Not sure how to title this

[Halftime Hope]

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. QUOTE]

 

OK, after I got over cringing at the "selfish wealthy" words strung together (I'm sure we could argue that one six ways to Sunday, but I'm going out on a limb to say that the two adjectives should not necessarily be equated), I would like to address the "should have to contribute" part.

 

I believe that everyone should have to contribute. Yes, everyone. Not only those who have little, but those who have a great deal. The proponents of the Flat Tax are onto something. Everyone who receives benefits should contribute, whether it is a small amount, because your income is small, or a large amount because your income is large.

 

Frankly, I think those with means should not have to pay more than the Flat Tax, because income that went to the government is not as efficient at creating jobs or wealth as if it stays in the private sector. If a Flat Tax were implemented for both individuals and for businesses, the loopholes that prevent large corporations from evading paying taxes would be closed.

 

Any more, and I'll have gone over my two cents...

[Sputterduck]

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

You don't think the government uses it's taxes to pay for building maintenance and salaries?

[Julie in Austin]

 

OK, after I got over cringing at the "selfish wealthy" words strung together

 

I probably could have and should have phrased that better, but I was trying (quickly) to make a distinction between the subset of the wealthy who choose not to give to charity and the subset of the wealthy who do, who I had already recognized--first thing--in my comment.

 

ETA: I've messed up the quoting thing and don't know how to fix it--the quote is not mine; I'm responding to it!

[SKL]

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.

 

When computing averages, those who actually tithe are such a small group that they would not skew the results.

 

Tithing is Biblical, so it's considered an ideal, at least to some people. But I have never known anyone who actually gave 10% of pretax income annually to a church.

 

Once I paid off student loan bills that took up almost my entire paycheck, I used to target 10% of after-tax income to charities of my choice (I did not attend church most of my life). But when my after-tax income started going negative, that computation got a bit complicated.

 

Another thing to consider is that many people of means give money directly to people in need, in addition to giving through charities. I used to give tens of thousands per year to people I knew who were hard up. Not tax deductible, not reportable in any way, but still charity in the pure sense of the word.

[TXMomof4]

 

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.

 

.

 

If the Gates foundation and Warren Buffet and Apple and all of those would bring the jobs back to America - well, there would be significantly less need for social safety nets. How many manufacturing jobs does Apple provide to China? How many Americans buy computers manufactured anywhere but here? Same thing with cars, appliances, clothing, etc. How much charity does it take to balance out sending millions of jobs overseas?

 

There was an interview with one of the Patriotic Millionaires on TV a few weeks ago and he was asked why he doesn't hire new employees instead of offering to pay higher taxes. The reality is that even if his taxes increased by $250,000 year, it's still cheaper for him to pay that than to try to invest that money in a new business or to pay for hiring individuals. That $100,000/ year wouldn't make a huge dent in either place, but it's cheaper and easier for him to put it on the back of the gov. than to risk his money in investing in America on his own.

[Bang!Zoom!]

One of the best books I ever read on this subject was by Harold Lasswell (sometimes called the Godfather of Political Science Education)- the book was "Who Gets What, When, and Why"- it deals with resources and allocation of resources in a global view.

 

I'm a pretty fluent reader, but that text is written at a level that is beyond..it took the support of 3 professors to get me through it with a real understanding.

 

But I enjoyed it.

 

So really-are you planning on getting involved socially or being an activist, or just asking questions from curiosity?

[lionfamily1999]

When computing averages, those who actually tithe are such a small group that they would not skew the results.

 

Tithing is Biblical, so it's considered an ideal, at least to some people. But I have never known anyone who actually gave 10% of pretax income annually to a church.

 

Once I paid off student loan bills that took up almost my entire paycheck, I used to target 10% of after-tax income to charities of my choice (I did not attend church most of my life). But when my after-tax income started going negative, that computation got a bit complicated.

 

Another thing to consider is that many people of means give money directly to people in need, in addition to giving through charities. I used to give tens of thousands per year to people I knew who were hard up. Not tax deductible, not reportable in any way, but still charity in the pure sense of the word.

You have never had anyone inform you that they gave 10% pretax income annually. It doesn't mean you don't know anyone who does.

 

We do not claim our tithe and we don't broadcast the amount we tithe. We don't tithe for tax deductions or status. :shrug: I know that the majority of people that tithe in my church do not claim it on their taxes at all. How would I know that? Because the church only send out a handful of forms for taxes.

[Halftime Hope]

 

I probably could have and should have phrased that better, but I was trying (quickly) to make a distinction between the subset of the wealthy who choose not to give to charity and the subset of the wealthy who do, who I had already recognized--first thing--in my comment.

 

ETA: I've messed up the quoting thing and don't know how to fix it--the quote is not mine; I'm responding to it!

 

I understand now; thanks for clarifying what I should have seen.

[SKL]

If the Gates foundation and Warren Buffet and Apple and all of those would bring the jobs back to America - well, there would be significantly less need for social safety nets. How many manufacturing jobs does Apple provide to China? How many Americans buy computers manufactured anywhere but here? Same thing with cars, appliances, clothing, etc. How much charity does it take to balance out sending millions of jobs overseas?

