3 ms·

> I have never heard this as a conservative viewpoint. Conservatives believe that charity is only charity if it isn't mandatory. Taxes represent seizure of you

by temphn 16y ago

> I have never heard this as a conservative viewpoint. Conservatives believe that charity is only charity if it isn't mandatory. Taxes represent seizure of your assets at gunpoint (no one would pay if the IRS didn't enforce). Forcible asset seizure + spending on purposes which you may or may not agree with is many things, but it is not charity. In terms of actual charity numbers, self-identified conservatives give a lot more. http://philanthropy.com/blogs/prospecting/conservative-voters-are-more-liberal-with-charity/19091 http://philanthropy.com/blogs/prospecting/conservative-voter... Households that describe themselves as conservative tend to give more money to charities than moderate and liberal households, according to a new survey. In a survey of 3,300 households that donated money to charity in the past 12 months, the company Campbell Rinker, in Valencia, Calif., asked respondents about their political ideology. Of those surveyed, those who live in conservative households donated an average of $3,255 to charities outside of places of worship during the past year. By comparison, moderate households donated $2,926 and liberal households donated $1,879. http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservative... In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, “from poor to middle class to rich.”

nhebb 16y ago
To round the subject out, Brooks also found that liberals were more likely to donate their time, and that both liberals and conservatives were more likely to donate money than moderates.
romey 16y ago
Personally, I would certainly pay taxes, even if they weren't at gunpoint. I find roads, police, etc far too convenient to give up. I haven't read the book that you quote, but I'd be interested to know how much of the conservative donations were related to religious causes.
- temphn 16y ago
  (1) Roads and police are a relatively small portion of your taxes. So this statement is a little bit of a bait and switch. Most of it goes towards Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the DoD. (2) By aggregating everything into "taxes", individual services do not have accountability. The more locally funded something is, the more accountable it is -- and the more likely it will be discontinued if enough people decide it's not worth the money. (3) The amount matters. You can assent in the abstract, but 1% vs. 10% vs. 90% vs. 100% taxation are very different. As you increase it, more want to opt out. The guns of the IRS ensure that they can't.
ebiester 16y ago
I have been on both sides of the fence. As a conservative religions individual, I gave away a higher percentage of my income to what is considered charity. However, even when I don't include tithe, much of that charity was sent to evangelical initiatives, not things that actually... help people. Today, I give less as a percentage of my income, but the percentage of income that actually helps others is substantially higher. Let's go further. What is charity, in the first place? A donation to public radio is charity, but is more of a payment for a public good. Focus on the Family? Neither of these would be considered a substitute for an abused woman's shelter or a food bank... Note: In the time and place I was in, there was open talk among evangelicals that social spending was bad because it led people away from the church helping people, decreasing its influence. Charity to the American Evangelical church, much like Hamas or Hezbollah, look at charity as a strategy to consolidate power.

by temphn 16y ago

nhebb 16y ago

To round the subject out, Brooks also found that liberals were more likely to donate their time, and that both liberals and conservatives were more likely to donate money than moderates.

romey 16y ago

Personally, I would certainly pay taxes, even if they weren't at gunpoint. I find roads, police, etc far too convenient to give up. I haven't read the book that you quote, but I'd be interested to know how much of the conservative donations were related to religious causes.

temphn 16y ago
(1) Roads and police are a relatively small portion of your taxes. So this statement is a little bit of a bait and switch. Most of it goes towards Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the DoD. (2) By aggregating everything into "taxes", individual services do not have accountability. The more locally funded something is, the more accountable it is -- and the more likely it will be discontinued if enough people decide it's not worth the money. (3) The amount matters. You can assent in the abstract, but 1% vs. 10% vs. 90% vs. 100% taxation are very different. As you increase it, more want to opt out. The guns of the IRS ensure that they can't.

ebiester 16y ago

I have been on both sides of the fence. As a conservative religions individual, I gave away a higher percentage of my income to what is considered charity. However, even when I don't include tithe, much of that charity was sent to evangelical initiatives, not things that actually... help people. Today, I give less as a percentage of my income, but the percentage of income that actually helps others is substantially higher. Let's go further. What is charity, in the first place? A donation to public radio is charity, but is more of a payment for a public good. Focus on the Family? Neither of these would be considered a substitute for an abused woman's shelter or a food bank... Note: In the time and place I was in, there was open talk among evangelicals that social spending was bad because it led people away from the church helping people, decreasing its influence. Charity to the American Evangelical church, much like Hamas or Hezbollah, look at charity as a strategy to consolidate power.