well at all times, even during bad economies. Like in this one where they are the only ones to be gaining from this recession and supposed improvement in economy.

    It reminds me of the rich man, forget his name but I should know it, invested against the british pound and I think helped it to crash or something. I think its enough to give you the idea. He came out rich while the ship sank.

  • That wasn't the point you were making.
    You were ADAMANT that those rich people deserve everything they have, despite a *tiny* minority being self made and *even less* not having committed criminal acts to attain that wealth.
    We all agree that people that work hard and produce things deserve what they make, right wingers just like to paint left wingers as scroungers and thieves, especially with comments like "tax is robbery"

  • Do you have any data on that? According to a study by Dr. T. Stanley and Prof. W. Danko, only 19% of America's millionaires have ever received wealth of any kind from a trust fund or estate. In fact, over 50% never even received $1 in inheritance.
    I just did a quick Google search and found another study by Fidelity, which found that 86% are "self made".
    Are you contradicting these sources and asserting that only a "tiny fraction" are law-abiding and self-made? Let's see the data.

  • Poor people have more heart and love …we are in the struggle together….when asks to 300 people who would you save a rich baby or he poor kid? poor people said they would try to save both 98% of the time 2 % said the baby …the rich said the baby 99% of the time !one percent said hey could both die ……whats that say

  • According to Forbes Warren Buffet is "self made"
    This is despite being the son of a politician, investor and businessman.
    His FATHER was self made, being the son of a store owner.
    But even then, he was the son of a successful person.
    It's still generational. Building upon the success of your parents.
    "self made" is largely a misnomer, as nobody is an island, but if we just agree to "from a poor/middle class background" the numbers are WAY smaller than you give.

  • Bill Gates? Son of a successful laywer.
    Steve Jobs? Now there's a legit self made man.
    Also happened to be a genius, so not exactly an ordinary case.
    And these are rich folks I actually like.
    Honestly, don't discount the advantages (and disadvantages) granted by birth, not simply dismiss those advantages because they aren't an inheritance or trust fund.
    It's also a little disingenuous to include simple "millionaires" that barely hit the top % of the country.

  • Many of them make money off of the economy doing bad.

    The Rich only invest if they want to. They'd rather pay for cheap labor than actually pay a living wage.

    That doesn't benefit anyone but their own selfish, parasitic needs.

  • You can be born rich. You can invest. You can be a criminal… You can be a banker(money laundering)

    You go into the actual workforce, you get less than those who sit in offices.

  • No wonder Jesus said "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle…" but don't say that to republicans

  • "despite a *tiny* minority being self made and *even less* not having committed criminal acts to attain that wealth."

    Could you provide proof of this?

  • "Lowering taxes and deregulation… not such a positive effect."

    It had a positive effect during Wirtschaftswunder, during the Kennedy administration, and in the 90's with the capital gains tax reduction.

    "You want to see how a real free market works, look at *anywhere* without competent governance.'

    Could you provide examples of such poor governance and why they are considered free markets?

  • There are no ways to get rich beyond providing a product or service that commands demand though lower pricing or higher quality. There are whole systems of wealth generation for the rich that couldn't work before they got rich. The rich can use shenanigans to get richer, but you can't use shenanigans to get rich in the first place. If you are unaware of this, I'm not surprised.

  • Hmm… let's see… A family of four earning less than 30 grand per year can expect $4,000 to $6,000 in free money from tax credits every spring. So since they were given 20% of their income as charity, it doesn't seem like a lot to kick back 3.2%. The rich, on the other hand give about 62% of their income to charity through taxes. "But even the rich only pay about 38%!" That's just Federal, folks. The State takes their share, plus the city charges property taxes, and there's FICA and Medicare.

  • Are you an idiot?
    If you don't believe criminal behaviour can reward individuals with massive wealth, you need to read a paper.

  • You really are an idiot.
    The fact you believe this makes you VERY fucking naive.
    Freud alone can net individuals a lot of money. Look at the finance sector, not many people in jail there, and they got money for DEEPLY criminal behaviour, like treason and money laundering.
    Or how about hip hop music.
    Lot of money there, and you cant say there was no criminal enterprise.
    The fact you cant see these things makes EVERY opinion about money and economics fucking pointless, as you dont live in reality.

  • You're too young to understand how money grows, or simply too poorly educated. The rich get rich slowly, and those who try to get rich quickly fail. Fraud only works when you've got startup capital that can be leveraged against, regardless of the scheme. You're living in some sort of conspiracy world of delusion. Get some years under your belt and look again then.

  • You're equating ONE way of getting rich with "the only way"
    ie: you're an idiot.
    I'm not being conspiratorial, I'm being rational.
    Also, you're redrawing the argument if you want to discount the ways in which already wealthy people make money that doesn't fit your virtuous paradigm.
    I deal with reality, you pick which information fits your ideology.
    As a note: I don't despise wealth, I'm a royalist, and I like gates and buffet in as much as I know them.

  • Really buddy, you act as if all the Democrats are just good old working joes…..get a clue. The Kennedy's??? That ring a bell? The Kerry's and his wife's ketchup dynasty? I think Joe Biden is rich as hell. Even Obama is worth a few million, all those guys in Washington are loaded. Republicans aren't any richer, actually I think somebody actually figured the combined net worth of the parties and Democrats were wealthier.