 

Non-Americans are people too, and they need jobs too. More desperately than Americans do, in fact. Moreover, Americans dug their own grave by overestimating the value of their labor and bargaining foolishly. If you want to put an uneducated American to work, hire one to clean your house for $50 per hour. Why should it be Gates' responsibility?

 

I don't mind moving jobs to wherever it makes the most sense, as long as the company is honest about it. Don't say "buy American" when 97% of your content is foreign, for example.

[Rivka]

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??

 

I think the question is what percentage of money collected by churches goes to the support of the poor. That number probably varies wildly from church to church, depending on the church's mission, its congregation, etc. Speaking for my own church, I study the budget every year and so I know that although we support various charitable programs, the vast majority of our budget goes for salaries, facilities (building and utilities), and internal programs like religious education.

 

Then the other question is which outreach and service activities by churches count as "helping the needy." Most Christians would probably say that preaching the gospel to people is serving them, but I'd only count things like food, education, medical care, housing, etc. So a church might say that "25% of contributions go to missions" (I'm pulling that number out of thin air) but perhaps most of that money is spent on trying to convert people in other countries to Christianity. Or perhaps it isn't. It's hard to say unless the numbers are broken down for you.

 

Here are some links that I found:

 

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11176

And what do churches do with their money? In 1920, the percentage of giving to missions from the total offering was 10.09 percent, just over a dime out of every dollar. In 2003, conservative and evangelical denominations gave 2.6 percent (about three cents per dollar), with the liberals giving only 0.9 percent (one cent). The combined average for overseas work is about two pennies per dollar.

 

Where is the money going? For buildings? Not really, since churches spent proportionally more for new buildings in 1965 ($29 per capita) than in 2003 ($27). But the sprawling church "campuses" that have become the norm today are expensive to operate. Congregations today typically run an abundance of internal programs. The number of staff members and the amount of salaries have risen. All of this is for the good, but, as the authors of the report conclude, "the numbers demonstrate an increased emphasis on internal operations over the broader mission of the church."

 

http://library.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=223

Christianity Today International, 2003.

So, where does our church money go? As church fund-raising gets more challenging even though church members grow more prosperous, this is the right question to ask, and this 62-page survey of church budgets gives us the statistical breakdown. Conducted in 1999, this survey of U.S. pastors finds that most churches spend most money on staff compensation ($118,601 from an average budget of $292,790). This is followed by facilities ($54,194), missions ($45,259), church programs ($24,675), administration and supplies ($17,853), denominational contributions and fees ($11,539) and miscellaneous ($25,430).

 

I do think that religious charities typically have overhead/fundraising rates which are similar to nonreligious charities, but I don't think the same can be said for churches themselves.

[Julie in Austin]

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.

 

Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were making a general argument; I didn't realize that you were speaking personally.

 

If you personally increased your charitable contributions as a result of the Bush stimulus, Bush tax cuts, Obama stimulus, and this year's payroll tax cut of 2%, I think that is commendable. We need more people like you!

[ktgrok]

I think the ones that have money, and want higher taxes, already do donate and give and do the things you are talking about. The ones that don't are the ones that don't believe in higher taxes, for the most part. Also, I believe in higher taxes, but mostly because a little from many adds up to a lot. So an extra 50 bucks a year from me and everyone else adds up to a huge amount of money to do a lot of good. My $50 all on its own doesn't do that much. (but I do give it.)

[Sputterduck]

You have never had anyone inform you that they gave 10% pretax income annually. It doesn't mean you don't know anyone who does.

 

We do not claim our tithe and we don't broadcast the amount we tithe. We don't tithe for tax deductions or status. :shrug: I know that the majority of people that tithe in my church do not claim it on their taxes at all. How would I know that? Because the church only send out a handful of forms for taxes.

 

Right. And some people here might not know that it's biblical to not tell people what they are giving.

 

"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" Matthew 6:3

 

So people don't broadcast it. There is a lot more giving being done than giving being talked about.

[Puma Mom]

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!"

That's horrible. I wish I could believe it was an isolated example.

 

I am a conservative Christian. The church we just moved away from is a small congregation with no paid staff. Everyone works together to make things happen. The income pays for the mortgage (almost paid off!), utilities, supplies, and insurance. 10% comes off of the top to support a doctor in Central America. There are several elderly low-income members who are taken care of by people in the church in many small and large ways--getting them to and from appointments, advocating for them on medical issues, helping them with their bills, bringing them groceries, and making sure they have vital roles in the church. When anyone in the church has a financial or other issue, people are quick to jump in and help as much as they can.

 

I wish it could work like that on a widespread basis. I have no problem giving and giving generously when I have some idea about where and how my money will help or at least if I have trust in the judgment of the organization receiving the money.

 

I just don't have a lot of confidence that the government does a great job at it. A small church can make judgment calls on who to give money to whereas it's more difficult for the government. [When the caller who pleas for a little help because she can't feed her kids hangs up on the invitation to a church potluck where she'd likely be sent home with tons of leftovers, that's a clue that she might only be looking for the easy handout. And we always deliberately told them they could come after the service and told them what time lunch would start.]

