TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- See? Americans aren't that bad...
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

See? Americans aren't that bad...

quote:

Americans set new mark for giving POSTED: 2:24 a.m. EDT, June 25, 2007 NEW YORK (AP) -- Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year, setting a new record and besting the 2005 total that had been boosted by a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma -- and the Asian tsunami. Donors contributed an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006, a 1 percent increase when adjusted for inflation, up from $283.05 billion in 2005. Excluding donations for disaster relief, the total rose 3.2 percent, inflation-adjusted, according to an annual report released Monday by the Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy. Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2 percent rise, as stocks rose more than 10 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis. "What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said. Individuals gave a combined 75.6 percent of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4 percent. The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8 percent, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9 percent, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries. About 65 percent of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed. Part of 'American culture' "It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of "The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism." Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy. Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany. Mega-gifts, which Giving USA considers to be donations of $1 billion or more, tend to get the most attention, and that was true last year especially. Investment superstar Warren Buffett announced in June 2006 that he would give $30 billion over 20 years to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of that total, $1.9 billion was given in 2006, which helped push the year's total higher. Gaudiani said that gift reflects a growing focus on using donated money efficiently and effectively. "I think it's also a strategic commitment to upward mobility exported to other countries, in the form of improved health and stronger civil societies," she said. The Gates Foundation has focused on reducing hunger and fighting disease in developing countries as well as improving education in the U.S. Without Buffett's pledge, it had an endowment of $29.2 billion as of the end of 2005. Meanwhile, companies and their foundations gave less in 2006, dropping 10.5 percent to $12.72 billion. Jolly said corporate giving fell because companies had been so generous in response to the natural disasters and because profits overall were less strong in 2006 over the year before. The Giving USA report counts money given to foundations as well as grants the foundations make to nonprofits and other groups, since foundations typically give out only income earned without spending the original donations.

I'm not trying to be a USA homer, but I do think it raises some interesting questions. Why do Americans, per capita, give twice as much as any other country? I realize that the USA has the bulk of world wealth, but when we're talking about doubling the next closest country in terms of giving, I wonder if there's more to it. Could it be the resistance to socialism, hence more personal income after taxes, plays the biggest part? Could this be extended to say that in a libertarian style government even more would be given to charitable causes? Could freely-given charitable donations in a libertarian government in the USA fund social programs that are currently maintained through taxes?

Maybe a libertarian society would create conditions where there would be more of a need for charity, and therefore more given? Maybe that's why America gives the most, because the economic system creates so many people that need charity to survive?

I'm pretty sure the best economic system would be one that creates less of a need to give to charity?

Altho I would like to point out I'm not having a pop at America or Americans btw! I think it's great that so much is given to charity (even if a third does go to religious groups and probably explains why America is much more charitable!)

quote:

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8 percent, went to religious organizations.

Lol, there's always a catch.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm pretty sure the best economic system would be one that creates less of a need to give to charity?

Good luck finding such an economic system because socialist/communism style economy failed

Re: See? Americans aren't that bad...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Why do Americans, per capita, give twice as much as any other country?

Simple mathematics.

Per Capita income.

The US person on average earns about 41-42k a year.
As a rough comparison to other westernised countries, earn around 29-33k a year, this includes UK, Australia and most of the big Euro's like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, France and the Japanese.

Living costs, the US is either cheaper or roughly the same as those countries.

= More spare money on average per household.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Good luck finding such an economic system because socialist/communism style economy failed

Has any economic system not failed? Every economic system has had it's good points and bad, the American right-wing economic system being no exception. It's good because it's stable, but it doesn't cater for everyone with 12% below the poverty line (the figure is higher for some similar economies in Europe)

A blend between libertarianism and socialism is considered the most effective economic system by all Western governments and those that are further to the left seem to have less poverty culminating with the Scandinavian countries who, according to the CIA, have "N/A" poverty (which is because it is close to 0%) so go figure...

Re: Re: See? Americans aren't that bad...

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Simple mathematics. Per Capita income. The US person on average earns about 41-42k a year. As a rough comparison to other westernised countries, earn around 29-33k a year, this includes UK, Australia and most of the big Euro's like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, France and the Japanese. Living costs, the US is either cheaper or roughly the same as those countries. = More spare money on average per household.

