Not sure how to title this

[mom31257]

I have an honest question that is not trying to stir a pot, but it is something I've really wondered and would love other's thoughts. I don't even know what to call myself politically anymore, but I know that there are many on the left that believe the government should help as many people as possible, provide as many services as possible, and such, which it would do through higher taxes. I understand that side and do want services for those in need, but what I want to know is this.

 

Why do these people, especially the wealthiest of them, wait on the government to do it? Why are they not giving away huge percentages of their income to organizations that are already doing these things and living on much less themselves? If they truly believe our society should be like that, why wouldn't they already live that way? Why not take charge of it themselves and try to create a society like that through the goodness of people's hearts instead of forced taxes?

 

I know there are probably people who do this, but we have a large percentage of people in this country who do want that kind of country, yet you don't hear about it happening much.

 

I'm not a troll (now I know what that means!). I've just wondered about this for a long time.

[Peela]

I think your question is too simplistic to get an effective answer other than triggering political opinionatedness.

 

I honestly dont think most people are so naive as to think any government should solve all the problems of poverty by simply raising taxes. People have different ideas of how tax money should be distributed. Many feel that a ridiculous amount is spent on defence, surely. It's just not so simple as "all those lefties want us all to pay more taxes to take care of the poor- why dont they give their own money". It just isnt.

 

How do you know what 'those people' are thinking or doing, really? How do you know they are waiting for the government to solve the problems, and not doing what they can already, as well? How do you know what 'they' are thinking?

 

Politics are not going to solve the worlds problems, that's for sure.

 

If you venture out of America you will find countries such as Australia who do take pretty good care of their needy (far from perfect but in that direction), and have healthcare for all. It's a nice way to live- you won't find many of us saying lets copy the American model because they seem to have got it really right over there.

[Carrie12345]

I wish I could discuss this without locking the thread!

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

It is a super complicated issue with no one answer. I'm no expert in anything, let alone why the world works the way it does. But, there are a lot of charitable organizations that are working to make life more equitable for everyone, and I would hazard a guess that they are largely funded by left-leaning wealthy people.

 

The government makes the laws. The government collects the money. That's why we have the system we're currently stuck in. IMO, the government is controlled by various lobby groups and corporations. He who has the most money wins. It seems that those who have the most money are trying anything in their power to keep being the ones who have the most money.

 

I truly don't know why we cannot have a more "socialistic" system. I'd certainly be willing to pay more taxes if I felt the money was being used to support healthcare, domestic growth, and real advances in education. I think we should localize more funding and have term limits for EVERY SINGLE POSITION in government.

 

I also think that we don't cultivate a communal way of living in the US. We are individually self centered and have a hard time moving away from "what is good for me" to "what is good for all of us".

 

Just some of my thoughts and opinions on the matter.

[mom31257]

I think your question is too simplistic to get an effective answer other than triggering political opinionatedness.

 

I honestly dont think most people are so naive as to think any government should solve all the problems of poverty by simply raising taxes. People have different ideas of how tax money should be distributed. Many feel that a ridiculous amount is spent on defence, surely. It's just not so simple as "all those lefties want us all to pay more taxes to take care of the poor- why dont they give their own money". It just isnt.

 

How do you know what 'those people' are thinking or doing, really? How do you know they are waiting for the government to solve the problems, and not doing what they can already, as well? How do you know what 'they' are thinking?

 

Politics are not going to solve the worlds problems, that's for sure.

 

If you venture out of America you will find countries such as Australia who do take pretty good care of their needy (far from perfect but in that direction), and have healthcare for all. It's a nice way to live- you won't find many of us saying lets copy the American model because they seem to have got it really right over there.

 

I agree that it probably is too simple. I don't assume that people aren't already helping, but I think if a lot of wealthy people started giving tons away to help others, it would probably make the news! :001_smile:

 

I didn't really think about the idea of just changing how the money's spent as an issue instead of the "government should be doing more" mentality. I can definitely see that.

 

Be thankful you aren't following our model, because there are times I wish we weren't either!

[twoforjoy]

Why do these people, especially the wealthiest of them, wait on the government to do it? Why are they not giving away huge percentages of their income to organizations that are already doing these things and living on much less themselves? If they truly believe our society should be like that, why wouldn't they already live that way? Why not take charge of it themselves and try to create a society like that through the goodness of people's hearts instead of forced taxes?

