It is logical that those who never accept help will never offer help. Else they would be hypocrites wouldn't they? What's worse than that?

FOR TAX WRITEOFFS ON ADVICE OF THEIR TAX ACCOUNTANTS! Not all of them but most of them and you know that Walt. They don't give a rat's a** about the people the charities help. Too busy jetting from here and there and name dropping. They love minimizing tax accountability so whatever their brain trust advises they do. Everyone knows that. Don't you? I think those who pride themselves on pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps expect others to do so too. They look down on them and see them as lazy welfare bums. I am not saying that there is no one ever who rejected help who didn't offer help for no other reason than to help. But seriously and LOGICALLY how many of those ilk are there in this world today? See my point? Thank you for your reply Walt! :)

I think most people who give to charity, don't need that charity.
If they did, they would likely keep their money to pay for whatever ... because the amount they get from the charity would be less than they pay it.

EG: If I need assistance buying food, I'm not likely to give donations to a food drive.
In fact, I likely wouldn't give donations to any cause.

So, I believe that the vast majority of people who "offer help" - don't need to accept help.

As to taxes ... the amount you have to give to cancel your taxes, far exceeds the amount you would pay in taxes without that deduction.
It's not a 1:1 write-off.  

EG: You are allowed to claim 60% of your AGI for donations - but you'll still pay taxes on 30% of your AGI.  And the highest tax bracket is 37%.
So even if you manage to avoid paying any taxes - you had to give away 60% of your income to avoid paying 37% of it to the gubmint.

No, I think most wealthy people who give to charity either do it because it's something they believe in ... they realize they can't "take it with them" ... or they feel guilty.  Probably in the order listed.