My bolding: there’s your answer for why the US scores so high…
It’s idle conservative political fodder, otherwise known as conservative political onanism.
Other countries don’t abuse the working class as much as US does, so there are less beggars on the street.
There are exceptions of course, like India.
This.
As a Scandinavian, I definitely prefer that the poorest and the weakest in society are given a certain minimum from the state, rather than those humans being dependent on the whims of charitable individuals. Thus, I don’t have much of a beef with our tax levels.
OTOH, one thing that amazed me when I was living in the US, was the amount of money, time and work some of our US friends and acquaintances devoted to charitable work. Most of it through their churches, but still a personal sacrifice to better the situation for those not as fortunate as themselves. I have a feeling that since the US society to a lesser degree cares for all of its members, some people take a personal responsibility to make their world a better place for everybody. In Scandinavia, we assume that this is automatically taken care of by the state and think less about it. The downside of that is that we are less aware of every individual’s personal responsibility for making a better society.
All in all, I prefer the European model with taxes for everyone, though.
Indeed, I have been hearing precisely the same thing since at least the 1980s.
Der Trihs, if you have an actual reason for claiming Americans are unusually lacking in generosity, you really should tell us what it is.
I think I might’ve gone a bit off-topic here. I agree with you, Rune, that paying your taxes doesn’t count as charity and that people sound ridiculous when they make that claim. (Of course, you don’t hear that claim from “big-state supporters,” you hear it from critics of big government.) It’s right there in the definition. But your comment about outsourcing charity to the state was more vague. There’s nothing immoral about funding social programs for the needy with tax money. I don’t think that counts as outsourcing charity to the state.
Of course he has a reason. He hates America and refuses to believe anything that does not present her in a bad light. Duh.
Of course it counts. What the heck else could it be?
Regards,
Shodan
Just another example of American Exceptionalism
Basic social services. By calling it “outsourcing charity,” Rune seems to be saying that the idea behind these programs is ‘make someone else do it so I don’t have to.’ That’s not what is going on here. I don’t support the existence of (to pick a random example) government-run homeless shelters because I’m too lazy to get involved myself. I support them because I think they’re a useful and necessary service that helps people and they’re a positive for society, and I can’t run and fund them myself. You can rinse and repeat that with a lot of other government programs: individuals would struggle to run and fund any of them, let alone ALL of them. It’s challenging enough to make time for major charity commitments; funding them is an even bigger issue. And let’s face it: some charity causes are decidedly unglamorous. Should those people go unserved until someone figures out a way to make them marketable to private donors, or should there be a basic service that exists at a relatively low cost to the individual taxpayer? Isn’t it a distinguishing characteristic of a humane society that we agree people in need should be able to get certain kinds of help rather than making them depend on gifts they may not get?
Calling it “outsourcing charity” is just another potshot at the limosine liberal cliche. Rune is trying and failing to find hypocrisy. The irony of it is that I think we know it wasn’t a liberal who said, regarding giving aid to a poor country that was struck by an enormous disaster, “We’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax.”
Especially the 1%. They display more generosity (to themselves) than any other nation on Earth. It was so generous of them to bail out the banks.
But seriously, greed and avarice are part of the American Dream.
:dubious:
Actually, if you average their position over 2010-11, the USA rank is 3.5, trailing Australia (2), Ireland (2.5), and New Zealand (3).
Even more remarkable, IMO, is Sri Lanka’s rank (8.5), considering that their per capita GDP ($5,000 in 2010) is less than a fifth that of New Zealand ($27,700 in 2010), the “poorest” country of the four highest ranked nations.
To me, this makes a case for Sri Lankan exceptionalism, if anything.
Apparently, redundancy is, too.
Since liberals are always talking about how they want to raise taxes on “the rich” and spend it on stuff like this, that largely is the idea.
This is a distinction without a difference.
I can’t run a food shelf by myself either, but I can donate to a charity that runs one.
And others are an outright waste, and shouldn’t be funded at all. The point is, who gets to decide?
If someone wants to run another exhibit of pictures of Mapplethorpe with a whip up his ass, it can be funded thru contributions, in which case I can decide to contribute or not, or it can be funded thru the National Endowment for the Arts, in which case I have no choice. Likewise for the opera, or no-kill animal shelters, or Toys for Tots, or the United Way, or dozens of other charities to which I may or may not want to contribute. Once they get a lip lock on the public teat, I lose the opportunity to say No Thank You.
That’s not an argument for eliminating welfare. It is an argument for NOT making the government your first or only choice when you are looking to allocate your charitable dollars and time.
Regards,
Shodan
No, it isn’t. Funding a program with tax dollars is not the same as making someone else do charity work on your behalf.
The decision is made by the same people. The process is different and the effects can be different.
Except through voting and lobbying and campaigning. Government funding is bureaucratic but it’s not somehow magically insulated from public influence.
Nobody’s arguing for that.
I would guess that there is also serious underreporting in many countries where extended families/clans are still important.
In the part of Tanzania that I am familiar with, there still exists something of a clan system. If you have the ability of the money, it’s assumed that you will help take care of uncles, nieces, second-cousin-twice-removed. It’s not considered charity, it’s just what you do. That may include housing, education, wedding expenses, medical expenses, etc. They depend on family, not government or charities.
Don’t wipe your brush over this liberal. This liberal is talking about how everybody’s, including his own, tax money is well spent partly on things that would’ve depended on the whims of more or less charitable individuals if this liberal’s country’s political system was more similar to the US’.
Methinks you’ve got a pretty strong opinion about the minds of “liberals”, considering you seem to belong at the other side of the political spectrum. But putting words in other peoples’ mouths is of course a nice rhetorical tool. It makes refuting those word much easier.
Oh come on - this is ridiculous. It is the same thing.
Funding a program with tax dollars forces everyone who pays taxes to fund the program. You don’t get to decline to pay taxes.
You said yourself that you can’t run a food shelf by yourself, so you want the government to fund it. That is clearly forcing other people to participate. Instead of working there yourself, you want the taxpayer - translation, other people - to pick up the bill.
The point is so obvious that I am surprised you don’t see it.
Regards,
Shodan
One reason that the United States ranks so high in charitable giving is the estate tax. It incentivizes a massive amount of charitable donations.
They find out that they can’t take it with them. Worse, they can’t refuse to go.
How does US law compare to what is typically seen in Europe?
I THINK (it has been a long time that I read the article) that Europe has a much lower estate tax. I’ll do a little digging. I couldn’t find the article that I remember reading a while back.