Padraig Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Could be because they pay more to developing countries through their tax bill?Yes. Lazy journalism at its worst. In Europe we say how much our governments give to developing countries compared to the US. In the US, they say how much their private citizens give. Few seem to look at both sides of the coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Could be because they pay more to developing countries through their tax bill? I'm sure that narrows the gap quite a bit. It would be interesting to see whether it erases it, however. Americans get tax deductions on their charity donations, which might be a reason why they donate more. I'm sure it helps. Is that a bad thing?Apparently Europeans get some type of tax deduction for donations to charities within their individual countries.http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6321edit: few changes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 I think Tormund must have watched this John Stossel segment on charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 I think Tormund must have watched this John Stossel segment on charity.Never seen it. Don't really watch much TV.Yes. Lazy journalism at its worst. In Europe we say how much our governments give to developing countries compared to the US. In the US, they say how much their private citizens give. Few seem to look at both sides of the coin. Part of the moral hazard of a welfare state. When the government gives, I don't feel like I have to. I feel that it does more for the giver to give directly than to consider their taxes some type of charity.Oh well, not really wanting to start a US v everyone else debate, rather I thought it might inform the debate on US politics on such things as taxation and social services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Part of the moral hazard of a welfare state. When the government gives, I don't feel like I have to. I feel that it does more for the giver to give directly than to consider their taxes some type of charity.This ignores the question of efficiency. In most cases Government aid would be more efficient than random donations.The exception being donation to major aid organisations, but they receive both private and government funding.If the purpose of charity is to make you feel good, the US model is better than the European. If the purpose is to do good, the question is not as obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsavong Lah Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Never seen it. Don't really watch much TV.Part of the moral hazard of a welfare state. When the government gives, I don't feel like I have to. I feel that it does more for the giver to give directly than to consider their taxes some type of charity.Oh well, not really wanting to start a US v everyone else debate, rather I thought it might inform the debate on US politics on such things as taxation and social services.Yep, it tells me that we aren't "taxed to death" if the conservatives that complain the loudest are able to still make such large charitable contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 those "charitable" contributions are encouraged by the state in the form of tax abatements. there's no altruism in the "generosity" of the rich, who furthermore get a whitewash because they can spend an equal amount of PR proclaiming their beneficence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 http://rawstory.com/2009/12/protesters-change-offices/Arguing that the location of their local congressman's office infringes on their right to free speech, Tea Party protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, have asked Democratic House Rep. Tom Perriello to relocate so they can protest him more easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 those "charitable" contributions are encouraged by the state in the form of tax abatements. there's no altruism in the "generosity" of the rich, who furthermore get a whitewash because they can spend an equal amount of PR proclaiming their beneficence.I think this whole issue is a lot more complicated than the simplistic "facts" on the site Tormund linked to. But I would like to point out that the tax deductions for charitable contributions certainly can't explain why poor people give a higher % of their income to charity than the rich do, on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Religion plays a large part in charitable giving. And that will explain ALOT of the numbers you are seeing I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 http://rawstory.com/2009/12/protesters-change-offices/The Mad Hatter's Tea Party, surely?(On a side note, I do think it is hilarious that they've stumbled across the realisation that their beloved inalienable right to property can, in fact, negatively affect other rights. What makes it even funnier is that they consciously ignore this realisation, preferring to blame Pereillo for his choice of office location). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Here's a pdf with a summary of the financial regulation in the bill the House passed: https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/476/images/HR%204173%20Summary-1.pdfNate Silver commenting on the Dem's economic policies & liberal indifference to them: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Michael Steele:Even lamer then you thoughtYeah.. it kinda reminds me of the flag pins, little visual demonstrations of one's patriotism. In this case, a demonstration that Steele is hip & gets today's youth and his party is inclusive. I'm guessing that was the idea anyway. :leaving: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Automatic generated messageThis topic has been closed by a moderator.Reason: 400+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.