 

Has there ever been a society, in all of human history, in which there was no system of taxation (i.e., all help to the poor/needy was voluntary) and the poor were taken care of on a large scale? I mean this as a genuine question. AFAIK, there has never been such a society. There have, of course, been many charitable people and many people helped by charity, but as far as I am aware, in every society where aid to the poor was entirely voluntary, good numbers of poor people starved to death, went homeless, ended up putting their children in orphanages because they couldn't afford them, and otherwise lived very difficult, short, and miserable lives. And, have private charities ever been able to meet the long-term needs of large numbers of poor people?

 

The thing is, many people are looking for justice, not charity. That's my position, at least. Charity is wonderful. Charity has a place. People should be charitable. But, charity isn't justice. We live in a world of deep and growing economic inequality, and many people see that as wrong. I know I do. Doing the right thing doesn't just involve making sure the material needs of the poor are met--although that's really important--but also changing the system so that it's not so unjust. Was it MLK who said something about how you can keep picking up people who get mugged along Jericho Road, but at a certain point, you'd want to stop and ask why so many people are stumbling and being attacked there? At a certain point, you might decide that whole road needs to be repaved, and that's what would best serve people.

 

So if the goal is justice, then no amount of charity--no matter how wonderful and necessary it is--can ever achieve that. Justice requires structural changes, and you can't achieve those on an individual level. IMO, a world in which all people will thrive requires both justice and charity, and so we need both individual voluntary giving and government efforts to address inequality and need.

[twoforjoy]

 

Be thankful you aren't following our model, because there are times I wish we weren't either!

 

The model in Australia is significantly higher taxes than we have, and more government services.

[chiguirre]

:iagree: with Peela. Another aspect to consider is that progressives and liberals (in both the American sense and The Economist sense) believe in a fundamental human right to adequate food, shelter, healthcare and education. These are rights, not something nice for charities to do.

 

I personally am very leery of the argument that churches will take care of the poor. I think that leads to "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor", Dickensian workhouses, and governments that don't respond adequately to catastrophes like the Irish Potato Famine. It's also even more demeaning to have to beg for charity than it is to apply for foodstamps.

 

Finally, the Gates Foundation (supported by the man himself and his pal Warren Buffett) is doing what you suggest, although their focus is on a few specific areas because not even these 2 bazillionaires have enough money to implement a comprehensive safety net in America.

 

Some books that illustrate why I personally oppose faith-based welfare systems are Moll Flanders (which is very funny) and Oliver Twist (which is not). The Irish Potato Famine is a good case study in the failure of society to take care of the desperately poor when it relies on religious-based charity as its social safety net.

[mom31257]

:iagree: with Peela. Another aspect to consider is that progressives and liberals (in both the American sense and The Economist sense) believe in a fundamental human right to adequate food, shelter, healthcare and education. These are rights, not something nice for charities to do.

 

I personally am very leery of the argument that churches will take care of the poor. I think that leads to "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor", Dickensian workhouses, and governments that don't respond adequately to catastrophes like the Irish Potato Famine. It's also even more demeaning to have to beg for charity than it is to apply for foodstamps.

 

Finally, the Gates Foundation (supported by the man himself and his pal Warren Buffett) is doing what you suggest, although their focus is on a few specific areas because not even these 2 bazillionaires have enough money to implement a comprehensive safety net in America.

 

Some books that illustrate why I personally oppose faith-based welfare systems are Moll Flanders (which is very funny) and Oliver Twist (which is not). The Irish Potato Famine is a good case study in the failure of society to take care of the desperately poor when it relies on religious-based charity as its social safety net.

 

Aren't there non-faith based organizations that are helping out the poor?

[Georgiana Daniels]

I'm sure many of "them" do! But, if ALL who believed this way would, it'd sure get the ball rolling faster than it is. Interestingly, I *think* there have been studies that people on the "right" out-give people on the "left" from their personal wealth. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong :D

[Free Indeed]

Some of us believe that a hand out doesn't help. I know there are the few that work hard and still struggle- but in my life I have seen way too many people being lazy and abusing the system. They can have an expensive phone, cigarettes, and alcohol and drugs, yet are on government assistance. No thank you. I would love to see limits on the kinds of food you can buy on food stamps- the basics and fresh fruit and veggies. No chips, soda, and T bones. Anyways, just my thoughts.

