4 ms·

> That would just mean that some Americans donate a lot. Are you saying this doesn't also occur in other nations, like Germany?

strken 7y ago
The US has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world, so assuming that the ultra-rich donate more, their impact should be higher in the US than anywhere else.
- minikites 7y ago
  >assuming that the ultra-rich donate more That's a terrible assumption: https://www.fool.com/taxes/2018/07/02/heres-how-much-the-average-american-taxpayer-gives.aspx https://www.fool.com/taxes/2018/07/02/heres-how-much-the-ave...
- daliusd 7y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_... As you see you are wrong. As well you are wrong about statistics - see this https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-large-numbers https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-large-numbers
  - strken 7y ago
    That's income inequality. You want wealth inequality. http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/ Admittedly they only surveyed 55 countries, which I will openly admit to missing. In addition, I'm not sure how the law of large numbers applies to wealth, which roughly follows a power law instead of being randomly distributed.
    - daliusd 7y ago
      I think I want income inequality. Wealth inequality might be totally meaningless as wealth is guesstimate not exact value usually, e.g. look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribut..., is hard to say anything at all from Gini Wealth. Zimbabwe and Denmark can be compared by Gini index but that's completely nonsensical result: one corrupt and one happiest country in the world. I have mentioned law of large numbers because of population size, however rich ultra-rich might be that can't skew results in USA.

strken 7y ago

The US has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world, so assuming that the ultra-rich donate more, their impact should be higher in the US than anywhere else.

minikites 7y ago
>assuming that the ultra-rich donate more That's a terrible assumption: https://www.fool.com/taxes/2018/07/02/heres-how-much-the-average-american-taxpayer-gives.aspx https://www.fool.com/taxes/2018/07/02/heres-how-much-the-ave...
daliusd 7y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_... As you see you are wrong. As well you are wrong about statistics - see this https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-large-numbers https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-large-numbers
- strken 7y ago
  That's income inequality. You want wealth inequality. http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/ Admittedly they only surveyed 55 countries, which I will openly admit to missing. In addition, I'm not sure how the law of large numbers applies to wealth, which roughly follows a power law instead of being randomly distributed.
  - daliusd 7y ago
    I think I want income inequality. Wealth inequality might be totally meaningless as wealth is guesstimate not exact value usually, e.g. look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribut..., is hard to say anything at all from Gini Wealth. Zimbabwe and Denmark can be compared by Gini index but that's completely nonsensical result: one corrupt and one happiest country in the world. I have mentioned law of large numbers because of population size, however rich ultra-rich might be that can't skew results in USA.