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

[Ten oz]

The reasons for charitable giving varies greatly and can be ambiguous. If I am about to toss out some old clothes in the garbage I can instead donate them to a shelter and write the donation off on my taxes at the end of the year. The donation would go down as charitable giving but in truth I may have been only been motivated by the tax credit. Remove the tax credit and perhaps I would have just put the clothes in the trash. The charity in this example is moderately selfish.

 

I think a lot of charitable giving in the U.S. comes with some form of quid pro qou. Parishioners donate money to their church but a lot of the money is used for entertainment, transportation, and food that the parishioners who donated benefits from directly. Additionally they can deduct it from their taxes. Much of the international aid the U.S. provides around the world is actually in the form of products the federal govt purchases from govt contractors. Some people view this has a way for various politicians to get federal money into their districts more so than actually helping foriegn nations. Some business donate money to charity to gain access to specific politicians and or favorable media coverage. Plus the donation are deductable and as such come without any real cost.

 

What constitues charity in the context of the OP?

[swansont]

What are you talking about.

Click the page.

Right at the top it says:

 

by Inside Edition[/size][/size]

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.

And January 2017 is mentioned in my post. But the article criticizing Trump was written BEFORE that. In September 2016.

 

"By John Cassidy September 24, 2016"

 

Clear as day.

 

How is he supposed to write about an event that happened on Jan 20 2017 in an article published 4 months earlier?

The bias doesn't extend to the ones previous?

 

You specifically called out the third event as alleged evidence of bias. The article spelled out the time period it investigated. It went back to 1990. 26 years is a fairly long time.

[Raider5678]

The reasons for charitable giving varies greatly and can be ambiguous. If I am about to toss out some old clothes in the garbage I can instead donate them to a shelter and write the donation off on my taxes at the end of the year. The donation would go down as charitable giving but in truth I may have been only been motivated by the tax credit. Remove the tax credit and perhaps I would have just put the clothes in the trash. The charity in this example is moderately selfish.

 

I think a lot of charitable giving in the U.S. comes with some form of quid pro qou. Parishioners donate money to their church but a lot of the money is used for entertainment, transportation, and food that the parishioners who donated benefits from directly. Additionally they can deduct it from their taxes. Much of the international aid the U.S. provides around the world is actually in the form of products the federal govt purchases from govt contractors. Some people view this has a way for various politicians to get federal money into their districts more so than actually helping foriegn nations. Some business donate money to charity to gain access to specific politicians and or favorable media coverage. Plus the donation are deductable and as such come without any real cost.

I wrote an ethics essay on this. In it, I discussed people who volunteer or donate with a self gaining motivation.

Everyone else in the class wrote about how this was wrong and that people shouldn't do it.

I presented the argument that even if you have something to gain from it, you're still helping people. And that as long as nobody gets hurt from what you gain, then I don't care if people do it for selfish reasons. I just respect them more if they do it without anything to gain.

Would you agree?

[Ten oz]

I wrote an ethics essay on this. In it, I discussed people who volunteer or donate with a self gaining motivation.

Everyone else in the class wrote about how this was wrong and that people shouldn't do it.

I presented the argument that even if you have something to gain from it, you're still helping people. And that as long as nobody gets hurt from what you gain, then I don't care if people do it for selfish reasons. I just respect them more if they do it without anything to gain.

Would you agree?

Yes and no. In most cases I agree but there are cases where it is wrong. If I want to throw my nephew a elaborate birthday party and rental him a bounce house that costs $2,000 but don't actually want to pay for it so I make a 2k donation to my church, then ask them to throw a church pinic on my nephews birthday with the bounce house, then I get the 2k back at the end of the year thanks to my "donation"......that would be wrong. That is an extreme example but it is some that happens. Some people are just purely gaming the system. Provided the charitable giving winds up benefiting someone other than the person making the charitable donation I am fine with it. Motivates don't need to purely be generous.

[Raider5678]

Yes and no. In most cases I agree but there are cases where it is wrong. If I want to throw my nephew a elaborate birthday party and rental him a bounce house that costs $2,000 but don't actually want to pay for it so I make a 2k donation to my church, then ask them to throw a church pinic on my nephews birthday with the bounce house, then I get the 2k back at the end of the year thanks to my "donation"......that would be wrong. That is an extreme example but it is some that happens. Some people are just purely gaming the system. Provided the charitable giving winds up benefiting someone other than the person making the charitable donation I am fine with it. Motivates don't need to purely be generous.

Alright. Fair enough.

[John Cuthber]

Trump is an outlier; we should ignore him here.

[CharonY]

In that case, I wonder why Myanmar, country that has been poverty stricken for so long (or maybe because of it?) is topping the ranks.

[CharonY]

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.

 

 

Actually, after looking a bit deeper into the index data, it seems that there are marked differences and OP may be slightly off (though not factually incorrect). If looking exclusively at money donations, and looking at participation (i.e. percentage of people that donate money), the US is not even in the top 10. Highest percentages were Myanmar (92%) Thailand (87%), Malta (78%), UK (75%) Netherlands (75%), but NZ and Australia are also close (73%) with Canada being at 67%.

 

Where the US was higher is in the participation in helping a stranger (in the top with Iraq, Liberia, Namibia and Jamaica). So there is a little bit of difference, at least between the US and UK in the form of help rendered.

[swansont]

In that case, I wonder why Myanmar, country that has been poverty stricken for so long (or maybe because of it?) is topping the ranks.

 

 

Myanmar/Burma is one of three backwards countries that have not adopted SI units. Maybe that has something to do with it, since the US is another one of these backwards countries. (Liberia is the third)

[Handy andy]

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?

 

In fair societies charity is not needed. Speculating: When talking to friends in the US > the US is not fair to those at the bottom of society.

 

In the EU states taxation is not aimed at the poor, people can earn a living wage before they are taxed, in America I understand people are taxed on every cent they earn or are assumed to have earned, via charitable donations (tips). In the EU charity is not so important as in the US because the EU has free health care, free or heavily subsidized education, fairer taxation, less violent crime lower murder rates and a superior and more diverse culture than the USA. The EU helps promote wealth at all levels of society and all economic regions, by fairer taxation better schooling for all etc. People are given more chances to succeed if they want to in the EU.

 

The US leads the world in the more religious states with murder and gun crime, they also lag the world with education in the form of creationism in the same states, health care is third world unless you have the money or insurance to pay for it.

 

Quote form the start of the thread " people of the more left wing EU states thinks that the government already takes care of those in need." Perhaps people of the more left wing EU states thinks correctly. Most of the EU states are more left wing than any state in the US. Having said that political parties, exist in Europe from the far right to the far left. Diversity being the spice of life, this is a good thing, not something to be scared off as it was in the McCarthy era in the states.

 

I could of course be pro European, since I live most of the time in Europe

.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

In fair societies charity is not needed. Speculating: When talking to friends in the US > the US is not fair to those at the bottom of society.

 

In the EU states taxation is not aimed at the poor, people can earn a living wage before they are taxed, in America I understand people are taxed on every cent they earn or are assumed to have earned, via charitable donations (tips). In the EU charity is not so important as in the US because the EU has free health care, free or heavily subsidized education, fairer taxation, less violent crime lower murder rates and a superior and more diverse culture than the USA. The EU helps promote wealth at all levels of society and all economic regions, by fairer taxation better schooling for all etc. People are given more chances to succeed if they want to in the EU.

A fair part of the problem in the US is that there's a strong undercurrent of poverty-shaming that happens. If you are poor it is generally thought (in some circles) to be your fault, especially if you aren't white.

 

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-poverty-poll/

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/gop-blames-poverty-laziness#49786

[DoYouEvenScienceBro]

I'd guess America's more widespread religiosity plays a big role in it.

[KipIngram]

 

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.

 

Who pledged that (on behalf of America) and what qualified that person to make decisions of that sort for the free people living in America?

 

I don't see how charitable individual American people are as being one itty bitty bit of the US government's business.

[Delta1212]

 

Who pledged that (on behalf of America) and what qualified that person to make decisions of that sort for the free people living in America?

 

I don't see how charitable individual American people are as being one itty bitty bit of the US government's business.

As was previously covered, he was mistakenly referencing foreign aid goals, not private charitable donations.

[DrP]

True - but I still don't see it as totally irrelevant. What is foreign aid if it is not charity?

 

Also I think, as stated by a couple of different people in this thread already, the tax system in the US isn't really aimed at providing cash for social and health care systems. Maybe they just like to 'feel' they are giving more by having the individuals choose which charities they give to out of their own money, rather than paying into social care schemes which could be a safety net for everyone. I was challenging the way the stats are reported here - to say 'the US gives the most' doesn't take into account what they are NOT giving in taxes to look after the sick and needy or to the starving and dying in other parts of the world.

 

Personally I think the money would be better managed and the system would be fairer if the donations were government managed - i.e. I think you should pay more tax and sort out your health care system rather then just sticking 2 fingers up to the poor and claiming that you give more to charity than anyone else.

 

Kip - no-one pledged that for the US - they opted out... most of the other UN countries nominally pledged to 'try' to increase to 0.7% GDP. Some have been doing it a while, we have only just got there after 40 odd years. I think it is a nice sentiment that says that we care about the world.

Edited May 18, 2017 by DrP

[Delta1212]

What foreign aid is, is something other than the topic of the thread. It would be like someone masking a topic about the homicide rate in different countries and then coming in and using the number of people killed by police or executed by the government as a basis for comparison.

 

Yes, those are types of homicides. But they are very specific types that are not necessarily related to the overall murder rate in the country.

[DrP]

Depends on your definition of charity - I still think of foreign aid as charity. I do not think it is unrelated as you are saying at all. Foreign aid (charity) is not the end of it though, contributions from taxes were mentioned several times in the thread by people other than me.... even in the OP.

[KipIngram]

It is a nice sentiment, but my point is that it's not a decision the government should make for people - individual people are perfectly capable of writing a check if they want to express that nice sentiment.

[DrP]

...and they are also capable of withholding said checks from people they think do not deserve it, even if the person really needs it. They can still donate if they want to whatever cause they want... but if the only social safety nets are people's private hand outs then god help us. The point of nationalising it removes an individual's personal prejudices so that ALL that are in a certain group that need charity receive it by entitlement rather than having to beg or die.

[KipIngram]

Yes, I call that "removing individuals' personal freedom." But I'm guessing we disagree at a very fundamental level about whether people do or do not have moral obligations to others that they don't even know. Debates don't solve anything if the debaters are starting out with different fundamental assumptions. I'm just a very freedom oriented guy.

[DrP]

You can still keep your freedom... a small tax increase pays for a lot and helps a lot of people if it is costed fairly and spent wisely.

 

I was in a supermarket a couple of years back and an old lady was collecting for Kent Air Ambulance... she said they needed £3M to keep it going each year. I donated a pound, but muted that I thought the government should pay for something that important so people wouldn't have to beg for it. If it is that essential then why not add it to the list of essential things and tax accordingly to pay for it. She looked at me as if I was a total asshole that didn't want to give to charity.. That wasn't my point - my point was that it could be paid for by everyone (to spread the cost out).. not just the people with bleeding hearts. My suggestion that the government should pay seemed to anger her greatly. Maybe I am just an asshole after all for wanting the cost of these 'essential' programs to be costed fairly by spreading the cost to all through fair taxing

[KipIngram]

The problem is that all the "small bits" add up. I see the primary purpose of a national government to be operating with the goal of enhancing the lives of the citizens of that nation. Love of freedom aside, I do support an appropriately well-run welfare program (not the one we've got, which is ridiculously bloated and inefficient). But I just don't see that the United States should take on responsibility for the welfare of every person in the world.

 

I don't think you're an asshole - as I alluded to in the last post I just think that different people have different beliefs about very basic things like whether or not we "owe" each other help and support or whether it should be a voluntary thing. I disagree that we are born with that kind of obligation to one another - i surely don't see it as the responsibility of everyone else to guarantee my personal welfare. But us disagreeing doesn't make either one of us a bad person.

[DrP]

I don't think the US should take on that responsibility either. ;-) but standardising a percentage that EVERY country pays into an international fund would be fairer than what we have now. Although, I'm not really talking about international aid here, as the OP suggested, the fact that you (the US) 'seem' to give more in personal charity might be because you give very little in taxes towards social care... thus you NEED charity as your government or the policies of your country fail people in such a way as that they need said charity in the first place.

[KipIngram]

I don't support the idea of a world government at all, and the standardizing you refer to is essentially a world government action. That's a general theme with me, though - I'm generally in favor of decentralizing power in all forms as much has we possibly can. Here in the US I think that we should push power back out of Washington to the states and localities. The central government here has much more power than our Founders envisioned, and I don't consider that a good thing.

 

That said, I'd certainly rather see foreign aid go to the sort of things we're talking about here rather than to military aid and so forth. I'd also prefer to see that aid directed toward things that will help the target nation get up onto its own feet (teach them to fish, rather than give them fish). Direct "to the mouth" aid fosters dependence and just perpetuates the problem.

 

I think that the best thing we could share with developing nations is "how we did this." The United States became the most prosperous nation on the planet in just a couple of centuries. Obviously we had/have great natural resources - a critical factor. But I also give a lot of credit to our social / economic culture. I don't really mean the contemporary one, dominated by huge corporations - I'm more referring to the way things worked over the whole two century period, which had a lot more to do with small and medium size economic entities. Some nations just don't have good natural resources, and they're in a tough situation. But some do - they could learn how to harness those resources in a prosperous way just as we have.

[DrP]

I love the US - You are a great country. No one is perfect. I am not talking world government... but we do have the UN - which is a good idea.

 

I like your idea of more power to local areas, but I also think there should be an over all organiser of things globally... otherwise what? we just sit by and let the suffering and the starvation and the slaughter of innocent people by tyrants and religious groups worldwide continue...? as long as we are OK then who cares eh? We have international laws for a good reason.

 

I want the world to be a better place... not just my back yard.

 

Respect. Peace out!

Edited May 18, 2017 by DrP