[Rivka]

Well, it's too early to crack open a beer, but does anyone want to join me for English Breakfast tea and banana nut muffins, while we wait for this thread to devolve and get locked?

[twoforjoy]

Aren't there non-faith based organizations that are helping out the poor?

 

Yes.

 

But, the idea isn't to "help the poor." The idea is to make sure that the basic needs of all citizens, and particularly of all children, are met. And, if that's the goal, then you have to consider what the best way to do so is.

 

There's a few things to consider. As noted, if you believe that people--particularly children--have a right to food, shelter, education, and medical care, and not just that they might be fortunate enough to get them if they are born into a family with enough means or are the lucky recipients of a charity, then you aren't going to make meeting those needs a matter of private voluntary charity. You are going to see them, as I noted, as matters of justice, and as such as needs to be met on a structural, institutional level.

 

And, there's practicality. Even if you think it doesn't matter, ideologically, if needs are met privately or through government, which is more efficient? We have, AFAIK, no example--not a single one--of the needs of the poor being met in a comprehensive, large-scale way by only voluntary, private giving. We have plenty of examples from around the world of nations where the government successfully provides a society safety net, health care, and education to all citizens. So, if we feel that providing these things to everybody is important, which route would we take? Obviously people would decide that these needs are best met through government/public programs, since that's what has worked.

[tmulcahy]

Well, it's too early to crack open a beer, but does anyone want to join me for English Breakfast tea and banana nut muffins, while we wait for this thread to devolve and get locked?

 

Its 5 o'clock somewhere:cheers2:

[elegantlion]

I think if you look you do see people giving. It just looks differently than the celebrity who gets publicity for donating a million bucks to their cause.

 

I think you would also see areas where people are giving people a hand up, not a hand out.

 

I've personally known some wealthy people who were making a quiet difference in their communities. They weren't standing on the street corner handing out cash, but they were affecting change with the finances.

 

Here's on wealthy person who made a change in his lifetime. http://www.kauffman.org/ His more information on the man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewing_Kauffman I have no idea his political leanings.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

There is an essay by Alexis de Tocqueville called Memoir on Pauperism that makes worthwhile reading. Very short and available online in full. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Tocqueville_rr2.pdf

[zenjenn]

I think both liberals and conservatives believe in providing help to those in need. Liberals believe help this is more effectively provided by the state and conservatives believe this is more effectively managed by private charities and local communities.

 

And true to that perspective, statistically, conservatives of all income levels do give a greater % of their income to charity than liberals. The reasons liberals generally do not give as much themselves, regardless of their income level, is because they believe this is the function of the government (in turn they offer less objection to being taxed as a result.)

[Georgiana Daniels]

I think both liberals and conservatives believe in providing help to those in need. Liberals believe help this is more effectively provided by the state and conservatives believe this is more effectively managed by private charities and local communities.

 

And true to that perspective, statistically, conservatives of all income levels do give a greater % of their income to charity than liberals.

 

I thought that's what I'd heard!

[astrid]

I think both liberals and conservatives believe in providing help to those in need. Liberals believe help this is more effectively provided by the state and conservatives believe this is more effectively managed by private charities and local communities.

 

And true to that perspective, statistically, conservatives of all income levels do give a greater % of their income to charity than liberals. The reasons liberals generally do not give as much themselves, regardless of their income level, is because they believe this is the function of the government (in turn they offer less objection to being taxed as a result.)

 

Do you have a citation for this?

From where are you gleaning this information?

 

astrid

[twoforjoy]

And true to that perspective, statistically, conservatives of all income levels do give a greater % of their income to charity than liberals. The reasons liberals generally do not give as much themselves, regardless of their income level, is because they believe this is the function of the government (in turn they offer less objection to being taxed as a result.)

 

I actually imagine that it's because conservatives are far more likely to attend churches that require tithing, which counts as charitable giving.

 

Mormons, for example, are the most heavily Republican of any religious group. And, they give 10% of their income to the church, which counts as charitable giving.

 

Even the author of the study that made this finding said that, if you don't count giving to religious organizations, liberals give slightly more than conservatives.

[mom31257]

Thanks for all the interesting thoughts. I'm glad it has stayed civil because I don't want a fight. I do wish for a world full of people who think of others before themselves, where the good of all is more important than the good of a few, but I know that will never happen. There will always be greedy and selfish people, and you can't really regulate that, can you?