  • Ummm………I'm sorry but I think there's some serious issues with your numbers here. You can't tell me that the "poorest" people gave 3.2% because I know poor people, plently of them (I live in Appalachia) and they don't give shit to anybody. They won't hardly give you a food stamp bought Mountain Dew….not to sound cold, not even blaming them either, it's just the truth. So what do you mean, the poorest rich people? People in the lowest 20% don't pay taxes btw, they get awesome refunds.

  • I don't believe for a second that the poorest 20% give 3.2% of thier income to charity. I'm sorry, I think there's some BS going on here. I know poor people, I live amongst them, I've been one……..I'm not far from it now. People struggeling with no disposable income don't throw much in for charity. That's 3.2 dollars of every hundred, 32 of every thousand……BULL CRAP.

  • I've watched a couple of these thoughtless rants now. I would say that SamSeder is intellectually dishonest, but I don't think he's an "intellectual" at all. You guys just seem like little boys that don't know anything other than what little you've picked up from your goofy professor. I don't even know how I ended up here. Oh yeah, I was checking out that story about Mitch McConnell and the Ashley Judd video. You guys need a few years of "real world" experience.

  • It's almost as if rich people are rich because they don't give two shits about the lazy poor who aren't lifting themselves out of poverty by their bootstraps!

    Rich people often do hate the poor.

  • I'm not especially articulate or well educated. But I know right from wrong. If you are a multi millionaire/billionaire how can you, in good conscience, not give to charity? Who REALLY, really needs a billionaire dollars in the bank? How many houses/cars/jets/yachts/etc does one person/family need? When is enough really enough? Why do billionaires (for example) keep working to accumulate even MORE money?

  • Why, for example, are celebrities/sports stars/chat show hosts paid millions of dollars to do what they do? How can playing make believe, kicking/hitting a ball or chatting to someone demand such high salaries? How can a sports star (for example) make more than a surgeon? Why is society set up to give so few so much & so many so little? When will average people say enough! We are sick of the greedy 1% taking/earning so much more than everyone else!

  • A lot of them do donate to charity. Look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Two of the richest men in the world and they give BILLIONS away. I get annoyed when middle class people bitch about rich people not donating to charity. Have YOU donated to charity? You don't need millions/billions to help out.

    It's easy to say this stuff if you aren't rich like them, but if you were rich then you'd be the same way. Of course you'll deny it, but you don't know what you'd do unless you were rich.

  • If u read about rich fam & kids they train their kids that nobody is worthy but u!! Duh rich bitch have u fuckes heat, next life they will be a begged

  • Percentages r VERY misleading. 1.3% of a billion dollars/year would b 13 million dollars in donations. 3.2% of my low income ($710/month) would b $272.64 of the course of a year.

  • The rich do give to charity stupid.  Americans and especially America's top 1% of wage earners give more than any other country in the world, more than almost every other country added together.  
    1.3% of the top 20% earners is vastly more than 3.2% of the poorest.  Think of the other 1.9% you rant against as money being invested into businesses to employ the working poor dumb-ass.  The top 20% also pay a vastly larger percentage of their wages in taxes, a large chunk of which is used for entitlements for the poor, making the rich much larger givers by proxy than the poor.  The poor generally get back more money on their tax returns than they even pay in.  They are further subsidized in this way.
    Do a little research before claiming that wealthy Americans are not generous.  They are factually the most generous people in the world.  You are nothing but a low life hack.

  • Most rich people live in a bubble and don't give a shit about the poor. They will be in for a big shock when the bubble pops and they are on the street with the rest of us. By being so greedy they are the ones to blame for the financial collapse that is looming.

  • rich people give only to please the irs, they get most of their donated money back, trust me they give money but its calculated unlike the poor who  can relate to the struggle and dont usually claim donations on taxes. rich people fear being broke which causes them to be stingy and develop a third eye to watch their money. poor people on the other hand dont even fear identity theft, i mean if my credit score is low and i dont have cash in the bank, i doubt a criminal would want to risk jail time for an identity that cant even buy a phone let alone a car or house.

  • This is SO NOT TRUE. Wealthy people are wealthy because they work hard and strive to educate themselves. They work extremely hard. Handing people money, does NOT HELP people!!! IT teaches them to receive for that which they did not work for. THAT is why the wealthy don't give. I learned this lesson hard when I asked for money for a down payment on a house, and got rejected by someone extremely wealthy. I was bitter for a little while, until I asked him why. He said he knew I would be able to do it on my own. now I am SO grateful he did that!!! I was able to be creative and earned my down payment and bought the home. It has been excruciatingly hard. I now know much greater, how to work and be creative in order to accomplish a goal that I thought (at first) was impossible. Poor people are not poor because of their circumstances. Poor people are poor because they do not educate themselves. Education is FREE. I go to the library often and I study books on how to be financially successful often. I research YouTube relentlessly, and I always pick the brain of those who have created their own wealth. Being poor is a choice, and can only be overcome through education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *