Survey: Atlanta ranks No. 4 in charitable giving

Atlanta is the fourth most charitable city, according to a new survey by The Daily Beast news website.

Seattle placed first, followed by San Francisco and Kansas City, the Daily Beast said.

To rank the 25 most charitable cities, the Daily Beast said it took a three-pronged approach. It used data on foundations, saying that’s the preferred way for the wealthy to give. It also used tax data to find out where households donate the most per year. Finally, it looked at which cities have the most yearly volunteers per capita.

For Atlanta, the Daily Beast released the following figures:

Percentage of earnings donated: 4.5 percent

Average household income: $86,367

Giving per foundation: $706,796

Annual volunteers: 1.1 million

Population that volunteers: 20.1 percent

Top 10 Most Charitable Cities

1. Seattle

2. San Francisco

3. Kansas City

4. Atlanta

5. Dallas

6. Minneapolis-St. Paul

7. Portland

8. Washington, D.C.

9. Houston

10. Denver

- Henry Unger, The Biz Beat

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.

22 comments Add your comment

RambleOn84

December 9th, 2010
8:02 am

I object to the fact that foundations are used in this data, as foundations are essentially used as a way for the mega-rich to skip paying taxes. The “charitable donations” that come as a result of not paying the taxes put into the foundations are merely a drop in the bucket.

RambleOn84

December 9th, 2010
8:04 am

Luke 20:45-21:4

[45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”

[21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. [3] “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

to RambleOn84

December 9th, 2010
8:19 am

Mr Ramble on, do you really think the rich give only for a tax break? if you do, do you have any idea how tax brackets and donations work? do you know how foundations work?

please do explain to us

TnGelding

December 9th, 2010
8:21 am

No doubt Bill Gates and Microsoft are responsible for Seattle being number one, and the Cox family and all the Coke money probably make ATL #4. Capt. Outrageous might figure in there, too. Buffettt and his cronies have K.C. #3?

Give until it hurts. If it doesn’t you haven’t given enough. And very few of us are that charitable, myself included.

What so many need is time and understanding, a little comraderie when they’re down and out.

RambleOn84

December 9th, 2010
8:34 am

Nope, I am dumb. You explain it to me. I’d like references as well, please.

RambleOn84

December 9th, 2010
8:40 am

It should also matter as to which charities are being donated to…Bill Gates, for example, donates a ton of money to abortion funds (Planned Parenthood). Wow, how nice of you, Bill…giving out of your own paycheck to ensure that little babies don’t breathe your precious air.

Born CHI Love ATL

December 9th, 2010
8:56 am

Atlanta is well known for having tremendous volunteer efforts.

Tom

December 9th, 2010
9:17 am

Georiga corners the market on gimmicks to write off hobbys. Own a horse, a plane? Georgia CPAs will suggest you ride a poor inter-city kid around, or and write off the entire cost of your hobby, as charitable contributions. Some of these hobbyst even get volunteers to the do the dirty work, while the owners “work” the well heeled for support, and city councils for favorable treatments.

Talliwacker

December 9th, 2010
9:23 am

@Tn

Buffett is in Omaha, not KC.

HTH

December 9th, 2010
9:23 am

I don’t think there is anything wrong with standing near a Target. With a kettle and a big red Salvation Army emblem. Wal-mart I don’t think will let you do that. I could be wrong. There are needy people everywhere.

I would not do this myself. However I have delivered food to the needy on Thanksgiving. Nutricious food. We also. May I remind we you need to encourage giving behavior. May I remind you Christmas itself. Is an example of giving and recieving.

RambleOn84

December 9th, 2010
9:29 am

It always feels better to give than to receive. And I know that there are plenty of very wealthy people who are very generous.

But there are also many very wealthy people who use foundations as a means to bypass the tax code.

Ron

December 9th, 2010
9:35 am

I honestly believe that regardless which cities had been in the top ten there would still be a lot of negative comments . Many may feel guilty that they don’t give or contribute to charity themselves?

Keith

December 9th, 2010
10:36 am

@RambleOn84… How can you judge the motives of someone’s giving? As a Christian, and I’m assuming claim to be one from your posts, you should assume the best in people.

Under your assumptions about “the wealthy” it would be fair for me to assume that, you too, are deducting and itemizing your tax return when you get your annual giving statement from your church. Is a Christian then not benefiting from a tax deduction because of their giving to a ministry? And to what did they give the money? To keep the lights on at a building most people don’t want to enter, to pay the mortgage for a building the congregation could not afford, and to pay salaries of people who work for the charity. Very little church money leaves the building. So, now let’s talk about motives and skepticism!

