By the looks of this property, Edwards not only chased many ambulances, he caught several of them. I guess being a personal injury slime has its advantages (obviously).

 

Now, now.

Apparently, there's some charitable index that I'm not aware of.

 

Exactly what percentage of his personal wealth should he expect to contribute to charity to be deemed worthy?

 

Let me check........

 

Yep....I still live in American, Land of Opportunity, where we are encouraged to make the most of ourselves....

 

Don't remember any stipulation that you have to be poor to fight for the rights and benefits of the poor....

Now, now.

:laugh: That didn't take long.

 

A personal injury lawyer helped us when my wife was in an accident with an uninsured driver. While there are some pretty slimy attorneys out there, I don't think they are in the majority. I blame the courts and the juries for our current tort lottery more than I blame the ambulance chasers.

Some, like Sister Treasa, take a vow of povertyy and live and work among the poor. Others, like John Edwards feel they can be more helpful through their successes in law practice and politics. Personally I think the Edwards approach reaches more people.

 

I think I have seen it all now.

Apparently, there's some charitable index that I'm not aware of.

 

Exactly what percentage of his personal wealth should he expect to contribute to charity to be deemed worthy?

 

Let me check........

 

Yep....I still live in American, Land of Opportunity, where we are encouraged to make the most of ourselves....

 

Don't remember any stipulation that you have to be poor to fight for the rights and benefits of the poor....

Well, let's see. My retired parents contribute about 12.5% of their retirement income to charitable causes and they are neither wealthy or proclaiming themselves to be the voice of the poor. So I think 15% would be a good number for Edwards. I'd even let him count pro-bono work.

Well, let's see. My retired parents contribute about 12.5% of their retirement income to charitable causes and they are neither wealthy or proclaiming themselves to be the voice of the poor. So I think 15% would be a good number for Edwards. I'd even let him count pro-bono work.

 

Does anyone have any idea of his percentage of giving vs. income?

:laugh: That didn't take long.

 

A personal injury lawyer helped us when my wife was in an accident with an uninsured driver. While there are some pretty slimy attorneys out there, I don't think they are in the majority. I blame the courts and the juries for our current tort lottery more than I blame the ambulance chasers.

 

And I'm not sure where the criticism of Edwards is derived. He apparently was a very, very accomplished trial lawyer. I know very little about his legal career and have not read his book on the issue. I do know that he had the case that set North Carolina's precedent for hospital liability for failure to give informed consent, and I recall a big case where he got a large judgment against the manufacturer of pool drain covers that had a product that basically sucked the insides out of a little girl who was like 10 or something, and the company had kept making these thing after having literally dozens of complaints filed against them.

 

I've heard the folks on my side of the aisle attempt to wax philosophic about how Edwards championed "junk science," but I have yet to read one credible article on the issue (that was knowledgable about law rather than speculation) or been pointed to even a single one of his cases where he did this. Perhaps some of the learned students of jurisprudence on this board could enlighten me.

Does anyone have any idea of his percentage of giving vs. income?

Best I can come up with is his income.

Best I can come up with is his income.

 

So, it's conceivable that he already contributes the figure you named or more?

 

Conversely, he may contribute less.

 

However, one thing we DO know is he does contribute to charitable organizations.

So, it's conceivable that he already contributes the figure you named or more?

 

Conversely, he may contribute less.

 

However, one thing we DO know is he does contribute to charitable organizations.

It puts more money in his own pockets too.

 

I don't care what kind of house a politician lives in. But if a candidate is claiming to help the poor, I'd like to see it come out of his pocketbook in the form of charity. I don't know if that's the case with Edwards or not.

All I know is that in 2000 and 2001, his total itemized deductions amounted less than 12% his income. Typically, someone in his tax bracket would have a itemzed deduction just for taxes of 6-8%. Based on that, in those two years he donated at most, 6% of his income.

While this may be dismissmed as improbable, it is possible he doesn't take a tax deduction for all of his charitable giving, correct?

I could care less how much Edwards gives to charity or how many square feet he has in his home. However, I pretty sure that he could be quite comfortable in a 14,000 sq ft. compound as well. It does seem a bit excessive, but to each his own. He probably does much more charitable work than I would ever be able to, however, comparrisons to Mother Teresa are laughable at best.

While this may be dismissmed as improbable, it is possible he doesn't take a tax deduction for all of his charitable giving, correct?

 

Lets not be naive. The wealthy didn't get that way on accident.

 

Again I could care less as to what % of his income is given to charity, considering his income and other obligations for his time it's doubtful that he prepares his own taxes. Wouldn't his accountant have a fiduciary duty to see that all availalble deductions are taken?

Lets not be naive. The wealthy didn't get that way on accident.

 

Again I could care less as to what % of his income is given to charity, considering his income and other obligations for his time it's doubtful that he prepares his own taxes. Wouldn't his accountant have a fiduciary duty to see that all availalble deductions are taken?

 

 

I said it may be dismissed as improbable, but that it was possible. I didn't say I personally believed it to be true.

I could care less how much Edwards gives to charity or how many square feet he has in his home. However, I pretty sure that he could be quite comfortable in a 14,000 sq ft. compound as well. It does seem a bit excessive, but to each his own. He probably does much more charitable work than I would ever be able to, however, comparrisons to Mother Teresa are laughable at best.

I agree.