4 ms·

I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charit

I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1]. The bigger problem seems to be people trusting government imposed redistribution schemes rather than the rejection of them altogether. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n_1159562.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-...

lostlogin 13y ago
The are all sorts of ways to measure aid. Have a read of this if it interests you. I stumbled across it while looking to see if I could find a $ given per head of population graph I saw a while back. I didn't find it. http://kriswager.blogspot.co.nz/2007/03/is-usa-biggest-foreign-aid-donor.html?m=1 http://kriswager.blogspot.co.nz/2007/03/is-usa-biggest-forei...
bosie 13y ago
> I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1] After browsing the PDF, it seems to not account for many things. No idea why you think it is 'well refuted'. E.g. It does not account for higher taxes, which are funneled to help the poor. It also seems to count everything binary, either you helped or you did not. No mention is given as to how much time/money you actually donated - and to whom. Additionally, weighing all three things (giving money/helping strangers/volunteering time) the same is rather odd. The us is #10 at giving money. And this does not even include taxes! Way to fight poverty. If it weren't for the dubious 'helping a stranger' the US would not be anywhere.
anigbrowl 13y ago
The US is #1 in charitable giving because it's so easy to get a tax deduction for doing so. If people had to give out of their after-tax income I suspect you'd see a quite different picture.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  That's a pretty cynical viewpoint & doesn't account for the fact that other countries do or may have similar type tax laws. Can you provide some sort of proof of causation for your theory?
- michaeldhopkins 13y ago
  That's not true. I have the experiences of having prepared taxes professionally and counting and reporting donations at a church. By combining those I can observe that the majority of donations are proportional to income, not whether the donator can fill out a Schedule A. (The ability to fill out a Schedule A and deduct donations essentially depends on whether the taxpayer has a mortgage, for middle class.)
- grkvlt 13y ago
  It's not exactly a tax deduction though... In the UK, for example, charitable donations are 'tax free' effectively, since the recipient will recieve an extra amount based on the marginal income tax rate you are paying. The only beneficiary here is the charity, and only if you make an explicit donation from your after-tax income. It's not like the government is allowing you to choose to redirect the tax you're due to charity. In the US, I believe the situation is similar.
  - njs12345 13y ago
    It's different in the US: 'The taxable income of the donor is reduced by 300 USD. If the donor's income was in the 35% income tax bracket both before and after the deduction, the donor's tax liability (amount of taxes owed to the government) is reduced by 105 USD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_contribution_deductions_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_contribution_deducti...
  - lmm 13y ago
    In theory a donation of $1 in the US is exactly equivalent to a donation of $.70 or so in the UK. But psychologically it seems that people are much more willing to donate more and get money from the government. (The other thing I've wondered about is how much of the US's charitable donations are simply tax fraud).
quinnchr 13y ago
Except that the plurality of U.S. charity goes to religious charities. Charitable giving for health, education, and human services accounts for only 33% of all charitable giving in the U.S. How much of that goes to programs designed to address poverty is debatable. Source: http://www.alysterling.com/documents/GUSA2012ExecutiveSummary.pdf http://www.alysterling.com/documents/GUSA2012ExecutiveSummar...
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  >>>>> xcept that the plurality of U.S. charity goes to religious charities. Who actually do quite a bit of good with it: "We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church." "Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work." source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/19/frank-keating/does-catholic-church-provide-half-social-services-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/... Considering they put out close to 4 billion every year in charity, it's hard to argue they don't help the impoverished.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    That doesn't really refute my point at all. Catholic charities devoted to human services are counted under human services. I'm not sure where I said religious charities don't help people. They most certainly help members of their respective congregations. But they also can do a lot of harm, like you know, oppressing people by opposing same sex marriage, or pretty much anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs. Since we're focusing on catholics, what good is done by denying all of your employee's spouses insurance coverage, just so you don't have to extend the benefit to people in same sex marriages? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103345.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03...
bonemachine 13y ago
I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving. Pah. There's no way that you can assess a how well a society helps its poor simply by looking at one metric (like charitable giving) alone. It's just silly, on the face of it.