 

I don't know what the solution is. My personal solution is to try to help where and how I can. I look for places to give where I can have some confidence that the money is getting to those who need it.

[lionfamily1999]

Right. And some people here might not know that it's biblical to not tell people what they are giving.

 

"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" Matthew 6:3

 

So people don't broadcast it. There is a lot more giving being done than giving being talked about.

Exactly. It's just like the assumption that all rich people are greedy. I am positive that rich people give, the catch is... You won't hear about the "good" rich people being altruistic, because they won't broadcast it.

[SKL]

I think the ones that have money, and want higher taxes, already do donate and give and do the things you are talking about. The ones that don't are the ones that don't believe in higher taxes, for the most part.

 

The facts prove otherwise.

 

But another point: in our country, with most people paying little or no income tax, a vote for higher taxes usually means a vote that someone else should contribute. Contrast that to charity, which is a decision that I will contribute. I don't see how a vote that others should give means a person cares more about his fellow man.

 

I agree with those who say that most charity is done in private and should be. However, I still think the percentage of people who tithe (donate 10% of pre-tax income) is quite small. I cannot prove this, but it seems logical to me based on the way most people live. I could be wrong, of course.

 

True, not all of the money given to churches goes to help the needy. But that is true of many charities. How about a donation to a research hospital? Is it still charity, even though the hospital has a huge budget for things that don't directly touch the charitable cause?

 

I also think that volunteering is a huge part of American charity that is being completely ignored in this discussion.

Edited August 30, 2011 by SKL

[Sputterduck]

I think the question is what percentage of money collected by churches goes to the support of the poor. That number probably varies wildly from church to church, depending on the church's mission, its congregation, etc. Speaking for my own church, I study the budget every year and so I know that although we support various charitable programs, the vast majority of our budget goes for salaries, facilities (building and utilities), and internal programs like religious education.

 

I couldn't attend a church like that. I've never run into one personally, except for maybe one, but I never saw the budget of that church. They charged for membership. :confused: Can you imagine? They had leather couches and giant big screen tvs and such. I wouldn't be surprised if God strikes that place down with lightening some day. I can't imagine that God is happy with them! *shudder* I pretty much ran as fast as I could.

 

Then the other question is which outreach and service activities by churches count as "helping the needy." Most Christians would probably say that preaching the gospel to people is serving them, but I'd only count things like food, education, medical care, housing, etc. So a church might say that "25% of contributions go to missions" (I'm pulling that number out of thin air) but perhaps most of that money is spent on trying to convert people in other countries to Christianity. Or perhaps it isn't. It's hard to say unless the numbers are broken down for you.

 

Now, I only have personal "seeing it with my own eyes" experience with the area I'm in, but all of the missionaries in this area spend their time doing something charitable. Some work at orphanages, some build homes, some run free schools, some feed hungry children, some do medical care... I couldn't tell you how much time is spent on "trying to convert people" because I've not really seen any. I think the missionaries here would say that, for them, helping people is preaching enough.

 

Here are some links that I found:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11176

And what do churches do with their money? In 1920, the percentage of giving to missions from the total offering was 10.09 percent, just over a dime out of every dollar. In 2003, conservative and evangelical denominations gave 2.6 percent (about three cents per dollar), with the liberals giving only 0.9 percent (one cent). The combined average for overseas work is about two pennies per dollar.

 

Where is the money going? For buildings? Not really, since churches spent proportionally more for new buildings in 1965 ($29 per capita) than in 2003 ($27). But the sprawling church "campuses" that have become the norm today are expensive to operate. Congregations today typically run an abundance of internal programs. The number of staff members and the amount of salaries have risen. All of this is for the good, but, as the authors of the report conclude, "the numbers demonstrate an increased emphasis on internal operations over the broader mission of the church."

Salaries have gone up? Man I hear so much about how little people are paid and how are people supposed to raise families on so little, etc. Maybe it's a good thing that salaries went up.

 

Many internal programs *are* charity. There are food closets, counseling for addicts, help paying utilities for families who are in trouble, financial counseling etc. etc.

 

http://library.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=223

Christianity Today International, 2003.

So, where does our church money go? As church fund-raising gets more challenging even though church members grow more prosperous, this is the right question to ask, and this 62-page survey of church budgets gives us the statistical breakdown. Conducted in 1999, this survey of U.S. pastors finds that most churches spend most money on staff compensation ($118,601 from an average budget of $292,790). This is followed by facilities ($54,194), missions ($45,259), church programs ($24,675), administration and supplies ($17,853), denominational contributions and fees ($11,539) and miscellaneous ($25,430).

 

And how much does the government spend on salaries, facilities, fees, administration, supplies, and miscellaneous? You know, since we are talking about which is more efficient.

 

 

I do think that religious charities typically have overhead/fundraising rates which are similar to nonreligious charities, but I don't think the same can be said for churches themselves.

 

My current church spends 100% of donations on charity. They get a room for free from a local business. There are no salaries paid. The church I first went to when I first joined mainstream Christianity gave the majority of it's money to religious charities. The pastor got an okay salary, the administrative pastor and the youth pastor got part time salaries, they paid the utility bills and for some curriculum for the kids. Back when they first acquired the warehouse that would become the church, they bought drywall and paint and wood and such to divide up the classrooms and whatnot and built the entire interior on volunteer skilled and unskilled labor. Other than that, every thing donated went straight back out to charity. There was a food closet staffed and filled entirely by donations of time and food. No money was spent on it.

 

So yeah, lots of churches spend very little on overhead. Some spend a ton. Churches are like people. You get good ones and bad ones. But on the whole, the churches I've been to have been very very conscious about where their money goes and selfish people weren't tolerated in leadership.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Sputterduck

[abacus2]

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.

 

:iagree:

[Georgiana Daniels]

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

 

The example you cite is heartbreaking, imo. The Bible doesn't show Jesus being flashy, and we're supposed to follow his example.

[leeannpal]

There is a intrinsic idea in the minds if many Americans, woven through our history from the beginning, that we are rugged individualists. Certainly, there is some good that comes from the idea that we will rise above the problems and "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps." That is, until we no longer have bootstraps. The idea of relying on government or others for help, of being a pluralistic instead of an individualistic society, is tantamount to treason to some Americans. Why?? There are always those who point out the ones that are working the system. Yes, there are people like that. But to ignore the people in our SOCIETY that are hard working but have health issues, or have lost a job suddenly, or have children with expensive special needs, etc. is such a sad commentary on us as a people. Charities and churches help, but there are far more people who need help than there are individuals and charities that can help at the moment. I'm Christian, and I've seen and heard the simplistic notion that if "these people" were willing to work hard, they wouldn't be having problems.

 

Ultimately, I think Americans are going to have to come around to the fact that we need each other and that government of the people can help elleviate some of our worst issues. There will certainly be problems, but I look fondly forward to the day when people here don't have to choose between getting needed medicine or feeding their kids.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

(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.

 

QUOTE]

 

The bolded above does not match what I have read over the years in The Economist. (My search terms are giving me horrid results, but here is an article from Business Week from a couple years ago.)

 

The Economist articles I've read in the past indicate that Europe lags the US, in part because failure/bancruptcy is something you can go through in the US, recover from and then try again. I've also read articles that link byzantine regulation process for businesses with lower entrepreneurship. For example, it can take months to get similar permits in India to what takes days or weeks in the US. (Many bustling businesses, therefore, operate under the table.)

 

I can understand that some families might choose not to step out on their own in order to maintain medical coverage. I just have not seen anything that links universal health care coverage with high rates of entrepreneurship.

 

 

 

As for the OP, I think there is often a disconnect between those who have high incomes and/or high personnal wealth and being open handed as a percentage of income/wealth. I know that when there is a national election and tax returns are released, I'm often bewildered at how personally parsiminous some candidates seem. I remember one presidental candidate who had donated less money (with his much higher income) than our family had that year. Not just as a percentage, but in actual dollars. I have to wonder if this inverse relationship between charity and income is common.

 

Maybe it is because people of moderate and lower income are frequently surrounded by friends, coworkers, neighbors and families who are the people who need help. Maybe they open their wallets more often because there is a personal connection. On the other hand, these aren't the type of families who will be funding a hospital wing or a library or a research center.

 

I very much enjoyed the book Who Really Cares? by Arthur Brooks. He tried to use polling data to figure out who gives what and why.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

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

 

How much does altruism need to matter? Does the donation of money for a museum collection or library or hospital wing count less if the donor gets their name on the doorway? What about companies that donate to the local community or to charitable/social causes in order to burnish their public image?

 

(Or to try an analogy, MacDonalds has begun to offer some healthier options. Should that be discounted because it is an attempt to continue to make money and to not run afoul of laws and regulations? Or can we say that the newer options are an improvement, regardless of motivation.)

[8circles]

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.

 

I didn't know that any churches required tithing. Which ones? I had no idea.

[Colleen]

I have an honest question...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'm trying to take you at your word and read these as honest questions, but they're so rife with assumptions and insinuations, it's difficult to do so. In the interest of not having my reply deleted (which is apt to happen to me here;)), I'll quote a few other excellent replies with which I agree:

 

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.

For that matter, you'll find some of us right here in America saying, "Whatever you do, don't copy this model.":tongue_smilie:

 

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.

YES!!!!! I love this. It may very well be the best thing I've ever read on this board.

 

There is a intrinsic idea in the minds if many Americans, woven through our history from the beginning, that we are rugged individualists....Ultimately, I think Americans are going to have to come around to the fact that we need each other and that government of the people can help elleviate some of our worst issues.

I don't think Americans are ever going to come around to accepting this. I used to think so, back when I was younger and more idealistic, but no longer.

[astrid]

How much does altruism need to matter? Does the donation of money for a museum collection or library or hospital wing count less if the donor gets their name on the doorway? What about companies that donate to the local community or to charitable/social causes in order to burnish their public image?

 

(Or to try an analogy, MacDonalds has begun to offer some healthier options. Should that be discounted because it is an attempt to continue to make money and to not run afoul of laws and regulations? Or can we say that the newer options are an improvement, regardless of motivation.)

 

 

Not sure why you're grilling me; I just offered a possible guess as to why some of the research removes giving through religious institutions.

 

Sheesh. Easy there...

 

astrid

[8circles]

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.

 

 

Holy Crow! :eek:

[SKL]

There is a intrinsic idea in the minds if many Americans, woven through our history from the beginning, that we are rugged individualists. Certainly, there is some good that comes from the idea that we will rise above the problems and "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps." That is, until we no longer have bootstraps. The idea of relying on government or others for help, of being a pluralistic instead of an individualistic society, is tantamount to treason to some Americans. Why?? There are always those who point out the ones that are working the system. Yes, there are people like that. But to ignore the people in our SOCIETY that are hard working but have health issues, or have lost a job suddenly, or have children with expensive special needs, etc. is such a sad commentary on us as a people. Charities and churches help, but there are far more people who need help than there are individuals and charities that can help at the moment. I'm Christian, and I've seen and heard the simplistic notion that if "these people" were willing to work hard, they wouldn't be having problems.

 

Ultimately, I think Americans are going to have to come around to the fact that we need each other and that government of the people can help elleviate some of our worst issues. There will certainly be problems, but I look fondly forward to the day when people here don't have to choose between getting needed medicine or feeding their kids.

 

I believe that people who believe in individualism also believe in charity (those I know do). Certainly much more than in tax-funded programs. If I have $100 that I want to go to help someone, I want to be the person deciding how it's going to be spent. If it goes into the tax pool, some of it is certain to be used toward activities that I believe actually hurt people in need of help. I am much happier to give it to an organization that I have a lot of experience with, whose mission I agree with, whose management I am confident in, whose results I see as a net benefit to the community. Even if I donate several times the amount I spend on my own family for a year (as I have done in the past), that does not mean I don't believe in individual responsibility. There are charities that do not work against individual responsibility. My personal favorites are those which provide literacy education to needy children. Helping the elderly or disabled also have nothing to do with bootstraps.

[Audrey]

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.

 

This applies to Canada as well. It is a very nice way to live. I previously lived in the US, but I was not a parent there. I cannot imagine the feeling of having no insurance/access to healthcare for my child. I cannot imagine having to worry about the costs of critical healthcare for my child. If he throws up in the middle of the night, I know I can get him in to the doc the next morning and get him meds for strep (because that's always how his strep starts). I don't have to worry about it. I don't even want to think about worse health events than that. As a mother, I really hurt for my Yankee neighbours who are dealing with that.

[leeannpal]

I believe that people who believe in individualism also believe in charity (those I know do). Certainly much more than in tax-funded programs. If I have $100 that I want to go to help someone, I want to be the person deciding how it's going to be spent. If it goes into the tax pool, some of it is certain to be used toward activities that I believe actually hurt people in need of help. I am much happier to give it to an organization that I have a lot of experience with, whose mission I agree with, whose management I am confident in, whose results I see as a net benefit to the community. Even if I donate several times the amount I spend on my own family for a year (as I have done in the past), that does not mean I don't believe in individual responsibility. There are charities that do not work against individual responsibility. My personal favorites are those which provide literacy education to needy children. Helping the elderly or disabled also have nothing to do with bootstraps.

 

I'm not talking about charities that help people live a better life. I'm talking about a society that helps people in life or death situations. At our most basic level, humans need food, water, shelter and healthcare to survive. There are plenty of people in America that can no longer afford the basics to survive. And so much of it is hidden. The couple who both have jobs but the cost of living has gone up so much that they can no longer afford the high blood pressure medicine that is needed. The parents who have to pull their kid from occupational therapy because they can no longer afford the gas to drive round trip a couple of times a week. These people have plenty of individual responsiblity. They just can't keep up with rising inflation and cuts in pay.

Edited August 30, 2011 by leeannpal

[MSNative]

I think the ones that have money, and want higher taxes, already do donate and give and do the things you are talking about. (Except Warren Buffet) The ones that don't are the ones that don't believe in higher taxes, for the most part. Also, I believe in higher taxes, but mostly because a little from many adds up to a lot. So an extra 50 bucks a year from me and everyone else adds up to a huge amount of money to do a lot of good. My $50 all on its own doesn't do that much. (but I do give it.)

 

I'm curious if this thread was started because of the news about Warren Buffet/Berkshire Hathaway being years in arrears in taxes. That does bug me. We can discuss what level of taxation is appropriate, but if you are going to go out and say rich people like you should pay more in taxes, then you should pay your taxes, WB. Grr.

 

I know someone asked for info on giving broken down by political leaning. I found this from ABC news which reports on a study that shows conservatives give 30% more than liberals. Not trying to go there in the discussion but wanting to give that info since it had been requested.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

 

I have seen info on the effect of taxes on giving but can't find it now and we're in an algebra crisis so I can't look. Will research it though. Notionally one would think lower taxes would result in increased giving. Curious if that is the case.

