Posted by Sir Four at 1:56pm Aug 21 '12Conservatives and Republicans badly want to dial back the safety nets and welfare programs that provide assistance to those in need. But of course, almost nobody wants to be a cruel and heartless person--and liberals are quick to reach for those words to describe such policy positions. Conservatives therefore have one big, go-to escape hatch from the accusations of heartlessness: charity. The government mustn't tax us and use the money to help those in need, no. In the absence of government programs, charity will step up to the task.
This is basically taken for granted as an obvious, unimpeachable fact by conservatives. But leaving aside questions like whether there would truly be enough charity, what would happen to charitable giving in economic downturns, or whether the money would be distributed in proportions relative to the different social needs...there exists some real, empirical data we can look at. And that is, who is giving what to charity presently?
One may conclude that wealthier Americans aren't particularly big on charitable giving. On average, the wealthier you are, the smaller percentage of your income you donate.
Sure, you can suggest that in a hypothetical future of lower taxes, wealthier people may become more charitable. Maybe. That's only speculation, though. And we presently live in a period of low taxes--following Bush's tax cuts, the last decade saw the lowest taxes since pre-WWII. Yet the richest fifth gave 2.1% to charity.
How about the great expounders of the low-tax/high-charity hypothesis? What examples have they personally set? Rick Santorum, for one, donated 1.7% of his income in 2010 to charity. Paul Ryan, Romney's VP, donated 1.2% in 2010 to charity. These are politicians who argue for the charity solution, and they actually donate below the average for their income bracket. Mitt Romney of course donated more, although the footnote there was that it was almost completely tithes to his church: a religious obligation, which may have fed hungry people, or may have funded anti-gay ads in California--we don't really know.
Anyway. Just something to think about.
This is basically taken for granted as an obvious, unimpeachable fact by conservatives. But leaving aside questions like whether there would truly be enough charity, what would happen to charitable giving in economic downturns, or whether the money would be distributed in proportions relative to the different social needs...there exists some real, empirical data we can look at. And that is, who is giving what to charity presently?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of U.S. households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent.
One may conclude that wealthier Americans aren't particularly big on charitable giving. On average, the wealthier you are, the smaller percentage of your income you donate.
Sure, you can suggest that in a hypothetical future of lower taxes, wealthier people may become more charitable. Maybe. That's only speculation, though. And we presently live in a period of low taxes--following Bush's tax cuts, the last decade saw the lowest taxes since pre-WWII. Yet the richest fifth gave 2.1% to charity.
How about the great expounders of the low-tax/high-charity hypothesis? What examples have they personally set? Rick Santorum, for one, donated 1.7% of his income in 2010 to charity. Paul Ryan, Romney's VP, donated 1.2% in 2010 to charity. These are politicians who argue for the charity solution, and they actually donate below the average for their income bracket. Mitt Romney of course donated more, although the footnote there was that it was almost completely tithes to his church: a religious obligation, which may have fed hungry people, or may have funded anti-gay ads in California--we don't really know.
Anyway. Just something to think about.
The old line about charity - Sir Four