Charitable Contributions In Relation To Ideology

[ICantSpellDawg]

Interesting (and short) article.

Now I’m not throwing stones, because people in glass houses should avoid the practice, but this article is spot on. "Conservatives" give disproportionately more to charity than their "Liberal" counterparts. I’m not one of the charitable you may say - and it’s true, I’m not - I’m also technically a secular conservative, so this report is still accurate (there is a line about how the very small amount of secular conservatives are the most miserly of all, but it still doesn’t outweigh the massive difference in charitable contributions).

Long story short, I need to give to charity and become religious so that I can have some self respect

Keep in mind this is in the U.S.A., where most conservatives believe in Jesus Christ.

What do you think?

=======================================================
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state’s government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
..

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ’no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks’ book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America’s 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks’ data about disparities between liberals’ and conservatives’ charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America’s richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore’s charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples’ money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
georgewill@washpost.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

[Tristuskhan]

Know issue, but worth spreading. Isn't it about Charity and the (often) religious nature of the conservatives?

US citizens give much more than europeans, but we pay much more taxes for welfare, it's just a different way to give.

[Fragony]

Institutionalization of good intentions, pretty cynical huh. It doesn't sur[rise me at all that lefties give less they outsourced that.

[Tristuskhan]

Institutionalization of good intentions, pretty cynical huh. It doesn't sur[rise me at all that lefties give less they outsourced that.
Pretty cynical, of course... but it's efficient at least.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We all pay similar amounts in taxes - so it isn't like there is any way to say that liberals in the U.S. give more through taxes.

In Europe it may be different because Europeans tend to be Godless heathens irrespective of their political ideology.

[Fragony]

Pretty cynical, of course... but it's efficient at least.

Out of all things what it is the least of all is efficient.

Tuff you ok?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Out of all things what it is the least of all is efficient.

Tuff you ok?

Hehe. What do you mean? I'm less hostile to religion out of the blue and I want to find a way to start giving to charity. Because I am a terrible miser.

[Fragony]

My bad, didn't see the jest, ussually I do :shame:

[ICantSpellDawg]

My bad, didn't see the jest, ussually I do :shame:

Haha - I'm not joking. I'm dead serious

I make a decent wage and I give nothing to charity. I also like Catholicism and share most of the core beliefs. My family is super religious.

One day, my mom and dad will be gone and my family will be full of misers and atheists. I don't want to see that happen because I strongly dislike atheists and misers.

My family has historically been very closely tied to the Church (Nuns, Brothers, Priests, etc.) and It would be a shame to lose the legacy of kindness and sacrifice that made my family worthy of existence (whether it is the rather huge financial sacrifices, adoption, or the sacrifice of personal time and energy).

No joke. Blood is thicker than water, but ideology trumps them both.

[Tribesman]

We all pay similar amounts in taxes - so it isn't like there is any way to say that liberals in the U.S. give more through taxes.

yes there is , since donations are tax deductable .

[ICantSpellDawg]

yes there is , since donations are tax deductable .

hahaha - so you are saying that since Liberals aren't giving as much in the first place they are allowing the government to have more money, thus increasing their net "charity"?

I should have known. Those lousy charity givers are just undermining socialism and getting rich while doing it through tax breaks, the rat bastards.

I've gotta let you know - we get a standard deduction here. That means that even though I spent around 5,200 bucks last year on itemizable things, my standard deduction was 5,350. That means that my itemization came up short by $150 and that was without doing anything at all.

You have to give ALOT of money
Laziness isn't charitable.

[atheotes]

When they mention 'charity' do they include the money given to churches/religious organisations (albeit for charity purposes) or only contributions made directly to charities. This might be an important consideration as i believe, more money might be used for actual charity when it is given directly than through a religious organisation.:juggle2:


irrelevant to topic
if churches are included does scientology count:inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

so you are saying that since Liberals aren't giving as much in the first place they are allowing the government to have more money, thus increasing their net "charity"?

Perhaps the caring conservatives are more meticulous in tracking every last cent they donated over the year when it comes time to file their tax returns .


if churches are included does scientology count
yes since 1993 .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Scientology donations aren't enough for the liberals to counter the balance of conservatives in the charity debate? Too Bad.

The idea that people are giving to charity ONLY to get a deduction seems a bit silly (momentously silly) to me. Unless you are laundering the money and cycling it right back into your own pockets - but hey - why not just launder the money in the first place?

How do deductions work in old Eire?

[Goofball]

As it seems we're in a red state/blue state contest of moral superiority here, I thought I'd post this little gem about red state two-facedness when it comes to morality. I have cleaned up the language considerably from the anonymous poster's original, to make it .Org acceptable.

Screw the South. Screw 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. Fighting for the right to keep slaves--yeah, those are states we want to keep. And now what do we get? We're the Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite? How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America? The Authentic America. Really?
'Cause we founded this country, buttholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that crap about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment? Who do you think those wig-wearing, lacy-shirt-sporting revolutionaries were? They were fricking blue-staters, butthead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the fricking monuments are up here in our backyard?
No, No. Get the hell out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fricking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fricking blue states. Get it? We started this crap, so don't get all uppity about how real you are, you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh, I've been a state for almost a hundred years" prickheads. Piss off.
Arrogant? You wanna talk to us Northeasterners about arrogance? Maybe I wouldn't be so arrogant if I wasn't paying for your bridges, chump. All those federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane, you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it; it's a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fricking orange juice.
The next moron who says, "It's your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their butt kicked. Nine of the 10 states that get the most federal dollars and pay the least... can you guess? That's right, moron, they're red states. And 8 of the 10 states that receive the least and pay the most? It's too easy. They're blue states. It's not your money, losers, it's our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: Buy your own lousy stop signs, butthead.
Let's talk about those values for a minute. You and your Southern values can bite my arse because the blue states got the values over you Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate, you marriage-hyping losers? Can you guess? It's Massachusetts, the center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that's right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Think that's just some aberration? How about this: Nine of the 10 lowest divorce rates are blue states, butthead, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to guess? Ten out of 10 are red, we're-so-fricking-moral states.
But two guys making out is going to ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you morons. Oh, but that's okay because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? 'Cause we get to hear about it every year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous morons? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the Northeast Liberal Elite.
Well this gravy train is over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leeching, Confederate-flag-waving, holier- than-thou, hypocritical crap and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
And no, you can't have your convention in New York next time. Piss off.

[Tristuskhan]

I should have known. Those lousy charity givers are just undermining socialism and getting rich while doing it through tax breaks, the rat bastards.

You point it with a needle:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

As it seems we're in a red state/blue state contest of moral superiority here, I thought I'd post this little gem about red state two-facedness when it comes to morality. I have cleaned up the language considerably from the anonymous poster's original, to make it .Org acceptable.


Uncharitable AND Vitriolic? Serious combination. Well played. :yes:

[Vladimir]

Whatever. :juggle: Are we talking net or gross? There was a big poo poo at the UN because Americans, on average, give less to charity than citizens of other countries. Or maybe it was what the government gives. However, the total amount we give is huge. You think the world would be more thankful for the benevolent police protection we offer them :smartass: .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Whatever. :juggle: Are we talking net or gross? There was a big poo poo at the UN because Americans, on average, give less to charity than citizens of other countries. Or maybe it was what the government gives. However, the total amount we give is huge. You think the world would be more thankful for the benevolent police protection we offer them :smartass: .

If I remember correctly, the Poo-Poo was because the U.S. government didn't give as much in relation to its GDP as other countries. What they failed to take into consideration was personal contributions AS WELL AS government contributions - in which case the U.S. gives more of a share of its overall GDP than any other country (if taken as the sum of its parts). Either way, more charitable donations come from the United states than any other country on earth, whether you look at the government alone or the individuals alone.


People like to see the United states as the big monster - let them lie to themselves if it makes them sleep better at night.

[Big_John]

here's the author in a Q&A:

http://philanthropy.com/live/2006/11/brooks/

some interesting points

I agree it’s important to look at giving aside from sacramental contributions to get a fair picture of things. So one of the things I do in the book is to compare secular and religious folks only in terms of explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. There’s still a huge difference:

Religiously-observant people are generally about 10 percentage points more likely than people with “no religion” (or who never practice) to give to nonreligious causes, and about 25 points less likely to volunteer.

Regarding taxes, I think it’s true that some see them as a voluntary part of the social contract to help others. The problem with trying to make a measure that combines donations with taxes is that so many people don’t pay their taxes with this intent, and voluntary charity is so different in terms of deciding where and how money is spent. Still, I discuss the fact that this point has conceptual validity in some places, especially Europe where social spending really is high.
Regarding volunteerism, the gap is statistically insignificant between liberals and conservatives, although adding in religion makes a gap open up (religious conservatives volunteer a lot more than secular liberals). It’s not clear whether conservatives or liberals enjoy a disproportionate tax benefit from giving, although you might plausibly argue that liberals generally get a bigger benefit because they reside in greatest numbers in high-tax (“blue”) states, and thus can deduct more.
But the point in the book was to show that charity differences are actually due to attitudes and behaviors (such as religiosity and attitudes about the government) that go deeper than political affiliations. In the book, I actually point out the fact that when we correct for the “deep attitudes,” politics don't predict giving very well. In other words, politics are correlated with giving at the group level and contradict the stereotypes about charity -- and that’s important to know. But if we want to know exactly why this is, we have to go into much deeper than politics. Perhaps not surprisingly, that second story isn’t the “top-line” one that’s showing up in the press a lot.

(these types of studies are nothing new, btw)

[atheotes]

Any idea how they came up with the numbers for the article?

edit: the above post explains a lot...

[Fragony]

Pakistan is an ally we are your friends americans are paranoid.

[Tribesman]

Scientology donations aren't enough for the liberals to counter the balance of conservatives in the charity debate? Too Bad.

Scientologists are liberals ??????

But anyway Tuff since you want to put a religeous angle on this we can discount some big money charities whose aims are for example....errrrrr...to put on lots of big money golf tournaments at top golf courses , and instead focus on religeous ones . So Tuff if you take a charity monitors list of religeous charities , what proportion of them recieve the "pile of crap waste of money" or "downright scam artist" ratings ?
You see for all your nonsense about how much money, the issue should really be where does it go and what does it do .

Oh and another thing

I need to give to charity and become religious so that I can have some self respect

Did you read the passage in the bible about the bloke who claimed to be religeous and how he gave so much money to charity , I think there was a little woman in it who didn't give much and didn't make a song and dance about it...or perhaps in your quest to be religeous and have respect you missed that part:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In Europe it may be different because Europeans tend to be Godless heathens irrespective of their political ideology.

:inquisitive:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EU_belief_in_god.png

I believe that would leave the Czechs to be "Godless heathens".

[Papewaio]

Depends how you slice and dice the stats.

If the liberals are earning 6% more and are desiring a redistribution of wealth by takes then lets do some maths.

From the CIA factbook US per capita GDP is $46,000. Assume that is the average income.

6% more would be $2760. So what is the typical overall tax rate in the US? (rates, tariffs, sales and income tax)... ie what portion of the income goes to the Man. Lets assume a third... mainly because it gives a nice number of $920.

So wouldn't liberals be redistributing an average of $920 with the $1200 in charities... wouldn't that mean they are giving about $400 more per annum to others via government redistribution and charity?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Did you read the passage in the bible about the bloke who claimed to be religeous and how he gave so much money to charity , I think there was a little woman in it who didn't give much and didn't make a song and dance about it...or perhaps in your quest to be religeous and have respect you missed that part:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm not talking about public respect - I am saying, publically that I am a despicable miser. What do you want? When I start giving to charity and becoming religious you won't hear a peep out of me on the issue.

Until then, my charitable and religious contributions amount to zero.


Depends how you slice and dice the stats.

c'mon, Pape. So does everything. We are talking about THIS article, summarizing THIS Liberal writer's findings.

If you want to say "everything is reliant on facts cut up by bias" that is fine, just realize how weak the arguement is and how it can be used whenever "facts" don't go your way - or mine.

[Tribesman]

Until then, my charitable and religious contributions amount to zero.
Tuff does that mean you are European then ? Or does it mean you are a liberal (non-scientology flavour) ?

[Goofball]

Uncharitable AND Vitriolic? Serious combination. Well played. :yes:

Hey, you can call me whatever you want, except late for dinner, or off topic...

:beam:

[ICantSpellDawg]

:inquisitive:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EU_belief_in_god.png

I believe that would leave the Czechs to be "Godless heathens".

I should have said "in relation to the rest of the world"

Only 21% believe Religion to be important in Europe. If you don't believe that Religion is important, chances are you don't really believe in it in the first place. If there is a God and you believe that there is right and wrong, what on earth would make it not important? What the heck is important?

Couple this with the absolutely staggering drop in religious observation and belief over the past 10 or 20 years. The trend as well as the trendsetters are "Godless Heathens".

Religion in the EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_European_Union)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff does that mean you are European then ? Or does it mean you are a liberal (non-scientology flavour) ?

First - Non sequitur.Tautological fallacy.

Second - Did you read the article? Did you read my posts? The MOST MISERLY OF ALL in the study were secular conservatives. This still failed to screw up the balance in favor of Conservatives.


Hey, you can call me whatever you want, except late for dinner, or off topic...

:beam:

hehe. I wasn't talking about you but the article. You believe in a God and aren't what I would consider "liberal" - more of a unique thinker, what with your private gun ownership and what not.

...or just Canadian, so you will argue with an American over the color of the sky. Don't lump yourself in with those liberals.

[Lemur]

We are talking about THIS article, summarizing THIS Liberal writer's findings.
Um, George F. Will is a registered Republican, and the author of the study is a registered Independent. Who's the "liberal" you're referring to?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Um, George F. Will is a registered Republican, and the author of the study is a registered Independent. Who's the "liberal" you're referring to?

Right - Will is a Republican, the "Independent" writer was a self described liberal I thought. Still, you "independents" are unbiased when it comes to anything... right? Except for being independent of course.

ps- how do you switch your party easily without going to the DMV?

[Lemur]

Just curious, 'cause I don't remember reading the guy describing himself as liberal. I leave myself plenty of room to be wrong, however.

-edit-

P.S.: I have no idea. We register at city hall here in WI, and I've never had reason to mess with my (or the wife's) status.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just curious, 'cause I don't remember reading the guy describing himself as liberal. I leave myself plenty of room to be wrong, however.

I've never met a social scientist who wasn't, but I live in NY so I could be making it up...


link (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Jvgr2OrK7IkJ:www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html+Arthur+C.+Brooks+liberal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

I know, I know - he was just raised in a liberal household and became a social scientist. It doesn't MEAN conclusively that he is a liberal. To be fair, he has been both a Democrat, then a Republican and now a Liberal.

[Lemur]

Here's the relevant bit from the article you linked:


For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

I guess that makes him a liberal to you, then. After all ...


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/patriotism.png

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here's the relevant bit from the article you linked:

I guess that makes him a liberal to you, then. After all ...


I updated my post before you posted. I don't believe that people are either with us or against us. There are Canadians after all.

[Tribesman]

Only 21% believe Religion to be important in Europe.
Errrrr...isn't that survey about religion in politics .
One of them seperation of church and state thingies .


Second - Did you read the article? Did you read my posts? The MOST MISERLY OF ALL in the study were secular conservatives. This still failed to screw up the balance in favor of Conservatives.

Would that be because them televangelists really know how to pull the money in (when they ain't pulling male prostitutes)

edit to add , I heard a really strange thing the other week , something I really never expected to hear , there was this bloke , funny sort of fella , a sort of stand up in a pulpit and preach sort of geezer , he said people were giving far too much money and could they please reduce their contributions or give them somewhere else .

[Big_John]

who cares if social-scientist and WSJ-contributor brooks is a lib, con, or indy? after all, his point is:
But the point in the book was to show that charity differences are actually due to attitudes and behaviors (such as religiosity and attitudes about the government) that go deeper than political affiliations.

in any case, Tuff's article is explicit:
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."sounds like every independent i've ever met.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Errrrr...isn't that survey about religion in politics .
One of them seperation of church and state thingies .


Would that be because them televangelists really know how to pull the money in (when they ain't pulling male prostitutes)

Some charities are shams. This must mean that all of them are and that Conservatives only give more because they are less intelligent and are more easily swindled. I get it. Conservatives are the ignorant pawns of bad guys. Read a new book.

[Papewaio]

c'mon, Pape. So does everything. We are talking about THIS article, summarizing THIS Liberal writer's findings.

If you want to say "everything is reliant on facts cut up by bias" that is fine, just realize how weak the arguement is and how it can be used whenever "facts" don't go your way - or mine.

Not fighting bias, just adding another source of incomre
Liberals believe in redistribution of wealth by the government.
Conservatives by individual choice.
Liberals want higher taxes... they earn more so they will be giving more... sounds like they will be bearing the brunt of their ideology.