 

I guess if those of us who want that will commit to do all we can in our corner of the world, maybe we can make a difference. Maybe we need to start an accountability thread of doing for others, not to brag, but to keep us focused on doing it, sort of a Good Deeds record thread. I would hope it would be the longest one ever! It's easy to get in the daily routine of the "have to be done" things and lose the chance to do something that's not required.

 

I've got to get in the shower and head to the church where the co-op I direct meets, so I'm not trying to duck out of this. I just wanted to let you all know I won't be in it for awhile. I've got to organize supplies and see what we need for the coming session.

Edited August 30, 2011 by mom31257
typo

[WishboneDawn]

I have an honest question that is not trying to stir a pot, but it is something I've really wondered and would love other's thoughts. I don't even know what to call myself politically anymore, but I know that there are many on the left that believe the government should help as many people as possible, provide as many services as possible, and such, which it would do through higher taxes. I understand that side and do want services for those in need, but what I want to know is this.

 

Why do these people, especially the wealthiest of them, wait on the government to do it? Why are they not giving away huge percentages of their income to organizations that are already doing these things and living on much less themselves? If they truly believe our society should be like that, why wouldn't they already live that way? Why not take charge of it themselves and try to create a society like that through the goodness of people's hearts instead of forced taxes?

 

I know there are probably people who do this, but we have a large percentage of people in this country who do want that kind of country, yet you don't hear about it happening much.

 

I'm not a troll (now I know what that means!). I've just wondered about this for a long time.

 

A couple of things. You may not agree but they'll help you view the matter from the perspective of those that are more to the left. I'm not guaranteeing it's my view either on every point.

 

a) The government is the most efficient means of delivering the services you mentioned. It already has the information, knowledge and infrastructure to carry out many of the services that would help the people who need it.

 

b) Funding initiatives through taxes rather then donations to smaller groups is a much more efficient use of our money. Simply by virtue of scale a few dollars extra in tax on a certain bracket or everyone can raise a lot more money then large donations by a much smaller group of individuals.

 

c) We ARE the government. That means the government has a level of accountability to us that no private group can match. It also means, by virtue of that reasoning, our duty to help others is shared by the government.

 

Hope that helps. :)

[Georgiana Daniels]

I actually imagine that it's because conservatives are far more likely to attend churches that require tithing, which counts as charitable giving.

 

Mormons, for example, are the most heavily Republican of any religious group. And, they give 10% of their income to the church, which counts as charitable giving.

 

Even the author of the study that made this finding said that, if you don't count giving to religious organizations, liberals give slightly more than conservatives.

 

Why wouldn't they want to count giving to religious organizations? The two homeless shelters in our town are run by religious organizations, and the churches we've attended have not only given money, but lots of time and effort toward making our community better--everything from feeding people to giving away thousands of backpacks filled with school supplies to kids who can't afford them.

[lionfamily1999]

I agree that it probably is too simple. I don't assume that people aren't already helping, but I think if a lot of wealthy people started giving tons away to help others, it would probably make the news! :001_smile:

Not always and I'd even lean towards not often. It makes the news if they call a press conference or get their agent on it. Otherwise, well it's good news and that doesn't sell too well, ya know.

[astrid]

Just a guess, but perhaps required tithing was not considered charitable giving because in essence, the tithers are giving not to help those less fortunate, but because they believe (and have been told by their spiritual leaders) that doing so is necessary to help themselves achieve a more pleasant afterlife? That would kind of negate some of the altruism?

 

astrid

[Georgiana Daniels]

Just a guess, but perhaps required tithing was not considered charitable giving because in essence, the tithers are giving not to help those less fortunate, but because they believe (and have been told by their spiritual leaders) that doing so is necessary to help themselves achieve a more pleasant afterlife? That would kind of negate some of the altruism?

 

astrid

 

Interesting! They don't teach that in our church. It's my understanding the tithe was originally instituted help the poor. (Bring food to the storehouse, etc., found in the book of Micah.)

[MBM]

I have an honest question that is not trying to stir a pot, but it is something I've really wondered and would love other's thoughts. I don't even know what to call myself politically anymore, but I know that there are many on the left that believe the government should help as many people as possible, provide as many services as possible, and such, which it would do through higher taxes. I understand that side and do want services for those in need, but what I want to know is this.