Yes, and also its a big shame that so much money is donated to religion, its just bad. Thats not helping, thats just trying to buy out your sins. Pet capita, US is pretty cheap, but I dont hate America. America isnt so bad. I love a lot of things about USA, like some music, baseball, some lifestyles, technology and wonders it brought, etc. Politics is what I hate about US to some degree.

Some people, like Bill Gates, who gives many millions every year to various charities and this one millionaire (whose name I forgot) who is buying up lands around the world that are in need of protection from humans, I adore very much these and other people. Though there are also many greedy people there too, many ignorant and selfish people. USA is the main country in the world that can do so many good things for the world, for the planet, for human race. I hope, I dream and I believe that one day USA can lead a better, more productive way, bring peace and prosperity to the world, and give an example as to whom to look up to for a better world that is environmentally and socially sustainable.

Re: Re: Re: See? Americans aren't that bad...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Yes, and also its a big shame that so much money is donated to religion, its just bad. Thats not helping, thats just trying to buy out your sins.

I'll quite happily agree religion as an idea is the biggest load of crock since some caveman invented fraud
However a fair amount of genuine, domestic and overseas charity does actually comes from religious organisations who are quite hard working and even handed about who they help.
They don't use all that money printing books and propaganda, a lot of it gets channelled in child sponsorship, orphanages, education and the usual varieties of humanitarian aid.
They aren't all bad and they do a great deal of good.


Back to the topic.
A fairer way of comparing, is working out the actual percentage of income per capita given to charity, rather than the total sum.
Some person in say, the old eastern block countries who makes $10k a year and donates $1000 out of that to a charity, is in terms of material generosity, far more giving than someone who earns 30k and donates $1500 annually.

I do agree it's tough to compare giving between nations because there is a difference in income levels. However, I don't think Americans make twice as much as those in the UK, in order to make up for the UK giving half as much as the US. I'd also mimic what has been said in that just because a charity is religious, it does not mean they do not provide a beneficial service. Some may have better resources or may be run in a more efficient manner than smaller, non-religious charities. Lastly, I'd say that in a libertarian society, extra income could be given to charities that an individual dictates and possibly allow the giver to see the results of the charity more directly. I think this would only help to increase giving in that a person would be able to see the effects of their generosity. That is opposed to the "forced" generosity of giving taxes in order for the government to decide who gets help in a socialist system.

Hey in the UK we pay National Insurance which is about 11% on what we earn so that everyone in the country gets free health care! So stick that on those figures and see how much the British pay compared to the Americans charity!

quote:

Originally posted by Taranis Lol, there's always a catch.

From what I've read, the country that gives the most to charitable causes around the world is actually Germany.

So the premise of this thread may be incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd From what I've read, the country that gives the most to charitable causes around the world is actually Germany. So the premise of this thread may be incorrect.

Do you have a source for that?

And I'm sorry (not pointed at you), but taxation does not count as charitable contributions. If you're forced to give, it's not "giving to charity," it's paying your taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Has any economic system not failed? Every economic system has had it's good points and bad, the American right-wing economic system being no exception. It's good because it's stable, but it doesn't cater for everyone with 12% below the poverty line (the figure is higher for some similar economies in Europe) A blend between libertarianism and socialism is considered the most effective economic system by all Western governments and those that are further to the left seem to have less poverty culminating with the Scandinavian countries who, according to the CIA, have "N/A" poverty (which is because it is close to 0%) so go figure...

Yeah, but those Scandinavian countries pay like 55% tax on income. (To be fair, that's the level for high income earners in Canada IIRC) But I don't think I'd enjoy living in a country that takes so much of my money.

I'm all for basic health care and free education up to high school and all the social benefits required for a person to be able to have opportunities to improve themselves.
But once you go over that and guarantee a comfortable standard of living for everyone, the desire and motivation to innovate and improve tends to disappear. Heck, would you want to work hard if you get 3 good meals, a warm bed and money to do whatever you want?

Re: Re: See? Americans aren't that bad...

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Simple mathematics. Per Capita income. The US person on average earns about 41-42k a year. As a rough comparison to other westernised countries, earn around 29-33k a year, this includes UK, Australia and most of the big Euro's like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, France and the Japanese. Living costs, the US is either cheaper or roughly the same as those countries. = More spare money on average per household.

Simpler yet; poor people can't give to poor people (what they'd like).

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I'm all for basic health care and free education up to high school and all the social benefits required for a person to be able to have opportunities to improve themselves. But once you go over that and guarantee a comfortable standard of living for everyone, the desire and motivation to innovate and improve tends to disappear. Heck, would you want to work hard if you get 3 good meals, a warm bed and money to do whatever you want?

Exactly.
If the Window cleaner is getting paid the same as the Neusurgeon, what do you think the career path is going to be?

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Yeah, but those Scandinavian countries pay like 55% tax on income. (To be fair, that's the level for high income earners in Canada IIRC) But I don't think I'd enjoy living in a country that takes so much of my money. I'm all for basic health care and free education up to high school and all the social benefits required for a person to be able to have opportunities to improve themselves. But once you go over that and guarantee a comfortable standard of living for everyone, the desire and motivation to innovate and improve tends to disappear. Heck, would you want to work hard if you get 3 good meals, a warm bed and money to do whatever you want?

And yet those Scandinavian countries still innovate, still go to work and have low unemployment work. The truth is most of the pro pure capitalist, low tax systems are based on false premises. No one has shown that more welfare leads to higher rates of unemployment. Usually the opposite is true.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Exactly. If the Window cleaner is getting paid the same as the Neusurgeon, what do you think the career path is going to be?

Career path is not all about money. There would still be people interested in neurosurgery and people that can't do anything better than window cleaning. Money is not the only way of discriminating how goes to what job.

Hell, with the stress and liabilities, if the neurosurgeon was a rational player in an economic model he would be a baseball player! Why the hell risk dying of a heart attack when you can hit a ball with a bat all day and get payed 10x the money.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX And yet those Scandinavian countries still innovate, still go to work and have low unemployment work. The truth is most of the pro pure capitalist, low tax systems are based on false premises. No one has shown that more welfare leads to higher rates of unemployment. Usually the opposite is true.

I'm not denying the fact that Scandinavian countries right now maintain high standard of living.

But I'm interested to see how long this goes before they gradually loses their will to innovate.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Career path is not all about money. There would still be people interested in neurosurgery and people that can't do anything better than window cleaning. Money is not the only way of discriminating how goes to what job.

Certainly there are people who live an altruistic life and want to work for the better of society.

But honestly, do you really give a rat's ass about other people, to the degree that you're willing to share everything you have, even to possible detriment to yourself and your family?

I don't think not many people fall under that category.

quote:

Hell, with the stress and liabilities, if the neurosurgeon was a rational player in an economic model he would be a baseball player! Why the hell risk dying of a heart attack when you can hit a ball with a bat all day and get payed 10x the money.

Because not many people are born with athletic gifts that allows them to be a pro player?

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Certainly there are people who live an altruistic life and want to work for the better of society. But honestly, do you really give a rat's ass about other people, to the degree that you're willing to share everything you have, even to possible detriment to yourself and your family? I don't think not many people fall under that category.

I don't think anyone is talking about a system that will cause detriment either to particulars or their families. In the obvious comparison, the Scandinavian countries, no persons or families are being harmed. And most people, if able to live comfortably, are very understanding and probably wouldn't mind working for a better society. Specially if society acknowledges and rewards altruism and looks negatively on egotism. There are ways around the problems you raise. In the long run a more socialist government is bound to be more stable and fruitful. A system where everyone has to fend for themselves, whilst everyone being interconnected at the same time is bound to implode. It will happen eventually in the US. The wealth divide is growing. Eventually it would lead to irreconcilable gaps and people will start revolting. At that point a more socialist government will have to emerge or the states will fall into chaos. Capitalism, as implemented right now in the US, is bound to fail.

quote:

Because not many people are born with athletic gifts that allows them to be a pro player?

Easily fixed with 'roids .

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Career path is not all about money. There would still be people interested in neurosurgery and people that can't do anything better than window cleaning. Money is not the only way of discriminating how goes to what job. Hell, with the stress and liabilities, if the neurosurgeon was a rational player in an economic model he would be a baseball player! Why the hell risk dying of a heart attack when you can hit a ball with a bat all day and get payed 10x the money.

I don't follow the rationale with the neurosurgeon vs. window cleaner argument. If you take away the "advantages" of being a neurosurgeon (besides the supposed reward of helping people) who in their right mind would decide to be a neurosurgeon instead of a window cleaner? With the neurosurgeon you have years of hard work in school, followed by years of hard work in residency, followed by years of hard work as a surgeon. Why would you do that for say, $10 an hour, when you could wake up, wash windows and come home, working 9-5 with no schooling, for the same money?

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I'm not denying the fact that Scandinavian countries right now maintain high standard of living. But I'm interested to see how long this goes before they gradually loses their will to innovate.

Even though the curiosity is valid, it does not add weight to the argument that they will lose it eventually. The fact is they haven't lost it. They are alive and well, and everyone is willing to work. Most successful CEO's know that people who are happy work the best. The government in these countries is doing exactly that, making sure everyone is happy and secure. You really believe that just because there is a backup net it means people will lose motivation? It's a pretty fatalistic view of humans. In all my studies in psychology I have never come across anything that would point to people becoming lazy just because they have a fall back plan. Millionaires that don't have to work still work, sometimes harder than many others. Many people work hard to get to one university even though they're sure to get in to lesser ones. I have yet to see anything in our current society that points to welfare alone creating more unemployment or lazier people.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I don't follow the rationale with the neurosurgeon vs. window cleaner argument. If you take away the "advantages" of being a neurosurgeon (besides the supposed reward of helping people) who in their right mind would decide to be a neurosurgeon instead of a window cleaner? With the neurosurgeon you have years of hard work in school, followed by years of hard work in residency, followed by years of hard work as a surgeon. Why would you do that for say, $10 an hour, when you could wake up, wash windows and come home, working 9-5 with no schooling, for the same money?

People don't operate solely on cost/benefit analysis. Research on vocational choices point to 2 factors as being strongly correlated with vocational choice. One is complementarity between career and personality. Second is the occupation of your parents. Granted it is not a perfect correlation, but it is very strong. Monetary concerns, amount of stress, hardship in school have little influence in the decisions. Therefore it is more probable that as long as neurosurgeons have kids, and there is people that are meticulous, hard working and like brains there will be neurosurgeons, regardless of pay. This scenario is more probable than everyone choosing to be a window cleaner, or a bum.

You are also not considering factors such as the prestige of the job, the inherent interest people have towards different subjects, the persons characteristics, the desire to help or contribute towards society. There are many factors. Boiling it down to just what pays more seems arbitrary. Just because people will have more resources available for them, regardless of their status, does not mean society will melt. Even just the societal mechanisms that are already in place would make sure that everything kept going smoothly even with lesser difference in pay. Societal pressures are a strong influence in peoples behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX People don't operate solely on cost/benefit analysis. Research on vocational choices point to 2 factors as being strongly correlated with vocational choice. One is complementarity between career and personality. Second is the occupation of your parents. Granted it is not a perfect correlation, but it is very strong. Monetary concerns, amount of stress, hardship in school have little influence in the decisions. Therefore it is more probable that as long as neurosurgeons have kids, and there is people that are meticulous, hard working and like brains there will be neurosurgeons, regardless of pay. This scenario is more probable than everyone choosing to be a window cleaner, or a bum. You are also not considering factors such as the prestige of the job, the inherent interest people have towards different subjects, the persons characteristics, the desire to help or contribute towards society. There are many factors. Boiling it down to just what pays more seems arbitrary. Just because people will have more resources available for them, regardless of their status, does not mean society will melt. Even just the societal mechanisms that are already in place would make sure that everything kept going smoothly even with lesser difference in pay. Societal pressures are a strong influence in peoples behavior.

I see where you're going, Society will fill in the gaps that are needed because of the demand (am I following you correctly?).
Unfortunately those people are so very few.
All one has to do it look at Cuba to see how well that works.
In a Utopian society (ala Star Trek), you're right, it makes sense and it should however, reality is quite different.
Instead of society dictating its needs though peer pressure, society rewards those that don't have that pressure via salary, bonuses, etc.
Prestige sounds nice but it feels better when you've earned it because you wanted to and not because you felt you had to.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.