“Europe” doesn’t have any taxes. The countries within no doubt vary.
Sorry, I meant that the countries that comprise the European Union generally have much lower estate tax rates than that of the United States.
Well, I don’t know the specifics, but countries in Europe tend to be characterised as “socialist high tax” in America.
Another few things about the monetary donations part of it;
In the United States donations are tax deductible, that’s not the case in all countries.
Political donations count and that would be much more common in the US.
Higher religiosity paired with religious organisations seemingly being much more money-oriented would also add to their numbers.
Here are 2006 percentages of GNI spent on *foreign *aid, suggesting American charity both starts, and ends, at home.
Okay so I give a homeless person on the street some money and he goes off and buys some booze. I give the government money to help the homeless and they build soup kitchens, to keep the homeless and their children fed and clothed.
How exactly is the former better?
Yep, and that’s exactly the reason I prefer that model over dependence on the charitable whims of private individuals. I’m quite happy to live in a society where even raving egotists have to pay taxes and contribute to a minimum living for those weak ones in society who don’t have a job, a home or a family, so they don’t have to starve and freeze to death.
YMMV, though.
To paint with a very broad brush, we generally have higher income and sales tax, but lower estate tax. IMO, a lower-middle-class person is economically somewhat better off in Scandinavia than in the US, since our taxes fund stuff like schools, universities, student loans and health care. If you’re upper-middle-class, you’re probably better off economically in the US than in Scandinavia because the higher wage differences and lower income tax makes it possible to afford stuff like private health insurance and your children’s college tuition
And our “socialist high tax” funds health care even for the unemployed. Our poor don’t have to declare bankruptcy or die because they can’t afford medical treatment.
Something I’ve been thinking of, re. this subject (and ok, it’s partly tongue in cheek):
in Spain, when we fill our yearly income tax return, there is a part where we are required to tell the government whether we want a certain % of the money obtained from income tax given to one of two possible groups: the RCC or Other Charitable NPOs. So does everybody who’s filed income tax count as having contributed to a charitable organization, or since we’re required to do it we’re not?
I don’t think you can generalize the personal generosity of a culture by the amount of money donated to charity. In my personal experience, the generosity of impoverished villagers in undeveloped countries and disaster areas is often virtually Christ-like, though their compassion does not register on the World Giving Index.
He said he’d rather give it to a charitable organization himself, not give money directly to poor people.
But one might argue that adults should be able to decide what they spend their money on, if I want to give a homeless guy money to buy booze, that’s my prerogative to do so and his prerogative to spend the money I give him as he pleases.
Still, your argument is a strawman.
Here’s how I can see the survey going:
Random American: “Why yes, I gave money to a Republican candidate. With this money, he made an ad about how gays in the military have resulted in children being forbidden from praying in schools. I also volunteered with a group who organized to prevent gays from having the same rights as me.”
Random Foreign guy: “Hmmm… I was pretty busy working to try to get food for my family. The Red Cross was in my village, but I did not volunteer to help them, as I was pretty busy lining up to get uncontaminated water from them. Oh, I did help Fazil, and gave him money to feed his children. And there was old Vasila, we took her in when her husband died. But Fazil is a fourth cousin, and Vasila is related to my second cousin’s aunt, so they’re not strangers.”
Conclusion:
Foreigners are selfish, greedy bastards who do not help out others.
The government isn’t a charitable organization?
What percentage of what is given is given back?
All of it; in theory, at least.
Is it really hard to understand that he meant a private charitable organization?
While money is needed in these things I don’t believe it corresponds to generosity, just ability to give.
In scriptures
[QUOTE=Luke 21]
1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
[/QUOTE]
I do believe it is possible in a karmic way that the US gave so much in terms of $'s is that others have given so much of their hearts.
This sentence matches how I feel about various social programs. Even if, hypothetically, a tax-funded homeless shelter program and a charity-funded homeless shelter program would help the same number of people for the same cost, I would have a negative visceral reaction to someone pushing for a switch from the former to the latter. It’s like they’re trying to lower the bar to look like more of a big shot.
If a voluntary action produces the same result as a coerced action, you prefer the coerced action? That makes little sense, but your last sentence makes absolutely no sense to me.
Suppose for simplicity’s sake that there’s a nation where everyone agrees that a tax-funded homeless shelter program should be implemented; there’s a unanimous referendum. People support the program because they feel that a modern society should have a social safety net. They don’t consider it to be generous or charitable because it’s just something that decent people do; refusing to provide shelter for homeless strangers would be akin to refusing to feed one’s own children.
Now suppose time passes, and support for the program drops a bit. There’s a guy who argues that while it’s a laudable program, he shouldn’t be coerced into paying for it. He’d much rather have a slightly larger portion of his income remain untaxed so that he can personally donate the money to a charity-funded homeless shelter program.
What’s that guy’s deal? Does he want the prestige that comes along with donating to charity? Does he want people to praise him for being so generous? Does he crave a feeling of power over vulnerable people, knowing that he could withhold his donation if he wanted to? If he were to emigrate to a country with only charity-funded homeless shelters, his donations would indeed earn him some prestige and praise and maybe a feeling of power; he’d look like a big shot for being so generous. However, everyone around him at home believes that helping the homeless is baseline human decency, and questions his motives for wanting to change the status quo; why does he want to be held to a lower standard?
I guess the concept of freedom is foreign to you. As in “it’s my money and I know best what to do with it, not the government”.