That Liberals redistribute more wealth then Conservatives is a fact from this article and the CIA factbook which we are discussing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not fighting bias, just adding another source of incomre
Liberals believe in redistribution of wealth by the government.
Conservatives by individual choice.
Liberals want higher taxes... they earn more so they will be giving more... sounds like they will be bearing the brunt of their ideology.

That Liberals redistribute more wealth then Conservatives is a fact from this article and the CIA factbook which we are discussing.

What do you mean they re-distribute more wealth? The CIA fact book says this?

[Big_John]

What do you mean they re-distribute more wealth? The CIA fact book says this?i think he's saying that since liberals make more money, on average, they pay more taxes. could be wrong though.

[Tribesman]

Conservatives only give more because they are less intelligent and are more easily swindled.
Now there is a saying about that , something about fools being easily parted from their gold:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
But no , we shouldn't really question the intelligence of conservatives , after all its not like they do really stupid things ...like put Bush in office twice:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

i think he's saying that since liberals make more money, on average, they pay more taxes. could be wrong though.

But is that true? Or are we assuming?

There would still need to be another study done to come to that conclusion. You can't just look at an average here and an average there from different sources on the Web. Look at real data. Compare sums and averages from money donated in the real world.

You also don't know where people lie on the tax bracket. It isn't as simple as saying "they earn more on average, therefore they pay more taxes", unless you were weakly trying to counter a peer reviewed argument.


BROOKS: The assumption that religious Americans are just giving to their churches is one I made myself when I first started writing about giving. But it's wrong. The fact is that religious people are more personally charitable in every measurable way than secularists. For example, religious people are 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly secular charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The data show the same pattern for informal giving to friends and family, blood donations, small acts of kindness—everything you can think of. Religious people are even more ethical than secularists: If a cashier accidentally gives a churchgoer too much change, the odds are better than half that he or she will return it, while the odds are more than six in 10 that a secularist will choose not to give it back.

Sounds like Christians would make better socialists than secularists. The only things secularists do better than the religious is have sex, cheat others and plummet into Hell. I'm not even convinced about the sex part.

[Big_John]

But is that true? Or are we assuming?i'm not privy to Pape's sources.

Sounds like Christians would make better socialists than secularists. The only things secularists do better than the religious is have sex, cheat others and plummet into Hell.you forgot 'critical thought'. hey-oh!

[ICantSpellDawg]

i'm not privy to Pape's sources.
you forgot 'critical thought'. hey-oh!

Hi-yo!:smash: You are corrrrrect sir!

[Big_John]

https://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4153/carsonmcmahonxk6.jpg

[Geoffrey S]

Tuff, you remind me more of a Spaniard...

https://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9075/gillingwindmills1968homif8.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff, you remind me more of a Spaniard...

https://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9075/gillingwindmills1968homif8.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

hehe. Why? What am I fighting that doesn't exist? Or that isn't a threat?

[Big_John]

hehe. Why? What am I fighting that doesn't exist? Or that isn't a threat?where to start.....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Start. Anywhere you'd like. What do I get uppity about that isn't threatening in some way?

[Big_John]

we should work on your sense of humor. that's a good place to start.


seriously, from what i've read of your posts, much of what you seem to see as threats to society or morality or whatever strike me as fanciful. but your quixotic quests are no doubt much less quixotic to you. no need rehash old quixote.

[ICantSpellDawg]

we should work on your sense of humor. that's a good place to start.


seriously, from what i've read of your posts, much of what you seem to see as threats to society or morality or whatever strike me as fanciful. but your quixotic quests are no doubt much less quixotic to you. no need rehash old quixote.

Does anybody else live in NY? I think that Gawain did and look where that got him. This place is Hell's :daisy:.

You guys don't like my sense of humor! That's sad - I'm actually a very bizarre and funny guy in person. My extremism is tempered by moderation and calm understanding in person. Unless you know me well - in which case I am a vindictive and caustic jerk.

[HoreTore]

Seeing as missionary work is counted as charity, I'm always suspicious whenever religion and charity is mentioned together...

Btw, is the people called "liberals" here actually people registered for the democrats, and the "conservatives" registered republicans? If so, then I can safely ignore this article, as they're both conservative biblebashers to me, it's just a comparison between two different groups of conservatives, liberals like me isn't included :yes:

[Ironside]

But is that true? Or are we assuming?