 

Why do these people, especially the wealthiest of them, wait on the government to do it? Why are they not giving away huge percentages of their income to organizations that are already doing these things and living on much less themselves? If they truly believe our society should be like that, why wouldn't they already live that way? Why not take charge of it themselves and try to create a society like that through the goodness of people's hearts instead of forced taxes?

 

Within the past decade or two, certain laws have changed in such a way that the super wealthy no longer have to set up charities (often initially overseen by people they choose -- family members, friends, etc.) and can keep the money in the family without it being taxed much.

 

Voters were led to believe this would benefit them when in effect, the law benefitted the super wealthy even more. My husband works on legislation for politicians and sees this sort of trickery. It's a shame, but voters need to scrutinize these issues more carefully.

 

It is not just one political party that is doing this.

[Jamauk]

:lurk5: I'm too new around here to participate. But, being the political junkie that I am, I'm going to hang out and watch :D

[MBM]

Well, it's too early to crack open a beer, but does anyone want to join me for English Breakfast tea and banana nut muffins, while we wait for this thread to devolve and get locked?

 

:lol: I will have to make due with a breakfast brownie.

[SKL]

Personally I think there would be more charitable giving if taxes were lower. Personally I would support a tax credit instead of a deduction for charitable giving, but that would still be the government influencing what people do. And let's face it, the people in government, on average, are not exactly altruistic, even though they may talk a good game.

 

I am a high taxpayer and I also give amounts to charity that are far above average. I'd give more if I didn't have to dip into my kids' education fund to pay my taxes.

 

It is a known fact that on average, conservatives give more to charity and volunteer more than liberals. I would love for someone to explain why that is, and whether we could actually do anything with that knowledge. It would especially be useful since charity is usually a private act (as it should be) and thus relatively insulated from political influences.

 

I also feel that it's nobody's business what his neighbor does or doesn't give to charity. Just make sure YOU are doing the best you can. As soon as you say "should" and "charity" in the same sentence, you are changing charity into a tax. Tax-funded programs generally lead to unhappy outcomes for all involved, whereas charities have a better opportunity to have positive outcomes.

 

Finally, don't underestimate the amount of charity people do give, just because you didn't personally see it change hands. Also, the fact that a rich person invests instead of giving it all away could be because an investment will have a greater return for the community in the long run. Do you think the Gates Foundation would be able to fund what it's giving now, had Gates given it all away each year instead of investing it?

[astrid]

Interesting! They don't teach that in our church. It's my understanding the tithe was originally instituted help the poor. (Bring food to the storehouse, etc., found in the book of Micah.)

 

Well, I'm pretty areligious, so it was purely a guess on my part. However, the little bit I *do* know about several maintream denominations makes me think that tithing for many is less about helping the poor and more about how it can benefit themselves/their church.

 

One example of many I could share: long story short, we went to DH's niece's infant baptism at the Catholic church where dh attended with his family when he was a child/adolescent. Dh's sister still attends. It's a relatively new church, built in the late 1970's. Before the service started, the priest made a big spectacle of imploring us all to look at the new carpeting, the new pews, listen to the new sound system, etc. They were all new, he said, and he asked us to excuse the lack of Stations of the Cross, as they'd been "tossed" because "new ones were being hand-carved in Italy as we speak!!" He then winked and added, "We spent all this money on our sanctuary because if we didn't, the Archdioscese would have made us give it to the POOR!" Clearly the money came from the parishoners, and that was confirmed by my crass FIL who loudly pointed out the new crucifix hanging over the altar and told us all how much he donated to that fund. Personally, I very much liked the hand-made quilt wall hanging that depicted Jesus and a couple of lambs that used to hang there. Dd took one look at the new piece and said, "Mom, that bloody Jesus is kind of scary!" But I digress.

 

It was all we could do not to walk out before the sacrament even started. This is not a wealthy community, it's a small town in Connecticut; quite rural, more cows than people.

 

That's just one example of many, across several denominations. Perhaps you can understand my hesitance to believe those who tithe are doing it purely to help the poor.

 

Forgive me my personal rant. It's been four years and I'm still a bit fired up about it.

 

astrid

[SKL]

The reasons liberals generally do not give as much themselves, regardless of their income level, is because they believe this is the function of the government (in turn they offer less objection to being taxed as a result.)