 

Also, I did a quick search but couldn't find the number of people who actually choose to give extra taxes. I know there is a place where you can select on your return. I saw the number some time (probably around April) and remember it was incredibly low. Like a couple hundred people. Will also look around for that info after we avert algebra world war here.

[YLVD]

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.

 

:iagree:

[krwsmum]

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.

 

They do have limits...they just use their "cash" for what us normal folk would consider "luxuries"!

 

Dh makes a good income, we contribute to various charities, tithe regularily, and live within our means. We have splurged on things like cars (our weakness), but we live in a modest home, and have the minimal on our cell phones-no smart phones here! I coupon like crazy, and have little to no credit card debt. That being said, I find it extremely frustrating to see people that are obviously getting assistance with iPhones, carrying Coach bags, and $150 tennis shoes...I haven't paid more than $40 on a pair of shoes for myself since I had children!

[twoforjoy]

They do have limits...they just use their "cash" for what us normal folk would consider "luxuries"!

 

Dh makes a good income, we contribute to various charities, tithe regularily, and live within our means. We have splurged on things like cars (our weakness), but we live in a modest home, and have the minimal on our cell phones-no smart phones here! I coupon like crazy, and have little to no credit card debt. That being said, I find it extremely frustrating to see people that are obviously getting assistance with iPhones, carrying Coach bags, and $150 tennis shoes...I haven't paid more than $40 on a pair of shoes for myself since I had children!

 

The poor and their iPhones again.

 

For one, we don't know when or where or from whom they got them. For another, many poor people I know who have a nice phone (which is a small number) have that phone as their ONLY communication device. They don't have a landline. They don't have a computer and internet access. They don't have video game systems. They have a phone, which they use for phone calls and for internet, which I would say, at this point in our particular time and place, really can't be classed as "luxuries."

 

For another, even really nice electronic gadgets don't cost all that much. In the last few decades, the cost of essentials--housing, medical care, education--has skyrocketed, while the cost of luxuries, particularly Chinese-made electronics--has plummeted. This has led to a situation where people can afford all sorts of "luxuries" even when they are making so little they couldn't hope to save up for essentials if they saved for decades.

 

But, my goodness. I'm so tired of people begrudging people their iPhones. We have old, phone-call-only cell phones. For us, a better phone isn't worth it. But I certainly wouldn't consider it some sort of extravagant luxury to get a nicer phone, and I'm not going to be upset because somebody with less income than me has one. I know that that phone isn't what's standing between them and economic self-sufficiency. When housing, medical care, transportation, and education costs become reasonable, then maybe I'll be willing to start talking about who should or shouldn't have an iPhone.

[LucyStoner]

I do. Many do. In addition to volunteer work, I give. And in addition to that, I work in a helping field serving homeless individuals. I graduated with great scores, was accepted to great colleges and could have entered any number of highly paid fields instead of the path that I choose. Heck, I could make more than I do now if I shifted my skill set to the private industry with no additional schooling. When I was a child, I thought I would be a nun, I flirted with leaving the Catholic Church and becoming a priest in the Episcopal Church. Instead I work at a non-profit. I have worked for a parenting organization, run an emergency family services organization and am presently a manager and fundraisier for a program which employs homeless people and advocates/lobbies for economic justice. So frankly, I grow weary of "why don't liberals do anything to help" sort of questions. I do a lot and I still think I should do more.

 

Many people liberal and conservative do a lot for others and we tend to underestimate the impact of individuals, as caring neighbors and community members, in philanthropy and we tend to far overstate the role of foundations, corporations and government. Individuals on their own (73%), as small family foundations (6%) and as estates (8%) give 87% of all funds that go to charities. Large foundations are about 8% and corporations, which get a lot of credit for their giving, give only 5% of the amount given to charity.

 

However, I believe that structural changes which exceed the reach of the faith community and non-profit efforts are needed and that the lack of them is immoral and fiscally irresponsible. Some of that structure in my mind comes from government policy and some some government spending. Some of it has nothing to do with the government. It is not that I think we should tax people to death or that social spending should be unlimited, but that things like nursing for the developmentally disabled and food for hungry kids need and deserve some government investment because the alternatives are socially unacceptable and fiscally irresponsible.

[happygrrl]

I am politically very "left", and my dh is about the same distance to the "right". We are considered poor, since our annual income is quite low (dh just started a new business and all monies are going into building that). What I mean is that though we are not currently on food stamps, we qualify for them. We do utilize state health care for emergencies. We likely won't pay any taxes this year to the Federal government, and very little to the state.

 

We attend a church and give a considerable percentage of our income both to the church and also to charitable organizations. We don't give to political organizations because we are not in agreement about which ones to give to :D. We live on what is left over, after our giving.

 

All that to say- there are so many people (like us) who will not fit into sweeping generalizations...

 

Think I will just join the "have a beer" crowd and watch.

