Sanders, according to some, is cheap with his charitable contributions. How about others?

[Nanjeanne]

https://slate.com/business/2019/04/beto-orourke-democratic-candidates-tax-returns-charitable-giving.html

Warren at the top with 5.5%

Next Inslee with 4.1

Then that cheapskate Bernie with only 3.4

Klobuchar gave 1.9

Gillibrand came in at 1.7

Harris at 1.4

Beto gave a whopping 0.3

You can read it also in Washington Post but it’s behind a firewall

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/04/16/daily-202-tax-returns-show-2020-candidates-gave-to-charity-but-not-a-ton/5cb4ab60a7a0a475985bd448/?utm_term=.cf7f9b48b14c

By contrast, Biden has given very little to charity but has increased his contributions once he became VP.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1

Personally I don’t really care about candidates charitable contributions as much as their policies to help Americans live a good life. But since some people were very focused on what Sanders didn’t give, a little perspective, I thought, was worthwhile.

[Snotcicles]

1. The hyper sensitivity to all things Sanders is pathetic. nt

[Shrek]

2. "Harris reported no charitable giving at all"

" . . . during her first three years as California’s attorney general."

[exboyfil]

3. You shouldn't get charity points for giving to those things that

enhance your lifestyle. One example is your local church. In general very little of the money goes to actually helping people outside of your congregation. Most of it is for entertainment, ceremony, counseling, fitness, and general social activities. Another example are foundations which ensure employment for idiot progeny for generations. If you are a politician your charitable activity can also be used as an extension of your campaigning (see Trump).

[oldsoftie]

8. What church do you got to? Entertainment, fitness??

The bulk or money donated to our church goes to fund feeding and clothing the poor & folks displaced by things like fires. Of course the bills also have to be paid.
I've never seen a church with a gym! Maybe some of the bigger ones

[exboyfil]

12. That is why the smaller churches are often better

My church has a massive organ, music (ie entertainment), a gym, etc. Take a look at the spending associated with many churches. Only a small portion makes it to assisting the poor. A lot of the resources are expended on college aged students of the middle class and higher as another example.

I am not saying that churches are bad, but you have to realistic about what charitable giving actually means. Paying the staff who give religious education to you and your kids, counseling to your family, and a religious ceremony that is often indistinguishable from a concert is really not feeding and caring for the poor.

[loyalsister]

13. "charity points"

That's a good way of describing the ridiculous tendency to give people credit for doing the most basic right thing.

Giving away a tax credit to people just because they donated extra money or items is like when people are commended for taking care of their own kids or aging family members.

[Skya Rhen]

4. Some argue that he should be giving more since his proposed policies ask other rich

people to generously share their wealth.

They say that he should set the example of sacrificing a significant portion of his earnings for the greater good of others.

That is the talk out there...

[Nanjeanne]

5. How absurd. It really is a R talking point that ppl should rely on charity rather than

policies that benefit Americans.

If that’s what “people” think I would question their reasoning.

[Snotcicles]

11. The "some say" "Thats the talk out there" crowd has arrived. nt

[MaryMagdaline]

6. What appears on tax returns is the amount of your deduction

If you generously give money away to friends and family in need, it’s not deductible. If you choose not to deduct, it doesn’t show up. I have to think there are some people who give money away and don’t hit Uncle Sam for the write-off. Politicians probably have to take the deduction so we can verify that they are actually giving to charity.

[WeekiWater]

7. It's a bit difficult to tell considering tax law. Individuals are allowed to "bundle"

charitable contributions and push them to future years. There is leeway in the time allowed to show charitable contributions. The one percent, like most of these people are, often shift them around from year to year dependent on how it will benefit them the most.

[oldsoftie]

9. "Trump at -39%...."

[Lancero]

10. Interesting how quick taxes have become inaccurate for charity...

...when his giving is held against other candidates.

Could Sanders be doing better? I'd say he - Along with every other candidate - certainly could. But the numbers don't exactly support the talking point de jour about him being a cheapstake.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Good for Warren. And I have nothing negative to say about the others n/t