There would still need to be another study done to come to that conclusion. You can't just look at an average here and an average there from different sources on the Web. Look at real data. Compare sums and averages from money donated in the real world.


Do you have good sources on this? Last time I calculated this (I think it was foreign aid) US tax aid (the part that goes to aid)+ donations were less than most western nations tax aid. The US donations were higher than the European donations though, but also contain things that feels a bit odd counted purely as charity. University donations for example. :inquisitive:

[Adrian II]

Seeing as missionary work is counted as charity [..]Is that so? I already thought that would be a major part of the explanation concerning donations. Much ado about nothing.

Brooks discovered something else that is more interesting: the working poor, regardless of creed, are more magnanimous than the rich of either persuasion, both financially and in doing volunteer work. Sounds a little too good to be true as well, but hey..

[Quirinus]

Sounds like Christians would make better socialists than secularists. The only things secularists do better than the religious is have sex, cheat others and plummet into Hell.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you can be Christian and secularist at the same time-- doesn't being a secularist just mean that you support the seperation of church and state?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you can be Christian and secularist at the same time-- doesn't being a secularist just mean that you support the seperation of church and state?

I don't understand how people can believe in a omnipotent God with a specific moral code and believe that he somehow waits outside of parliament. Transitory reality suggests that If a Christian enters government, his Faith enters with him.

You don't hold you Religion at the door. Who does that? Why would anyone do that?

[Lemur]

I don't understand how people can believe in a omnipotent God with a specific moral code and believe that he somehow waits outside of parliament. Transitory reality suggests that If a Christian enters government, his Faith enters with him.
I expect you're reacting to the word "secularist," which has been bandied about by various religious and political figures as meaning far more than it actually does. Secularist means a person who prefers the separation of church and state; most of the founding fathers were secularists. Most were Christians of some sort or another (or Deists at the very least). So obviously, you can be both a Christian and an advocate of church/state separation.

The founding fathers were coming out of Europe's wars of religion, which had been particularly bloody. The Thirty Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war), by some estimates, killed thirty percent of all Germans. (Catholics versus Proddies.) Just one example from a century that was full of them. So the FFs were really attuned to what kind of madness and mayhem could result from state-endorsed religion.

There's just a fundamental misunderstanding here. You think that a church/state separation means you can't believe in Christ in the Town Hall? Or that your Mayor can't be a deeply religious Jew? Or what, exactly?

But a state-backed religion opens Pandora's box. Shall the state sponsor the Baptists or the Lutherans? The Pentecostals or the Catholics? If a majority of Americans convert to Scientology, shall the Congress curse the name of Xenu in law? Will engrams be made mandatory at the Federal level? And when do we get to ban the religions of people who are incompatible with the State-sponsored faith?

Trust me, separation of church and state is good for the church and good for the state. Just look at Europe, where a specific faith (usually Catholicism) is enshrined in law, and look at what that's done to the religiosity of the people. Or look at England, which has its own state church. Take a long, hard look, and compare that to America, where ten thousand faiths flourish. We are the far more religious of the two, and it's not because the United Church of Christ has taken over your local government.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I expect you're reacting to the word "secularist," which has been bandied about by various religious and political figures as meaning far more than it actually does. Secularist means a person who prefers the separation of church and state; most of the founding fathers were secularists. Most were Christians of some sort or another (or Deists at the very least). So obviously, you can be both a Christian and an advocate of church/state separation.

The founding fathers were coming out of Europe's wars of religion, which had been particularly bloody. The Thirty Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war), by some estimates, killed thirty percent of all Germans. (Catholics versus Proddies.) Just one example from a century that was full of them. So the FFs were really attuned to what kind of madness and mayhem could result from state-endorsed religion.

There's just a fundamental misunderstanding here. You think that a church/state separation means you can't believe in Christ in the Town Hall? Or that your Mayor can't be a deeply religious Jew? Or what, exactly?

But a state-backed religion opens Pandora's box. Shall the state sponsor the Baptists or the Lutherans? The Pentecostals or the Catholics? If a majority of Americans convert to Scientology, shall the Congress curse the name of Xenu in law? Will engrams be made mandatory at the Federal level? And when do we get to ban the religions of people who are incompatible with the State-sponsored faith?

Trust me, separation of church and state is good for the church and good for the state. Just look at Europe, where a specific faith (usually Catholicism) is enshrined in law, and look at what that's done to the religiosity of the people. Or look at England, which has its own state church. Take a long, hard look, and compare that to America, where ten thousand faiths flourish. We are the far more religious of the two, and it's not because the United Church of Christ has taken over your local government.

Of course, but that is not how the study uses the word. It used "secular" as meaning without religion. It used Religious as meaning Religious and Secular as meaning Non-Religious.

I recognize that the separation of Church and State is a good idea in order to preserve Religions from persecution as well as the non-religious from Religions. I do not recognize that it makes sense not to carry your faith with you into government and vote accordingly.

The truth is, in spite of how practical secularism is for the preservation of individual liberties, if you honestly believe in your faith - that there are things you should do and things that you shouldn't - you can't stand by and endorse or fund something that goes counter to the will of God. How could you? It would make you complicit, and complicity in most immoral behavior could be considered sinful in itself.

Unless you were actually trying to have it both ways, which is impossible with most dogmatic Religions.

[Quirinus]

I don't understand how people can believe in a omnipotent God with a specific moral code and believe that he somehow waits outside of parliament. Transitory reality suggests that If a Christian enters government, his Faith enters with him.

You don't hold you Religion at the door. Who does that? Why would anyone do that?
Both Washington and Jefferson were practising Christians, but IIRC they supported the seperation of church and state.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So do I, but not to an extent that is violates sense and transitory reality. You can keep Religion out of the State and the State out of the hair of Religion, but individuals are free to pass in between, carrying their political and religious beliefs to each - and they do.

[Papewaio]

What do you mean they re-distribute more wealth? The CIA fact book says this?

Simple earn more therefore pay more taxes. Taxes is often referred to as a method of income redistribution. Some believe that if people paid less taxes they could voluntarily redistribute their wealth, charity would have to be one of the main methods of doing so. So charity and taxes are both forms of income redistribution.

The CIA factbook has GDP which I used as a close approximation for income.

The article said that liberals earn on average 6% more. That would mean they would also pay more taxes. So another assumption was that the typical overall tax to the man was about a third.

Total the amount of taxes and charity and on average the liberals as quoted in the article would be paying about $400 per annum more in income redistribution.

=][=

Now I'm pretty sure liberals (not old school but the new term for someone who believes in bigger government) are the ones who are more pro tax increases. While conservatives are the ones looking for smaller government and less taxes.

So the liberals who are earning more are asking for more taxes are choosing to contribute more of the wealth in income redistribution via the tax mechanism then the charity one.

=][=

Also got to remember that a lot of charities might be not-for-profit... this doesn't mean that the upper management aren't paid at corporate rates or that a large percentage of the money donated actually reaches those in need. It just means that the company er charity itself can't make a profit.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Simple earn more therefore pay more taxes. Taxes is often referred to as a method of income redistribution. Some believe that if people paid less taxes they could voluntarily redistribute their wealth, charity would have to be one of the main methods of doing so. So charity and taxes are both forms of income redistribution.

The CIA factbook has GDP which I used as a close approximation for income.

The article said that liberals earn on average 6% more. That would mean they would also pay more taxes. So another assumption was that the typical overall tax to the man was about a third.

Total the amount of taxes and charity and on average the liberals as quoted in the article would be paying about $400 per annum more in income redistribution.

=][=

Now I'm pretty sure liberals (not old school but the new term for someone who believes in bigger government) are the ones who are more pro tax increases. While conservatives are the ones looking for smaller government and less taxes.

So the liberals who are earning more are asking for more taxes are choosing to contribute more of the wealth in income redistribution via the tax mechanism then the charity one.

=][=

Also got to remember that a lot of charities might be not-for-profit... this doesn't mean that the upper management aren't paid at corporate rates or that a large percentage of the money donated actually reaches those in need. It just means that the company er charity itself can't make a profit.

There is a gradation in our tax system. Someone earning 6% more may not be paying 6% more in taxes. Also, capital gains taxes are different from direct income taxes - blah blah blah. Plus, how many "liberals" are there?

Maybe we should see which group pays more in taxes and what that number difference is. You are just loosely guessing as an Australian about tax revenue in the United States. Show some studies, or an article, or a website -anything at all.

Also - Who wants to pay more taxes? Can anybody in the U.S. on this forum honestly say that they'd like to pay more?

[Lemur]

Plus, how many "liberals" are there?
By your standards? A vast horde.

[ICantSpellDawg]

By your standards? A vast horde.

Let me check my personal book of standards... 1 vast Horde equals 15 liberals.

PS - I have entered into a hotseat campaign, which means that for the first time in 6 years I will be active for a prolonged period of time in another sub forum on this website. Wierd, huh?

[Papewaio]

There is a gradation in our tax system. Someone earning 6% more may not be paying 6% more in taxes. Also, capital gains taxes are different from direct income taxes - blah blah blah.

Generally due to gradation those who earn 6% more will be paying a larger percentage and hence have an even larger redistribution of their wealth. Capital gains generally get a less flat rate then income tax. It is still income redistribution.

My assumption and I noted it in the working is that all the taxes (sales, tariffs, capital, income) probably come out to a third. You can go ahead and get a better approximation if you wish.


Plus, how many "liberals" are there?

The article was looking at individuals not how large a slice of population. So I don't see how that is relevant to the argument that individuals from different ideologies pay more.



Maybe we should see which group pays more in taxes and what that number difference is. You are just loosely guessing as an Australian about tax revenue in the United States. Show some studies, or an article, or a website -anything at all.

I noted that approximation above. You can use other values and plug them in.

From the article Liberals earn 6% more or about $2700 more (and pay ~$500 less in charities
Overall tax on the 6% | approx tax burden | overall redistributed on average
10% | $270 | ~$250 less then conservatives
20% | $540 | ~$40 more then conservatives
25% | $675 | ~$175 more then conservatives
33.3% | $900 | ~$400 more then conservatives
40% | $270 | ~$580 more then conservatives
50% | $270 | ~$850 more then conservatives

It takes a fairly low overall tax threshold for Liberals as listed in the article to be redistributing more of their earnings to others through the mechanisms of taxes and charities. In this basic model they would have to be taxed at less then 20% on all earnings and have zero taxes on spending to redistribute less.



Also - Who wants to pay more taxes? Can anybody in the U.S. on this forum honestly say that they'd like to pay more?

Depends on those who want a strong military, education, physical health, road system, social welfare, mental health system... etc.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Generally due to gradation those who earn 6% more will be paying a larger percentage and hence have an even larger redistribution of their wealth. Capital gains generally get a less flat rate then income tax. It is still income redistribution.

My assumption and I noted it in the working is that all the taxes (sales, tariffs, capital, income) probably come out to a third. You can go ahead and get a better approximation if you wish.



The article was looking at individuals not how large a slice of population. So I don't see how that is relevant to the argument that individuals from different ideologies pay more.



I noted that approximation above. You can use other values and plug them in.

From the article Liberals earn 6% more or about $2700 more (and pay ~$500 less in charities
Overall tax on the 6% | approx tax burden | overall redistributed on average
10% | $270 | ~$250 less then conservatives
20% | $540 | ~$40 more then conservatives
25% | $675 | ~$175 more then conservatives
33.3% | $900 | ~$400 more then conservatives
40% | $270 | ~$580 more then conservatives
50% | $270 | ~$850 more then conservatives

It takes a fairly low overall tax threshold for Liberals as listed in the article to be redistributing more of their earnings to others through the mechanisms of taxes and charities. In this basic model they would have to be taxed at less then 20% on all earnings and have zero taxes on spending to redistribute less.



Is it then fair to say that liberals are more financially responsible for the occupation of Iraq? Who's to say that the 6% extra goes to charitable U.S. endeavors? Maybe it is bailing out the banks or buying bombs in Iraq? Maybe it was paying the salary of the people who failed to respond to Katrina appropriately - or the salaries of the current administration and the C.I.A.?

What percentage of their taxes are for "income re-distrobution" and what for everything else?

What I meant to say was that if they earn an average of 6% more, who is to say where they lie on the graded bracket? Maybe the bulk of working class liberals are on the top of their income tax bracket and the middle class conservatives are on the bottom of the next bracket up. It could lower the overall difference.



Depends on those who want a strong military, education, physical health, road system, social welfare, mental health system... etc.

Most just want to reduce the share of the others to have an optimal system for the least amount of money, not for individuals to be more heavily taxed. C'mon.