 

(Though I don't think I can resist linking this Jon Stewart monologue, just for fun :D)

[LucyStoner]

Conservatives do give more as a percentage of their income but that should be considered in light of a few factors:

 

-giving includes religious giving. Giving to a church counts as giving (as it should). Stands to reason that there are many more conservative than liberal church goers. Religious people, liberal and conservative, in general give higher percentages of their incomes to church and non-church activities because of the spiritual imperative to do so. There is not a significant descrepancy along political lines in giving from religious people and non-religious conservatives and liberals give in roughly the same pattern (some a lot, some a little, some none). To put the skewing impact this has on the data, churches receive 35% of all donations given. This is more than twice as much as any other catagory. Education is second at about 16% or so. When church giving is excluded, there is not a significant difference in the rates at which liberals and conservatives give, in fact liberals come out a touch ahead. But as far as I am concerned, it is not a competition. Giving is good and I don't care about the political beliefs of the givers.

 

-interestingly, liberal areas and states tend to support a broader array of support services in their communities, both through local taxes and through charitable donations. There are far more charities per capita (not just more because there are more people) in liberal areas. This pattern plays out in liberal and conservative areas of the same state and in states vs. Other states as a whole.

 

-More liberals live in high cost of living urban areas with high median wages and are statistically more likely to be hit by the tax known as the AMT regardless of if their standard of living is worse than their same profession counterparts in low cost of living areas. This is why the Democrats have had a bee in their bonnet about this issue much longer than the Republicans. The Bush tax cuts did not fix the AMT, despite lowering taxes for many middle class families.

Edited August 30, 2011 by kijipt

[goldberry]

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 would really like to see an answer to this.

 

Everytime the subject comes up, whether healthcare, or the poor, many times the answer is that if the government were not involved, the "community" would step up and handle it. There just doesn't seem to be any basis for that belief. The whole reason the govt became involved in the first place is because the "community" either couldn't or wouldn't handle it.

 

If you believe that is the answer, what evidence do you base your belief on?

[Sputterduck]

I'm not talking about charities that help people live a better life. I'm talking about a society that helps people in life or death situations. At our most basic level, humans need food, water, shelter and healthcare to survive. There are plenty of people in America that can no longer afford the basics to survive. And so much of it is hidden. The couple who both have jobs but the cost of living has gone up so much that they can no longer afford the high blood pressure medicine that is needed. The parents who have to pull their kid from occupational therapy because they can no longer afford the gas to drive round trip a couple of times a week. These people have plenty of individual responsiblity. They just can't keep up with rising inflation and cuts in pay.

 

I agree with this, except I want to add that there are many charities that help with life and death situations and who do it very well and efficiently.

[TXMomof4]

Non-Americans are people too, and they need jobs too. More desperately than Americans do, in fact. Moreover, Americans dug their own grave by overestimating the value of their labor and bargaining foolishly. If you want to put an uneducated American to work, hire one to clean your house for $50 per hour. Why should it be Gates' responsibility?

 

I don't mind moving jobs to wherever it makes the most sense, as long as the company is honest about it. Don't say "buy American" when 97% of your content is foreign, for example.

 

I understand other countries need jobs. There are arguments to be made though about the human rights issues when those jobs go overseas. There are more regulations here about working conditions than there are in China or third world countries. So, we complain there are no jobs here, we complain that people aren't treated humanely in businesses overseas, we have the Patriotic Millionaires saying that taxes should be higher and the reality is if they/we want to fix America, we have to invest in America. Raise the taxes as high as you want. If the companies won't invest here, the taxes will not fix the system.

[astrid]

The poor and their iPhones again......

 

....When housing, medical care, transportation, and education costs become reasonable, then maybe I'll be willing to start talking about who should or shouldn't have an iPhone.

 

I completely agree.

 

astrid

[astrid]

I'm waiting too! :D

 

.....and still waiting.....

 

astrid

[Sputterduck]

The poor and their iPhones again.

 

For one, we don't know when or where or from whom they got them. For another, many poor people I know who have a nice phone (which is a small number) have that phone as their ONLY communication device. They don't have a landline. They don't have a computer and internet access. They don't have video game systems. They have a phone, which they use for phone calls and for internet, which I would say, at this point in our particular time and place, really can't be classed as "luxuries."

 

For another, even really nice electronic gadgets don't cost all that much. In the last few decades, the cost of essentials--housing, medical care, education--has skyrocketed, while the cost of luxuries, particularly Chinese-made electronics--has plummeted. This has led to a situation where people can afford all sorts of "luxuries" even when they are making so little they couldn't hope to save up for essentials if they saved for decades.

 

But, my goodness. I'm so tired of people begrudging people their iPhones. We have old, phone-call-only cell phones. For us, a better phone isn't worth it. But I certainly wouldn't consider it some sort of extravagant luxury to get a nicer phone, and I'm not going to be upset because somebody with less income than me has one. I know that that phone isn't what's standing between them and economic self-sufficiency. When housing, medical care, transportation, and education costs become reasonable, then maybe I'll be willing to start talking about who should or shouldn't have an iPhone.