 

I don't know about that - but we could prove it by showing that rich liberals don't hire CPAs to make sure they use all available tax loopholes . . . .

 

My liberal ex-boss (who only gave to charity what his boss required him to) used to whine that the rich should pay more taxes. However, he meant only the people who were richer than he - he was not rich; his taxes were too high. He and his wife earned at least $1M per year.

[elfgivas]

so far, this is remarkably civil :001_smile:.

 

i'm not going to change that.

 

but could i request that if folks are going to make statements about percentages or known facts that they state where they got the information and provide a link to the study itself?

 

the reasons why we think something may be true are helpful, but i really want to look at the data with my own eyes, kwim? i've spent too long homeschooling and teaching critical thinking to be content with what someone else thinks they remember reading.... especially when its intriguing!

 

thanks,

ann

[twoforjoy]

Personally I think there would be more charitable giving if taxes were lower.

 

Do you have any evidence to support this? We have the lowest marginal tax rates since the 1940s. Is charitable giving at an all-time high?

 

It is a known fact that on average, conservatives give more to charity and volunteer more than liberals. I would love for someone to explain why that is, and whether we could actually do anything with that knowledge.

 

As I said above, the difference seems to be giving to churches. Conservatives are more likely to attend churches that require/strongly encouraging tithing (like the LDS church, which requires tithing and is the most Republican religious group). I've attended a number of liberal churches, and none have ever required or encouraged tithing. When guidelines for giving were suggested, they were generally in the 2-5% range, even for extremely high earners. I've never attended a church where people were either required or encouraged to give 10% of their income to the church. When significant giving was encouraged, it was left to the church members to decide where they wanted their money to go.

 

If you count only giving to non-religious organizations, liberals give slightly more.

 

I'm assuming the same is true of volunteer time. If service within one's church wasn't counted, I think we'd see different results.

 

That's not to say that giving to or volunteering at a church isn't a good thing. But, since these things seem to be required and/or heavily encouraged by certain religious groups, it seems a bit difficult to claim that it's truly "voluntary."

[astrid]

Personally I think there would be more charitable giving if taxes were lower. Personally I would support a tax credit instead of a deduction for charitable giving, but that would still be the government influencing what people do. And let's face it, the people in government, on average, are not exactly altruistic, even though they may talk a good game.

 

I am a high taxpayer and I also give amounts to charity that are far above average. I'd give more if I didn't have to dip into my kids' education fund to pay my taxes.

 

It is a known fact that on average, conservatives give more to charity and volunteer more than liberals. I would love for someone to explain why that is, and whether we could actually do anything with that knowledge. It would especially be useful since charity is usually a private act (as it should be) and thus relatively insulated from political influences.

 

Do you have documentation for this? I'd love to see the statistics from an unbiased, reputable source.

 

I also feel that it's nobody's business what his neighbor does or doesn't give to charity. Just make sure YOU are doing the best you can. As soon as you say "should" and "charity" in the same sentence, you are changing charity into a tax. Tax-funded programs generally lead to unhappy outcomes for all involved, whereas charities have a better opportunity to have positive outcomes.

 

Finally, don't underestimate the amount of charity people do give, just because you didn't personally see it change hands. Also, the fact that a rich person invests instead of giving it all away could be because an investment will have a greater return for the community in the long run. Do you think the Gates Foundation would be able to fund what it's giving now, had Gates given it all away each year instead of investing it?

 

Yes, this goes for both liberals and conservatives, yes? :001_smile:

 

 

astrid

[SKL]

As I said above, the difference seems to be giving to churches. Conservatives are more likely to attend churches that require/strongly encouraging tithing (like the LDS church, which requires tithing and is the most Republican religious group). I've attended a number of liberal churches, and none have ever required or encouraged tithing. When guidelines for giving were suggested, they were generally in the 2-5% range, even for extremely high earners. I've never attended a church where people were either required or encouraged to give 10% of their income to the church. When significant giving was encouraged, it was left to the church members to decide where they wanted their money to go.

 

If you count only giving to non-religious organizations, liberals give slightly more.

 

I'm assuming the same is true of volunteer time. If service within one's church wasn't counted, I think we'd see different results.

 

That's not to say that giving to or volunteering at a church isn't a good thing. But, since these things seem to be required and/or heavily encouraged by certain religious groups, it seems a bit difficult to claim that it's truly "voluntary."

