Sociology: Why do Americans give more money and time to charity than Europeans?

[Omáčka]

A video by Prager U I've seen states that the reasons Americans give far more money and volunteer more time to charity than Europeans is the size of the goverment - since people of the more left wing EU states thinks that the goverment already takes care of those in need.

 

But quick googling gave me other explanaitons such as the stronger religiosity of the US. So what's the actual reason?

[dimreepr]

A video by Prager U I've seen states that the reasons Americans give far more money and volunteer more time to charity than Europeans is the size of the goverment - since people of the more left wing EU states thinks that the goverment already takes care of those in need.

 

But quick googling gave me other explanaitons such as the stronger religiosity of the US. So what's the actual reason?

 

You guys are great?

Edited May 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

I doubt one could find a single reason. For example the most charitable nation according to the world giving index is Myanmar, followed by US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Canada, Indonesia. I.e. there is no obvious similarity between all of these countries. There are also differences in the type of help rendered, i.e. monetary donation vs volunteering or just helping a stranger. Religiosity can play a role, as in many religions donations at certain time points are expected, but are not necessarily the main or even sole factor. Differences in the social systems, could also contribute. In some countries, welfare is carried almost entirely by taxes, whereas in others donations may be the main source of income.

[John Cuthber]

It could be something completely unexpected. Perhaps the charitable organisations in the US just do a better job of convincing people to hand over cash- maybe better advertising?
It's unlikely to be one single factor

 

If you look at the list here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

the European countries near the top of the list include the Netherlands who are relatively secular and Ireland ho are much more strongly religious.

 

One bizarre common factor seems- at first glance- to be speaking English as a sole, or major language.
Now that's just weird.

[CharonY]

Interestingly quite a few in the top 20 or so are countries with relatively low income.

 

 

One bizarre common factor seems- at first glance- to be speaking English as a sole, or major language.
Now that's just weird.

 

I assume you mean in the top 10? Potentially there is some commonality rooted in former parts of the British empire. Or maybe not.

[Manticore]

Don't know about the amount of money given, but the NGOs in Africa who seem to get the most accomplished are usually French.

[DrP]

Americans give far more money ?

 

Not as a percentage of the GDP you don't - we all pledged back in the 70's to try to make our donations internationally total 0.7% of GDP... although the USA does give some of the most money oversees, it is still (as of 2015) only giving 0,2%. A fair few European countries have reached their 0.7% commitments already, so you are in fact lagging behind in this plan to increase international spending. I think the UK has only just raised it's donations to 0.7%... it was increasing yearly until the agreed target was reached.

[swansont]

 

Not as a percentage of the GDP you don't - we all pledged back in the 70's to try to make our donations internationally total 0.7% of GDP...

 

 

We did? I don't recall being consulted.

[DrP]

it was a UN resolution I think... not that anyone ever seems to take any notice of the UN.

 

Here is an article - it isn't really my field, but it seems like a good idea. Making it a percentage takes away any claim of one country giving more than another or anything like that - it' just seems fair. Not many have reached the target yet - but more are getting closer to it and holding to their pledges of achieving it eventually.

 

http://devinit.org/post/0-7-aid-target-2/

"The US stated that it did not subscribe to specific targets or timetables, although it supported the resolution’s more general aims."

[swansont]

it was a UN resolution I think... not that anyone ever seems to take any notice of the UN.

 

 

 

So nothing at all to do with citizens donating to charity.

[Delta1212]

 

Not as a percentage of the GDP you don't - we all pledged back in the 70's to try to make our donations internationally total 0.7% of GDP... although the USA does give some of the most money oversees, it is still (as of 2015) only giving 0,2%. A fair few European countries have reached their 0.7% commitments already, so you are in fact lagging behind in this plan to increase international spending. I think the UK has only just raised it's donations to 0.7%... it was increasing yearly until the agreed target was reached.

You're talking about foreign aid budgets, not charitable donations.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

I think people who feel grateful and are very content with how well things have gone in their lives will generally give more. However, as Trump has illustrated, America is generally angry with what is going on so maybe it is because Americans generally want to be liked by other countries?

[Raider5678]

I think people who feel grateful and are very content with how well things have gone in their lives will generally give more. However, as Trump has illustrated, America is generally angry with what is going on so maybe it is because Americans generally want to be liked by other countries?

A common thing I know Trump supporters bring up is that Trump donates a lot of money to charity.

To which you can't say isn't true, he does.

But he also happens to have billions of dollars, and giving hundreds of thousands is nothing compared to what he has.

 

But regardless, America seems to have a lot of churches. And at my church, I know someone recently needed $7,000 to keep his house from foreclosing, and most of the people in the church gave money to help him(I gave $20), and he successfully paid what he needed to pay to keep his house. Now this is just a church of about 90 people. So I'd imagine that religious organizations play a factor.

 

But as others have said, it isn't just one reason. But I'm almost certain things like I just described are one of them.

[CharonY]

A common thing I know Trump supporters bring up is that Trump donates a lot of money to charity.

To which you can't say isn't true, he does.

 

 

Except, when people start looking.

 

 

 

Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years.

To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages.

But, in that massive list, one thing was missing.

Not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump’s own money.

Instead, according to a Washington Post analysis, many of the gifts that Trump cited to prove his generosity were free rounds of golf, given away by his courses for charity auctions and raffles.

 

 

 

It reveals how Trump has demonstrated less of the soaring, world-changing ambitions in his philanthropy than many other billionaires. Instead, his giving appears narrowly tied to his business and, now, his political interests.

His foundation, for example, frequently gave money to groups that paid to use Trump’s facilities, and it donated to conservatives who could help promote Trump’s rise in the Republican Party. The foundation’s second-biggest donation described on the campaign’s list went to the charity of a man who had settled a lawsuit with one of Trump’s golf courses after being denied a hole-in-one prize.

[Raider5678]

 

Except, when people start looking.

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/trump-flies-sick-boy/

 

I'm sorry.

It's not money.

And in case you think this site is biased, it's called many of trumps claims false. So I doubt it's biased.

 

Now, obviously, there has been a refutement of this story.

The left side is now claiming Trump actually only did it so that he could collect some money after the boy died ten years after the flight.

There's no evidence that Trump got any money, but the left is claiming he most likely did this just to get some money.

 

Although, to me, waiting 10 years for a little kid to die to get some money seems like a stretch of an accusation.

 

 

http://imgur.com/a/gkjbB

 

There's this one too.

Though he's paying medical bills, so the reported decided not to include it because it wasn't donating to charity. Which I guess is fair enough? I don't know. I would have included it.

 

 

http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/21154-trump-change-president-donates-10000-to-campaign-volunteer-whose-father-has-cancer

And I know. This is evil. Trump paid the medical bills of one of his volunteers father's cancer treatment.

Frankly, Trump has a lot of volunteer's. It's like your boss, who doesn't pay you, paying your father's medical bills when he finds out about it.

Maybe you say it's evil and he only did it because this guy could advance his political party, but he did do it.

 

 

And finally, Trump has given practically nothing. But saying he's given nothing is technically a lie. They used this as a media thing to get people to support trump. And it worked some what, because people don't look deeper.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Raider5678

[swansont]

A common thing I know Trump supporters bring up is that Trump donates a lot of money to charity.

To which you can't say isn't true, he does.

 

 

"Common knowledge" of this sort is anathema here. And you've been around long enough to know better.

 

There's actually little evidence that he does. What his foundation was doing was taking donations from others and repackaging them. So while the foundation was giving out money, it wasn't Donald's money.

 

Since he has not released his tax returns, we don't have direct information about how much he donates to charity. Reporters have looked into it from the other end, and couldn't find any cash contributions recently.

 

He hasn't given money to his own foundation since 2008.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-and-the-truth-his-charitable-giving

 

Even before that, it was $3.7 million over the span of 20 years. Not a lot for a billionaire claiming to be a philanthropist.

 

Your two examples regarding benefitting sick kids date from before 1990.

[Raider5678]

 

 

"Common knowledge" of this sort is anathema here. And you've been around long enough to know better.

 

There's actually little evidence that he does. What his foundation was doing was taking donations from others and repackaging them. So while the foundation was giving out money, it wasn't Donald's money.

 

Since he has not released his tax returns, we don't have direct information about how much he donates to charity. Reporters have looked into it from the other end, and couldn't find any cash contributions recently.

 

He hasn't given money to his own foundation since 2008.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-and-the-truth-his-charitable-giving

 

Even before that, it was $3.7 million over the span of 20 years. Not a lot for a billionaire claiming to be a philanthropist.

Sigh.

You guys keep cutting off the last part of my statement, just so you can argue with me.

Here. Let me include the rest:

But he also happens to have billions of dollars, and giving hundreds of thousands is nothing compared to what he has.

See this? Look. right above this text ^^^^^^.

Yes. Look. I said it's nothing compared to what he has.

But rather then read that, you cut that part off then proceed to tell me that.

I'm not looking to argue politics. This thread is not about politics. You completely ignored the majority of what my post was about.

Just drop the politics and move on or else you're leading this thread off topic even farther.

Did you read the bit about the church part? I suggest you should.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

Sigh.

You guys keep cutting off the last part of my statement, just so you can argue with me.

Here. Let me include the rest:

Uh...?

 

 

Weird, didn't show the second quote before.

 

In any case, people aren't trying to argue with you for the sake of it. Even if you are making an overall point I agree with, the accuracy of the details leading up to that point still matter.

[Raider5678]

Uh...?

 

 

Weird, didn't show the second quote before.

 

In any case, people aren't trying to argue with you for the sake of it. Even if you are making an overall point I agree with, the accuracy of the details leading up to that point still matter.

Well, I swansnot quoted me and told me that he's a billionaire and what he's giving is basically nothing.

Except, he didn't quote the line directly under what he quoted, where I said the exact same thing.

Seriously, just include the second part and his whole post was agreeing with me.

 

I also said, that I do not believe Trump gives a lot of money. Directly in the post. But he did give some, albeit VERY LITTLE.

But he's convinced people he did.

But I said that he convinced people he did, so immediately they're telling me I'm wrong.

Your two examples regarding benefitting sick kids date from before 1990.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize good will had an expiration date.

 

But alright.

What about the third one?

 

Your links said Trump had NEVER(exact quote. They said he didn't give a single one. Yet, here's one.) but he did. So your's are biased, just like Trumps are.

In any case, people aren't trying to argue with you for the sake of it. Even if you are making an overall point I agree with, the accuracy of the details leading up to that point still matter.

Maybe, but I don't want this to be a political debate. I made a very good point concerning the actual thread, and that was the majority of my post. The trump bit didn't even have anything to do with it. So why does nobody discuss that?

Edited May 8, 2017 by Raider5678

[swansont]

Well, I swansnot quoted me and told me that he's a billionaire and what he's giving is basically nothing.

Except, he didn't quote the line directly under what he quoted, where I said the exact same thing.

Seriously, just include the second part and his whole post was agreeing with me.

 

I also said, that I do not believe Trump gives a lot of money. Directly in the post. But he did give some, albeit VERY LITTLE.

But he's convinced people he did.

But I said that he convinced people he did, so immediately they're telling me I'm wrong.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize good will had an expiration date.

 

 

That's the problem when you make a claim that you tag as indisputable. If it isn't true, people tend to dispute it.

 

For someone who "do[es] not believe Trump gives a lot of money", it's kind of odd to say "A common thing I know Trump supporters bring up is that Trump donates a lot of money to charity. To which you can't say isn't true, he does." (emphasis added)

 

If you didn't want this to be about Trump, perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned him.

[Raider5678]

"Common knowledge" of this sort is anathema here. And you've been around long enough to know better.

I do.

Which is why I explained why I disagreed with it. In the post.

Just include one line under and we're all good

 

 

1. That's the problem when you make a claim that you tag as indisputable. If it isn't true, people tend to dispute it.

 

For someone who "do[es] not believe Trump gives a lot of money", it's kind of odd to say "A common thing I know Trump supporters bring up is that Trump donates a lot of money to charity. To which you can't say isn't true, he does." (emphasis added)

 

If you didn't want this to be about Trump, perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned him.

Except it is true, regardless if it was before 1990. So what are you arguing here?

 

Look.

We both agree, Trump doesn't give a lot(compared to what he has, which is billions of dollars), so let's just agree that we agree and move on okay?

 

And I didn't bring him up. Someone else did. Look who I quoted.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Raider5678

[swansont]

But alright.

What about the third one?

 

Your links said Trump had NEVER(exact quote. They said he didn't give a single one. Yet, here's one.) but he did. So your's are biased, just like Trumps are.

The third one happened in January 2017 (it was at the inauguration). The article was published in September 2016. What you call bias I call inability to time travel.

[Raider5678]

The third one happened in January 2017 (it was at the inauguration). The article was published in September 2016. What you call bias I call inability to time travel.

What are you talking about.

Click the page.

Right at the top it says:

 

by Inside Edition

4:28 PM EST, January 20, 2017

 

What's that stand for? The date the author pissed his pants?

 

I mean. Come on. That's literally the most pathetic argument you've ever made.

Somebody tell me I'm not blind. That clearly reads January 2017 and not September 2016.

I mean, I'm assuming you mistook something and aren't making shit up, but now you're corrected.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

What are you talking about.

Click the page.

Right at the top it says:

 

by Inside Edition

4:28 PM EST, January 20, 2017

 

What's that stand for? The date the author pissed his pants?

 

I mean. Come on. That's literally the most pathetic argument you've ever made.

Somebody tell me I'm not blind. That clearly reads January 2017 and not September 2016.

I mean, I'm assuming you mistook something and aren't making shit up, but now you're corrected.

You're getting mixed up. Swansont's article was from September 2016. The third article which you used as a counter example is what was from January 20, 2017.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Delta1212

[Raider5678]

The third one happened in January 2017 (it was at the inauguration). The article was published in September 2016. What you call bias I call inability to time travel.

The bias doesn't extend to the ones previous?