Survey: States with more religious residents donate more to charity; wealthy Americans donate less than others

Saturday, February 20, 2016 by: PF Louis
Tags: charity donations, fundraising, cancer industry

---

(NaturalNews) The Washington Post decided to offer some lame information and speculation regarding charities and who donates the most. The Post focused on average citizen contributors instead of the charities themselves and found that the well-off don't contribute as much as folks who don't make as much.

The two annual household income levels that were compared were over $200,000 and under $100,000. The data for the Post's report came from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, a fundraising industry newspaper, which analyzed 2012 taxpayers' IRS data and census reports.

The Chronicle serves over 100,000 readers among fundraising groups with information that provides clues for more efficient methods of raising money and locating the deepest pockets.

The over 200K annual earners were reported as giving lower percentages of their incomes then the under 100K group. The percentage of upscale income donated for charities went down 4.6 percent from 2006 to 2012, while the percentage of under 100K income for charities went up 4.5 percent over the same period.

But the upscale income folks still donated $4.6 billion more during that six year period, hitting $77.5 billion in 2012. The Chronicle editor offered a major difference based on demographic portraits throughout the nation: Churchgoers give more. But there was no mention of a survey to collect numbers of churchgoers and where they lived.

Instead, Utah with its large Mormon population was cited as an example because its residents far and above had the highest percentages of income contributed to charities, while New England residents who don't attend church as much, according to the Chronicle editor. The overall percentage of giving among all income levels and regions remains the same as it has been, 3 percent.

Show me the money

But though the report gives an indication of different demographic and income levels, there is little mentioned of how many charities really relay most of the funds they collect toward the needy. Charitable organizations often use for profit telemarketing groups as fundraisers, sometimes paying for their services at a loss.

And sometimes some of those telemarketing fundraisers include felons, increasing the odds of credit card identity theft. Some charities tend to keep a lot of the money they raise without contracting telemarketing services or other for profit groups to raise funds.

Two suspects who exploit their non-profit status for living "high off the hog" are major cancer industry groups, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society (ACS). The ACS was created in 1913 by John D. Rockefeller, who gutted alternative medical schools and made sure that medicine was controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, of which he was becoming a major player.

The point is that both groups are raising money on the premise that a cancer cure is on the horizon, yet to be found, while helping create Big Pharma's illusion that they are the only ones working hard for a cure. Part of maintaining that illusion is destroying the hundreds of actual non-pharmaceutical cures that already exist.

Every dollar and every bit of energy, such as a run- or walk-for-the-cure Komen adventures, that goes into ACS and Komen coffers goes first to their administrative costs and comfortable quarters and then to pad their six-figure annual incomes, sometimes over a half-million per year.

The little that's left goes toward promoting scans and tests that often create cancer, with a bit going for the boys in the lab who are intent on making sure that whatever they find contributes to Big Pharma and the Cancer Industry's wealth.

Actually, the Cancer Industry needs cancer to seem incurable, at least by mainstream medicine, while maintaining the carrot on a stick of future hope. Big Pharma has no real solutions and never will.

And they have enough medical suckers from which they profit without needing charitable contributions.

So what do we call raising money for a non-product or investment without return? Can anyone spell Ponzi Scheme?

Sources for this article include

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://philanthropy.com

http://investmentwatchblog.com

http://www.naturalnews.com