 

First, at every church I have ever attended, giving was 100% voluntary. Sure, it is encouraged, as is true of every religion and many other organizations.

 

Second, churches use a lot of the collection for charitable purposes. If I know my church is supporting an orphanage in Haiti and I give to the church, I might decide not to directly support an orphanage in Haiti. Churches have programs to help the needy both within the local community and in the larger human community. If you don't think that's a significant source of wealth transfer benefiting the needy, think again and do more research.

[astrid]

Yes, please. I've asked nicely, twice. :D

 

astrid

[twoforjoy]

First, at every church I have ever attended, giving was 100% voluntary. Sure, it is encouraged, as is true of every religion and many other organizations.

 

But there are churches where tithing is required of members, and AFAIK every church that requires that is quite conservative. And, as I said, even if giving is simply encouraged, tithing--the practice of giving 10% of pre-tax income--seems to be relatively unique to more conservative churches. I've never seen people encouraged to give that amount to the church at any church I've attended.

 

Second, churches use a lot of the collection for charitable purposes. If I know my church is supporting an orphanage in Haiti and I give to the church, I might decide not to directly support an orphanage in Haiti. Churches have programs to help the needy both within the local community and in the larger human community. If you don't think that's a significant source of wealth transfer benefiting the needy, think again and do more research.

 

I don't doubt that. But, a good amount also goes to building maintenance, church programs for members, sometimes salaries, and things like that. To count all of the money give to churches as "charitable giving"--which is what the author who came up with the "conservatives give more" thesis did--seems a bit disingenuous to me, since we know that not all of that money is going toward charity.

 

One other thought: what got counted is how much charitable giving people claimed on their tax returns. I've never claimed my charitable giving. Perhaps conservatives--who are generally more opposed to taxation--are more likely to deduct all of their charitable giving?

[Runningmom80]

Yes, please. I've asked nicely, twice. :D

 

astrid

 

I'm waiting too! :D

Edited August 30, 2011 by Runningmom80

[Julie in Austin]

I think this is a fair question from the OP and, as a very liberal person, I'd like to answer it:

 

(1) First, I want to recognize that wealthy people often do in fact give enormous sums of their money away. So it does happen.

 

(2) But, some problems are structural, so charity won't solve them. For example, this country has a much lower rate of entrepreneurship than you might expect compared to other nations, in part because of the risk one takes to go without health insurance to start a small business. This would not be the case if we had universal health care. Thinking of my own family, I would be loathe to have my husband start his own business because we would lose employer-sponsored health care and I would have to rely on "charity" if we had huge health care costs, assuming the charity care were available, which it often isn't. No amount of charity can solve this problem and, even if it could, there are a lot of people who wouldn't want to put themselves in the position of having to rely on charity if they can avoid it.

 

(3) There have always have been (and unfortunately probably always will be) groups that the majority of society discriminates against. Those people still should have access to whatever benefit we are discussing and not be at the mercy of a 'charity' that doesn't like their kind.

 

(4) I think that selfish wealthy people should have to contribute to society, even if they don't want to. I don't believe that there is a single wealthy person in this country who hasn't benefited from the govt. At a basic level, they have reliable electricity, civil harmony, and secure borders. At a broader level, they benefit from a huge middle class sustained (in part) by things like free education, college loans, and even food stamps, etc. So I think that every millionaire should repay the society that sustained the conditions that made their wealth possible, even if they don't want to.

 

That's why I think that even though charity is an ideal, it is never and can never be enough.

[UnsinkableKristen]

I really am not sure that this is what you are looking for - there are still a LOT of unanswered questions - but here is an article talking about this.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

 

 

And I am not familiar with Real Clear Politics, as far as whether it leans left or right, but it does use a source that you can google and read as a PDF in it's entirety.

 

That said, I'm still not sure that it covers the aspect of giving to church "not counting" because it could be construed as non-voluntary or not technically giving directly to charities.

 

 

But it is a source that backs up the basic premise. :001_smile:

[SKL]

But, a good amount also goes to building maintenance, church programs for members, sometimes salaries, and things like that. To count all of the money give to churches as "charitable giving"--which is what the author who came up with the "conservatives give more" thesis did--seems a bit disingenuous to me, since we know that not all of that money is going toward charity.