RambleOn84

December 9th, 2010
10:47 am

You assume that being a Christian is synonymous with working for a church.

You also assume that the paltry tax write-offs one takes when donating to the poor (like I do to the Salvation Army, Battered Women’s Sheleter, etc.) are comparable to those that the mega-rich take when they set up foundations to hide their earnings and give only a paltry amount to a charity of their choosing (in Bill Gates’ case, a large amount DOES go to Planned Parenthood).

I’m not trying to be too sanctimonious here, but it’s not even close to compare average people who give to charity and some of these billionaires who set up “charitable foundations.”

HTH

December 9th, 2010
11:19 am

I believe in nutricous food for poor people. It does not matter where it comes from or who serves it. Many poor people suffer from a lack of a hot warm meal. Filled with vitamins and the things they lack in their daily food. I give praise to the school systems for giving hot warm nutricious meals to their student bodies.

In additon I am sure Mr. Gates and many of the wealthy people believe in good meals for the impoverished. Mr. Hosea Williams gave away great big turkeys with cranberry sauce and pumpkin pie. At a warehouse where people would come from miles around. Just so sample the thanksgiving goodness that people exhibited. I think we should continue this astonishing acheivement. Of good will, giving and love of humanity. That we all need so dearly

Kitty Conrad

December 9th, 2010
11:25 am

RambleOn84: There is an enormous benefit to a wide range of people who benefit from these foundations you skewer. The donors do not bypass the tax code. They follow the tax code. They do not hide their earnings; they make their earnings public. They’ve already earned enough and decide to let charity have the rest. Rich people are subject to the same contributions limits you are. They set up foundations so that charity will get more than wold be allowed if the money is left in the hands of the taxpayer instead of the foundation. If you think there’s something wrong with this picture, you need to skewer congress, which writes tax law. But you should brush up on the mechanics of the foundation transactions first. An example: Warren Buffet, one of the few to go public with the skeleton of his own tax return, has donated more to charity than he can take tax deductions for, because his deductions are limited to a percentage of adjusted gross income (just like yours are limited). He has large contributions carryovers that expire (five-year carryover period). If anything, he gets a smaller benefit than you do, in terms of taxable income sheltered. The foundation, in turn, is required to distribute a certain amount of its money each year to charitable purposes, if it wants to remain charitable under the tax code.

If you don’t like the organizations that fit the definition of charitable, that again is something you should take up with congress. In my opinion, if Bill Gates has earned 50 zillion dollars and wants to donate part of that to Planned Parenthood, that’s his business.

RambleOn84

December 9th, 2010
11:45 am

You’re right, it is his business. And it is my business what I consider to be “charitable.” I don’t consider giving money to a group that kills fetuses a charity, and that’s my opinion. You’re certainly entitled to your own.

Kitty Conrad

December 9th, 2010
11:54 am

But if you want to accomplish anything other than incite ill will here, take your complaint to congress. Congress could change it; we can’t.

JD

December 9th, 2010
12:31 pm

Rambleon84 – would you prefer that the wealthy not give their money away? You do realize, under the best of circumstances, they get a 50% tax credit for each dollar they spend. So, that’s an immediate 50% “loss.” Even that credit phases out quickly. So, the ultra wealthy do not give to simply avoid taxes.

Frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Why don’t you be thankful they give and stop looking for an agenda.

Kitty Conrad

December 9th, 2010
12:42 pm

JD: It’s not a credit. It’s worth less than a credit. It’s a deduction (that’s limited to 50% of their AGI). The highest federal tax rate currently is 35%, so it’s worth 35 cents on the dollar. You are absolutely correct that RambleOn84 has no clue other than he wants to complain.

HTH

December 9th, 2010
1:55 pm

Why kwibble over a few bucks? Or who gives. As long as they give. Children need nutrition. If the people that have money want to help. Then why not let them. Mr. Gates could be a Buddist. What does it matter. If he does not follow a prescribed way of thinking. He in his religion may believe in tax breaks and giving.

I am all for this if it means giving a child a hot nutricious meal.

TnGelding

December 9th, 2010
3:24 pm

Talliwacker

December 9th, 2010
9:23 am

True, I was thinking they were in the same state! Thanks for the correction.