 

The internet now is a need and not a luxury? Gosh. How did all the generations before us survive without the internet? Only 1/3 of the people in the world have internet. I wonder how they survive.

[Slartibartfast]

If the Gates foundation and Warren Buffet and Apple and all of those would bring the jobs back to America - well, there would be significantly less need for social safety nets. How many manufacturing jobs does Apple provide to China? How many Americans buy computers manufactured anywhere but here? Same thing with cars, appliances, clothing, etc. How much charity does it take to balance out sending millions of jobs overseas?

 

There was an interview with one of the Patriotic Millionaires on TV a few weeks ago and he was asked why he doesn't hire new employees instead of offering to pay higher taxes. The reality is that even if his taxes increased by $250,000 year, it's still cheaper for him to pay that than to try to invest that money in a new business or to pay for hiring individuals. That $100,000/ year wouldn't make a huge dent in either place, but it's cheaper and easier for him to put it on the back of the gov. than to risk his money in investing in America on his own.

:iagree:

[Mama Geek]

I would really like to see an answer to this.

 

Everytime the subject comes up, whether healthcare, or the poor, many times the answer is that if the government were not involved, the "community" would step up and handle it. There just doesn't seem to be any basis for that belief. The whole reason the govt became involved in the first place is because the "community" either couldn't or wouldn't handle it.

 

If you believe that is the answer, what evidence do you base your belief on?

 

What about the US before the income tax was instituted? My understanding of history is that the tariffs in place in the US were used to protect our industry. Families, churches and communities pulled together to take care of each other.

[SKL]

I understand other countries need jobs. There are arguments to be made though about the human rights issues when those jobs go overseas. There are more regulations here about working conditions than there are in China or third world countries. So, we complain there are no jobs here, we complain that people aren't treated humanely in businesses overseas, we have the Patriotic Millionaires saying that taxes should be higher and the reality is if they/we want to fix America, we have to invest in America. Raise the taxes as high as you want. If the companies won't invest here, the taxes will not fix the system.

 

Maybe they don't want to fix America.

[twoforjoy]

The whole reason the govt became involved in the first place is because the "community" either couldn't or wouldn't handle it.

 

Yes. I'd like to have somebody respond to the question I posed, which is what model they can point to of a system in which the care of the poor was left to voluntary charity and the poor were taken care of. Or, I'll make it even easier: a society where the care of the poor was left to voluntary charity and many, many poor people were left in absolutely deplorable conditions (starvation, homelessness, hunger, giving up children, dying of preventable diseases, etc.). I can't think of a single one, but if people are aware of one, I'd love to be corrected.

[twoforjoy]

The internet now is a need and not a luxury? Gosh. How did all the generations before us survive without the internet? Only 1/3 of the people in the world have internet. I wonder how they survive.

 

Have you tried finding a job without internet access lately?

 

People got by for generations without phones, but there were several generations where a phone was a need. It was pretty much impossible to access certain services and to be gainfully employed without one.

 

People got by for generations with refrigeration, but today it would be extremely difficult in most parts of the U.S. to feed a family in a healthy way without one.

 

Just because something is new doesn't mean that it hasn't become quite necessary. I'd say the internet has become quite necessary for most people, particularly for those looking for work, and that's a situation many of the poor are in.

Edited August 30, 2011 by twoforjoy

[twoforjoy]

What about the US before the income tax was instituted? My understanding of history is that the tariffs in place in the US were used to protect our industry. Families, churches and communities pulled together to take care of each other.

 

African-Americans and white sharecroppers were living in deplorable conditions and in dire poverty in the 1920s.

 

Today, blacks and rural white people still make up a good chunk of the poor. They are living in much, much better conditions than they were back then.

[Slartibartfast]

Non-Americans are people too, and they need jobs too. More desperately than Americans do, in fact. Moreover, Americans dug their own grave by overestimating the value of their labor and bargaining foolishly. If you want to put an uneducated American to work, hire one to clean your house for $50 per hour. Why should it be Gates' responsibility?

 

I don't mind moving jobs to wherever it makes the most sense, as long as the company is honest about it. Don't say "buy American" when 97% of your content is foreign, for example.

 

I disagree completely. When companies are moving overseas and subjecting people to sweat shop conditions for pennies a day that seems like a lot more than the inconvenience of paying a living wage.

 

Overestimating the worth of their labor? People doing hard jobs in the meat packing industry, factories and warehouses do want to be able to feed their families just as anyone else does. No, it isn't a white collar job but blue collar people have children as well, they work hard, do their jobs and should be able to survive without having to get a second job.

 

I am sure it is a pretty good deal to let those people try and live on Walmart and fast food pay instead but it isn't good for our economy when the middle class is disappearing and more and more people are relying on food stamps and other social services to survive

[twoforjoy]

You do realize that housing is expensive because of the tax on it that pays for the local medical care, transportation, and education?

 

That's why? That fully explains the housing bubble? It's not that easy. My parents bought their home for $29K. Just thirty years later, it sold for $300K. And, incomes aren't now 10x higher than they were back then. There's a whole lot more at work than just taxes.