 

On that basis you should also subtract from "charitable giving" the administration costs of all charities. All those of any size have significant costs of personnel, occupancy, etc.

 

As for "liberals are less likely to deduct it" - sorry, I'm a tax professional. Liberals don't like paying taxes "themselves" any more than conservatives do.

[Serenade]

 

Personally I think there would be more charitable giving if taxes were lower.

This would be me. I feel that through its heavy taxation, the government has taken away my ability to give to charities of my choosing. Yes, yes, I realize I could still choose to give beyond what the government already takes for its entitlement programs, but the government's forced redistribution of wealth already doesn't leave much discretionary funding for my family.

[ravinlunachick]

I think the answer goes deeper than left vs. right. In America, at least, we have a strong culture of individuality, and individual responsibility. Even if we support government programs to assist the poor, there still remains for most people, a sense that, "I have to look out for me and mine first and foremost, and you do the same for yourself." We don't tend to feel responsible for the whole, IMO.

[Sputterduck]

I actually imagine that it's because conservatives are far more likely to attend churches that require tithing, which counts as charitable giving.

 

Mormons, for example, are the most heavily Republican of any religious group. And, they give 10% of their income to the church, which counts as charitable giving.

 

Even the author of the study that made this finding said that, if you don't count giving to religious organizations, liberals give slightly more than conservatives.

 

But the Mormon church does an enormous amount of charity with those tithes.

 

How can you not count religious organizations? Religious organizations feed the poor, house the homeless, etc. Their work doesn't count because they're religious??

[Runningmom80]

Trying hard not to get political here,

 

 

The case for less taxation.....

I need to dig up the reference, but I just read that the wealthiest are not taxed the highest in the us. So, maybe those in the upper middle, that are being taxed higher can use the high tax argument as to why they do not donate (if they do not) but I don't feel it's valid for the richest, who pay a lower percentage in taxes than the upper middle classers.

 

 

I'll find the article, hopefully I didn't read that on the onion. :lol:

[Julie in Austin]

This would be me. I feel that through its heavy taxation, the government has taken away my ability to give to charities of my choosing. Yes, yes, I realize I could still choose to give beyond what the government already takes for its entitlement programs, but the government's forced redistribution of wealth already doesn't leave much discretionary funding for my family.

 

Taxation rates have varied enormously in this country over the last 50 years. I am wondering if you have any evidence that charitable giving responds to these fluctuations in tax rates. I ask this because I frequently hear the argument that you are making, but I have never seen any statistics to back it up. I suspect it is a flawed argument, but I am willing to have my mind changed by solid evidence.

[Sputterduck]

A couple of things. You may not agree but they'll help you view the matter from the perspective of those that are more to the left. I'm not guaranteeing it's my view either on every point.

 

a) The government is the most efficient means of delivering the services you mentioned. It already has the information, knowledge and infrastructure to carry out many of the services that would help the people who need it.

 

b) Funding initiatives through taxes rather then donations to smaller groups is a much more efficient use of our money. Simply by virtue of scale a few dollars extra in tax on a certain bracket or everyone can raise a lot more money then large donations by a much smaller group of individuals.

 

c) We ARE the government. That means the government has a level of accountability to us that no private group can match. It also means, by virtue of that reasoning, our duty to help others is shared by the government.

 

Hope that helps. :)

 

I disagree. There are charities that send 100 percent of donated money directly to help and have literally zero overhead because they are staffed purely by volunteers. There are also many where 95-99 percent of the money goes directly to help people. That is not true of government. The overhead is ridiculous.

 

And I'm not saying that because of news stories I heard on the radio or the tv, like many people. I come from a family where you are either a successful business owner or you work fairly high up in the government. Trust me... The government is many things, but it is not efficient.

[Serenade]

Taxation rates have varied enormously in this country over the last 50 years. I am wondering if you have any evidence that charitable giving responds to these fluctuations in tax rates. I ask this because I frequently hear the argument that you are making, but I have never seen any statistics to back it up. I suspect it is a flawed argument, but I am willing to have my mind changed by solid evidence.

 

I wasn't making making an argument. I was merely talking about myself. Notice the use of the first person in my response. I have absolutely no evidence supporting this for the society at large, but I was agreeing with SLK, that I would give more if I were not taxed as heavily.

[astrid]

So as a tax professional, you know the political leanings of your clients?

 

astrid