lostlogin 13y ago

The are all sorts of ways to measure aid. Have a read of this if it interests you. I stumbled across it while looking to see if I could find a $ given per head of population graph I saw a while back. I didn't find it. http://kriswager.blogspot.co.nz/2007/03/is-usa-biggest-foreign-aid-donor.html?m=1 http://kriswager.blogspot.co.nz/2007/03/is-usa-biggest-forei...

bosie 13y ago

> I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1] After browsing the PDF, it seems to not account for many things. No idea why you think it is 'well refuted'. E.g. It does not account for higher taxes, which are funneled to help the poor. It also seems to count everything binary, either you helped or you did not. No mention is given as to how much time/money you actually donated - and to whom. Additionally, weighing all three things (giving money/helping strangers/volunteering time) the same is rather odd. The us is #10 at giving money. And this does not even include taxes! Way to fight poverty. If it weren't for the dubious 'helping a stranger' the US would not be anywhere.

anigbrowl 13y ago

The US is #1 in charitable giving because it's so easy to get a tax deduction for doing so. If people had to give out of their after-tax income I suspect you'd see a quite different picture.

joelrunyon 13y ago
That's a pretty cynical viewpoint & doesn't account for the fact that other countries do or may have similar type tax laws. Can you provide some sort of proof of causation for your theory?
michaeldhopkins 13y ago
That's not true. I have the experiences of having prepared taxes professionally and counting and reporting donations at a church. By combining those I can observe that the majority of donations are proportional to income, not whether the donator can fill out a Schedule A. (The ability to fill out a Schedule A and deduct donations essentially depends on whether the taxpayer has a mortgage, for middle class.)
grkvlt 13y ago
It's not exactly a tax deduction though... In the UK, for example, charitable donations are 'tax free' effectively, since the recipient will recieve an extra amount based on the marginal income tax rate you are paying. The only beneficiary here is the charity, and only if you make an explicit donation from your after-tax income. It's not like the government is allowing you to choose to redirect the tax you're due to charity. In the US, I believe the situation is similar.
- njs12345 13y ago
  It's different in the US: 'The taxable income of the donor is reduced by 300 USD. If the donor's income was in the 35% income tax bracket both before and after the deduction, the donor's tax liability (amount of taxes owed to the government) is reduced by 105 USD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_contribution_deductions_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_contribution_deducti...
- lmm 13y ago
  In theory a donation of $1 in the US is exactly equivalent to a donation of $.70 or so in the UK. But psychologically it seems that people are much more willing to donate more and get money from the government. (The other thing I've wondered about is how much of the US's charitable donations are simply tax fraud).

quinnchr 13y ago

Except that the plurality of U.S. charity goes to religious charities. Charitable giving for health, education, and human services accounts for only 33% of all charitable giving in the U.S. How much of that goes to programs designed to address poverty is debatable. Source: http://www.alysterling.com/documents/GUSA2012ExecutiveSummary.pdf http://www.alysterling.com/documents/GUSA2012ExecutiveSummar...

at-fates-hands 13y ago
>>>>> xcept that the plurality of U.S. charity goes to religious charities. Who actually do quite a bit of good with it: "We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church." "Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work." source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/19/frank-keating/does-catholic-church-provide-half-social-services-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/... Considering they put out close to 4 billion every year in charity, it's hard to argue they don't help the impoverished.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  That doesn't really refute my point at all. Catholic charities devoted to human services are counted under human services. I'm not sure where I said religious charities don't help people. They most certainly help members of their respective congregations. But they also can do a lot of harm, like you know, oppressing people by opposing same sex marriage, or pretty much anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs. Since we're focusing on catholics, what good is done by denying all of your employee's spouses insurance coverage, just so you don't have to extend the benefit to people in same sex marriages? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103345.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03...

bonemachine 13y ago

I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving. Pah. There's no way that you can assess a how well a society helps its poor simply by looking at one metric (like charitable giving) alone. It's just silly, on the face of it.