Yes they do over 90% give to charity, probably close to 100%. 10% of the wealthiest Americans donate far more (about double) than the other 90%.
In real dollars, sure. %-wise, no they don't, with the rare exceptions of people like Gates. And that's an entirely different stratosphere of wealth. When you start talking 100+-worth millionaires and billionaires, you're way, way, way, way beyond the scope of someone making a few million.
They also do it to buy power. The Koch Foundation "charitably" gives to many universities, then influences the science departments in such universities to shy away from issues like AGCC. They charitably will back the research of a guy like Soon...it's self-serving, just like giving to a political candidate who promises to keep tax breaks in place saves them more money than it costs.
I'm not being completely cynical here and I'm no Ayn Randian for sure, but your perception of the beneficent wealthy class is not my experience at all. Sure, when you're old and worth hundreds of millions, you go put your name on a new library or building at the Groton School.
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Zuckerburg, Koch's and I haven't even started on the billionaires, then there's the millionaires. I don't know how giving to a church is a business arrangement, but it does not make up any where near most charitable money. And that money also goes to charity.
Many church's are most certainly business arrangements for participants, the two I specifically mentioned being the most obvious examples. Being part of the elite in such organizations opens massive business opportunities which would otherwise be denied. Same is true of 7th-day Adventists, who for years have brought up people from South America, convinced them that with God, they don't need money, then put them to work in their businesses for a fraction of what similarly skilled labor would cost.
Yeah, well I found a guy to run my charity for five dollars a month, so far we've generated 20 dollars. Maybe we should get the guy who generates hundreds of millions for the Red Cross.
Great for your charity - again, apples to oranges. Charlie Baker was pulling in a cool 2 million running the non-profit Harvard-Pilgrim. The head of NOW makes in excess of $500. You aren't going to give a million dollars to a local food pantry. I'm not saying good work can't be done, but again, apples and oranges grow on different trees.
This is just demagoguery. Do you have a link, what you're describing is a crime.
No, this is well-document truth.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9125446/rethink-giving-athlete-charities
I've seen it first-hand, and was offered such a deal, where my signatures would be assigned a value that would become tax-deductible. It was ridiculous. You can put a value on your time and deduct that, too.
So should he leave the money in the owners pocket?
Don't know that I ever said. Don't know what the heck you're talking about. The NFL has a hard cap. The more one player takes, the less is left to make a championship team.
