Less Well-Off Donate Bigger Income Percentage

Wealthier people on average gave a lower percentage to charity in 2012 than they did in 2006, while the less affluent increased their giving. Cynthia Graber reports

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


America’s slowly crawling out of the great recession. On average, we're earning more. Researchers wondered how the increased income affected charitable giving. So they dove into IRS data from 2006 to 2012. They broke the data down by state, county, metropolitan area, and zip code. The results—180 billion philanthropic dollars in 2012—covered about 80 percent of individual donations to charity.

The investigators found that even though wealthier Americans, defined as those making more than $200,000 a year, were making more in 2012 than they did in 2006, they actually decreased their donations by an average of almost 5 percent.

Middle- and lower-income Americans, defined as people making less than $100,000 a year, increased their charitable giving by almost the same nearly 5 percent. This increase came despite the fact that that group was earning less, on average, than they had in 2006. The findings are in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Even though the wealthiest Americans have decreased their donations by percentage, they still gave more than four a half billion dollars more in 2012 than they did in 2006. That’s because the wealthiest Americans captured nearly all of the recession recovery. They’re doing more than a trillion dollars better than they did six years earlier, in a rare case of a rising tide lifting only some boats.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

Cynthia Graber is a print and radio journalist who covers science, technology, agriculture, and any other stories in the U.S. or abroad that catch her fancy. She's won a number of national awards for her radio documentaries, including the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award, and is the co-host of the food science podcast Gastropod. She was a Knight Science Journalism fellow at MIT.

More by Cynthia Graber

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe