Doctor Fate wrote:The American dream ends with leaving something to your kids. It's only when one has massive wealth that one starts being concerned about "giving something back." No one in the middle class thinks like that.

Man, miss a couple of days and there's so much to catch-up on. Lots here, but I do have to address this point.

America works, in part, because Americans are incredibly civic-minded people and are constantly giving back. PTAs, planning boards, volunteer firefighters, hospice volunteers, ASCPA volunteers, school boards, to say nothing of the millions of volunteer activities people do with their religious organizations and so on. To say that "no one in the middle class thinks like that" does not describe the America I've lived in all my life. In fact, I would say nearly everyone in the middle class thinks like that. I find it odd that we've had such different experiences.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The American dream ends with leaving something to your kids. It's only when one has massive wealth that one starts being concerned about "giving something back." No one in the middle class thinks like that.

Man, miss a couple of days and there's so much to catch-up on. Lots here, but I do have to address this point.

America works, in part, because Americans are incredibly civic-minded people and are constantly giving back. PTAs, planning boards, volunteer firefighters, hospice volunteers, ASCPA volunteers, school boards, to say nothing of the millions of volunteer activities people do with their religious organizations and so on. To say that "no one in the middle class thinks like that" does not describe the America I've lived in all my life. In fact, I would say nearly everyone in the middle class thinks like that. I find it odd that we've had such different experiences.

Ahh, but they don't write large cheques, do they? (ok, so they can't because they aren't massively rich, and there's not much of a tax advantage for them).

It's even my experience in the UK that a lot of the work done (and even money donated, when you aggregate it over millions of people) comes from the middle classes and the lower classes. I believe I have also heard that the USA is even more into voluntary work than we are.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The American dream ends with leaving something to your kids. It's only when one has massive wealth that one starts being concerned about "giving something back." No one in the middle class thinks like that.

Man, miss a couple of days and there's so much to catch-up on. Lots here, but I do have to address this point.

America works, in part, because Americans are incredibly civic-minded people and are constantly giving back. PTAs, planning boards, volunteer firefighters, hospice volunteers, ASCPA volunteers, school boards, to say nothing of the millions of volunteer activities people do with their religious organizations and so on. To say that "no one in the middle class thinks like that" does not describe the America I've lived in all my life. In fact, I would say nearly everyone in the middle class thinks like that. I find it odd that we've had such different experiences.

I suspect your "middle class" may be different than mine. My "middle class" has more than one child and worked into their mid to late 60's (or later).

However, I was specifically speaking of at death, which the context would lead you to. "The American dream ends . . ." meaning "your life ends . . ." So, I think you may have misunderstood me.

I never suggested that the middle class is not oriented to serving/volunteering in the community.

I notice that doesn't stop Danivon, who has followed the conversation from joining in your misunderstanding. What a surprise.

OK, so you're talking about providing an endowment to the library or university. Got it. Yep, most people don't expect to be doing that.

But to be fair, I don't think that's what Obama was talking about. I think he was talking about having the time and money so that you can give back to your community in ways that are meaningful to you when you're done working but still fit enough to contribute meaningfully. For most people, that's not providing endowments, but their time, energy and expertise to things that matter to them.

Geo,
Would people have more money if tax rates were lower? Could they use that money to have more time and thus volunteer? Or perhaps they could be using the money to donate to their community. What do you think has happened with charitable contributions as tax rates have gone up? Do you think contributions have gone up or down proportionally?

(I have to make a dump run and look up the data when I get back. WX is cool, and I don't want to be out in the heat.)

B, if you bothered to look you’d fine that evidence from the 1980 Reagan tax breaks suggest that high income Americans do give more to charity after a big tax break than before…. But that any change in personal circumstance (the recession in that decade) shows a quick decline. In other words, a sudden influx of cash finds the wealthy willing to share, but any change in circumstances that they’ve become use to stops the charitable flow…
Since your nation is at its lowest level of taxation in 80 years or so, I fail to see how this is relevant to the issue of paying for the nation’s infrastructure… Charitable giving won’t address structural problems like how to fund the institutions that commerce depends upon or the bricks and mortars components…
Moreover, it’s worth questioning what American charitable giving is…

There’s also a significant question about what is defined as charitable giving. Americans tend to view themselves as the most charitable people in the world, as many presidents proclaim with eloquence whenever the occasion arises.
That judgment is based on what we report as “private charitable giving” as a portion of gross domestic product, although, as I noted last week, the bulk of that giving is not charitable in the sense that it benefits the poor and needy and a good fraction of it involves tax-financed transfers from government to private charities.

source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... e-charity/

Does giving 10% of your income to the Mosque, Temple or Church count? I would take exception to government income being directed to support people private religious practices…

But here’s the main point, B, I’ll bet you absolutely believe that charitable giving is a more efficient way for Americans to direct their own money than through taxation…
It ain’t true.

As Charity Navigator, a well-known independent charity evaluator, reports on charities using outside fund-raisers: “Of the six states reporting aggregate data, none reported charities receiving more than 59 percent of the donations raised on their behalf, and five showed average returns to charity below 50 percent.” The charts in that report give one pause, as do the statistics for particular charities mentioned in the report.
One charity, the Coalition to Support America’s Heroes, paid $100,000 to retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq, for allowing his name to be used on the letterhead of a solicitation letter, a Congressional committee said. A spokesman for General Franks said at the time that the general also made several speeches for the charity and ended his support “when he learned that the percentage of money raised that was going to the troops was less than 85 percent.

same source as above....

I think the fact is that the charities are often lousy at actually addressing the needs of those they say they are addressing. And are often a way for “private interests” to generate great amount of personal income whilst conning people into donations…
The heart of the speech Obama made is to address the issue of who should pay for the things that were once an exceptional infrastructure. Should everyone pay the same or at the same rate , if some actually benefit more?
I think it is far to assume that on January 1, everyone has made the same income. If everyone pays the same rate of tax on the first $25K, and the same rate on the next $50 K and the same rate on the next $100K and the same rate on the next $250K and the same rate on amounts over that …is that equal taxation? I think so. It is just that some aren’t lucky enough, or smart enough, or able enough to achieve the higher taxed levels of income… Those that are, having benefitted more from the exceptional American infrastructure…. Yes, from their own efforts probably. But so what? Without the exceptional infrastructure, they might never have achieved anything.

If deficits are ever going to be realistcally answered, revenues have to be raised. And at some point wise budget cuts have to be made. But if that discussion ignore the actual history of taxation and growth since WWII and treats ideological axioms as truth - then the discussion will never bear fruit.
And one of those axioms is that charities are more effective or efficient than government. Especially in the US, where there is less regulation than in Europe, they aren't.

rickyp wrote:...one of those axioms is that charities are more effective or efficient than government. Especially in the US, where there is less regulation than in Europe, they aren't.

Not proven. Your evidence is based on 6 out of 50 states and only those charities (probably smaller ones) that use outside fundraisers. HERE is a list of the largest charities in the USA. Note that "Fundraising Efficiency" and "Charitable Commitment" are both, in all cases, up in the 80%'s and 90%'s. Somewhere between the less-than-50% that your post implied and the over-70% that my source points to where the truth probably lies. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it's about two-thirds - 67%.

Where's the data for the efficiency of government when channeling tax dollars to those in need? You conclude your post with a comparison, but have presented evidence for only one half of the equation. Does the US Government do better than the 67% or worse? We don't know - at least from your post.

Not proven. First: get better data on the efficiency of private charity, then also get some reliable numbers for governmental efficiency. Then show that the measures can be expressed in equivalent (i.e. amenable to comparison) terms. I don't know if this is an impossible task, but I bet it's a really difficult one - the kind of thing you might work on for your PhD. All I know for sure is that your unsubstantiated opinion or gut feeling isn't worth much. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely that you've not really come very close to substantiating your assertion.

Purple wrote:

rickyp wrote:...one of those axioms is that charities are more effective or efficient than government. Especially in the US, where there is less regulation than in Europe, they aren't.

Not proven. Your evidence is based on 6 out of 50 states and only those charities (probably smaller ones) that use outside fundraisers. HERE is a list of the largest charities in the USA. Note that "Fundraising Efficiency" and "Charitable Commitment" are both, in all cases, up in the 80%'s and 90%'s. Somewhere between the less-than-50% that your post implied and the over-70% that my source points to where the truth probably lies. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it's about two-thirds - 67%.

Where's the data for the efficiency of government when channeling tax dollars to those in need? You conclude your post with a comparison, but have presented evidence for only one half of the equation. Does the US Government do better than the 67% or worse? We don't know - at least from your post.

Not proven. First: get better data on the efficiency of private charity, then also get some reliable numbers for governmental efficiency. Then show that the measures can be expressed in equivalent (i.e. amenable to comparison) terms. I don't know if this is an impossible task, but I bet it's a really difficult one - the kind of thing you might work on for your PhD. All I know for sure is that your unsubstantiated opinion or gut feeling isn't worth much. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely that you've not really come very close to substantiating your assertion.

We really need a like button.

Yes, I am intentionally ducking entering the medical care debate for the 400th round. If there's anything new to say about it, I've not seen it.

rickyp wrote:One particular problem with just looking at "inflation adjusted income" is that not all elements of a householders budget have increased at the general rate of inflation.

Good point. Turns out the rich are getting . . . poorer? Whuh?

Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period.

That may sound like a minor haircut for One Percenters compared to people who lost their jobs. But when you take into account federal transfers, assistance and taxes paid, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent.

In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession.

And, wait, they pay more in taxes?

The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income — far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average.

So the rich lost more income and paid more of their money in taxes than the rest of the population.

Well, maybe the wrong group was in Zuccotti Park.

Every once in a while, rickyp gets it right, but not this time.

Purple wrote:

rickyp wrote:...one of those axioms is that charities are more effective or efficient than government. Especially in the US, where there is less regulation than in Europe, they aren't.

Not proven. Your evidence is based on 6 out of 50 states and only those charities (probably smaller ones) that use outside fundraisers. HERE is a list of the largest charities in the USA. Note that "Fundraising Efficiency" and "Charitable Commitment" are both, in all cases, up in the 80%'s and 90%'s. Somewhere between the less-than-50% that your post implied and the over-70% that my source points to where the truth probably lies. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it's about two-thirds - 67%.

Where's the data for the efficiency of government when channeling tax dollars to those in need? You conclude your post with a comparison, but have presented evidence for only one half of the equation. Does the US Government do better than the 67% or worse? We don't know - at least from your post.

Not proven. First: get better data on the efficiency of private charity, then also get some reliable numbers for governmental efficiency. Then show that the measures can be expressed in equivalent (i.e. amenable to comparison) terms. I don't know if this is an impossible task, but I bet it's a really difficult one - the kind of thing you might work on for your PhD. All I know for sure is that your unsubstantiated opinion or gut feeling isn't worth much. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely that you've not really come very close to substantiating your assertion.

Mark my word, in less than a month you'll be calling him really bad names ...

bbauska wrote:Would people have more money if tax rates were lower?

Sure.

Could they use that money to have more time and thus volunteer? Or perhaps they could be using the money to donate to their community.

OK

What do you think has happened with charitable contributions as tax rates have gone up? Do you think contributions have gone up or down proportionally?

I don't know, not sure if it is even knowable because income tax rates have gone down over the past 30 or 50 years, not up. Nevertheless, deductions for charitable giving are significant incentive to give to charity and that incentive would rise as rates go up. But that's just money, participating in civic life is more about contributing your time and energy, which you might have more of if you kept more of your earnings.

Purple

Not proven. First: get better data on the efficiency of private charity, then also get some reliable numbers for governmental efficiency. Then show that the measures can be expressed in equivalent (i.e. amenable to comparison) terms. I don't know if this is an impossible task, but I bet it's a really difficult one - the kind of thing you might work on for your PhD. All I know for sure is that your unsubstantiated opinion or gut feeling isn't worth much. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely that you've not really come very close to substantiating your assertion.

First Purple: My main assertion is that Charity isn’t more effective or efficient…Let’s start with efficient:
I grant you that “efficient “ is a real tough sled. But certainly the evidence suggests it isn’t remarkably efficient. And the evidence you offer to counter my evidence is well short of conclusive.
purple

Your evidence is based on 6 out of 50 states and only those charities (probably smaller ones) that use outside fundraisers.

And yet you’ve chosen a list that is 2/100th of 1% of the country’s 1.2 million tax-exempt organizations. (And 1/7th of total recorded donations, or 14% of total donations.) Compared to sample of 12% of states…. The sample sizes are fairly equivalent. You can say the states are different. I can say, there’s probably a helluva big difference once you get below the top 200.
I’ll also remind you that a significant portion of allowable deductions for charity go to causes and purposes that should not, in my personal view, be funded out of tax dollars. Indeed your list doesn't include them in its analysis on purpose.
(Deductions for charitable giving being essentially money transferred from taxation revenues). What are those purposes? Football stadiums at Universities, money provided to spread religion or build religious edifices… I think it can be easily argued that 100% of those monies are inefficient uses. (At the same time, granted, you can raise the issue of tax money being funnelled to NFL teams to build stadiums too…. )
All in all, if we agree that charitable works, that we can agree are charitable, are only moving 2/3 of the money they raise to the purpose … it does discredit the idea that charities are paragons of efficiency. And I'll admit proving government efficiency is above this is probably too difficult.

But the second part of the equation is effectiveness:
Is government directed money more effective? Consider here that the problem is that tax dollars aren’t supporting just people in need. They support the entire infrastructure that society depends upon. If by redirecting taxation from general revenue to private charities you affect the ability of government to maintain the infrastructure without going into deficit, the question becomes: What’s more important, the target of the charitable work OR the infrastructure that has built the economy?
Is it effective to take money away from the maintenance of interstate highway bridges, so that a religion can build some new churches? Or that a particular cancer research centre gets a new wing?
Those kinds of anecdotal arguments won’t add much to the argument. However we can look at the question of effectiveness from a macro sense: Let us take one particular case, the war on poverty. Many on the right talk about the War on Poverty as a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.
Poverty was measured at 22.4% in 1959, and reached a 1973 low of 11.1 percent. That low point came after President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, launched in 1964, that created Medicaid, Medicare and other social welfare programs.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

Let’s assume that charitable reciept often ends for most (if we count only money going to improve the lot of the abject poor or disadvantaged) when they rise up out of poverty. That would mean that more than half (22.4 to 11.1) of the population that were characterized as poor had risen from poverty in just over a decade. . I’ll claim that as a general efficectiveness that charitable works cannot claim.
Charitable giving has never affected the rate of poverty to this extent. How do we know? Wasn’t charity the main source of support for the abject poor prior to the earliest attempts at socialization? (I believe the earliest thing that could be called social spending in the US was in 1792 when a hospital was opened to provide medical care for indigent sailors. The first instance of socialized medicine in the US) However I think it’s safe to say that broadly based programs really only go back to FDR, and no concerted effort at reducing poverty existed till Johnson.
purple

You conclude your post with a comparison, but have presented evidence for only one half of the equation. Does the US Government do better than the 67% or worse?

Is it more effective? I'll say yes. And in general more government spending creates better outcomes than more charitable spending. Evidence?

Charitable giving is much greater in the US than in Norway or Sweden.
The rate of poverty in the US is now around 15%
In 2002 in Sweden: 6.4% is the poverty rate… (see linked 2002 data)
http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm
The difference? Not so much on charity. Much more through government programs.
Charity isn’t as effective as eradicating poverty as government spending.

And Purple, I'm not trying to paint all charities with a broad brush. However, broadly, dependence on charity has not been as effective as well run government programs.
If it were, since charity was all there was for many centuries, there would have been no need for enlightened governments to attempt to solve the problems if charity had worked.

So: countries like Sweden have solved (almost!) the problem of poverty. Is this the triumph of modern scientific socialism? Or just the temporary consequence of radical income redistribution? Is the Swedish way of organizing a state a straight-out superior way, applicable in Dakota just as well as Dalarna? Or is Sweden something of a Potemkin utopia, with an unsustainable system for generating affluence?

Perhaps eliminating poverty is more important to Swedes than it is to Americans. Sweden spends 1.2% of GDP on its military; the US spends 4.7%. If the USA dropped down to Swedish levels, we could afford to send every poor man, woman and child in America (based on the 15% poverty rate) a check for $11,328 each and every year.*

According to HHS, the poverty level for a single person living alone is $11,170. For a family of four it's $23,050. If the USA dropped military spending to Sweden's level we could easily bring every single American out of poverty.

LOL. Frankly, Ricky, the question of the relative effectiveness of charity vs. gov't seems a bit absurd right now. Instead we should be discussing national priorities - military strength vs. social welfare. I think I'll start a new thread!


*Check my math, folks: 15% of 311,591,000 population, then divide that into military spending of $711 billion, then multiply by 3.5 over 4.7 to adjust to Swedish levels. Did I do that right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

purple

Perhaps eliminating poverty is more important to Swedes than it is to Americans

I doubt it. I think one of the reasons that Americans are so generous with charity is that they would like to alleviate poverty. In most disaster relief programs Americans are amongst the most generous nations, almost all the time.
I think the Swedes have managed to almost alleviate poverty because they organized a more efficient and effective response to the problem. Period.

purple

If the USA dropped military spending to Sweden's level we could easily bring every single American out of poverty.

Probably. Although there would be some pain, and dislocation and perhaps a drop in the standard of living for all the people involved in the defence industries..
You could probably also eliminate poverty if you adopted a socialist health care system. Assuming that moving the current 17% of GDP spent on health care, to ineffeectively cover the whole populace ... With what they spend in Sweden (9%) to effectively cover everyone, would provide 8% of GDP that could be targeted on poverty. Although actually adopting a health care system like Sweden would directly eliminate one casue of poverty right away (medical bankruptcy or too high a percentage of income directed at health costs..) I digress, howevre and I'll leave that for your priorities discussion. .

The question we're discussing isn't whether or not changing over all priorities would get results but whether shifting money from self targeted "charity" spending to coordinated and effective government programs would be more effective. And since you want to change the subject rather than respond directly I'll assume I made my point. If not conclusively at least directionally.
I appreciate the tone and rigour of your arguement though.

I look forward to the debate about government priorities in spending....

How the Obama Administration is "helping" the economy:

The American Petroleum Institute, in lawsuits filed yesterday and in March, is seeking to overturn an EPA standard mandating the purchase of fuels formulated in part from biological materials including switchgrass, wood chips and agricultural waste. The group claims the regulations include cellulosic fuels that don’t exist.
“EPA’s unattainable and absurd mandate forces refiners to pay a penalty for failing to use biofuels that don’t even exist,” Bob Greco, API’s director of downstream and industry operations, said in an e-mailed statement.