Curious George goes to Libertaria

[pldennison]

You have to show me, that, in general, rich folk give more (as a %) than other folks. Or that millionaires in Tax-free Kuwait are generally known to be philanthropists. We have show that they do not. Refute us.

I’m going to start researching some figures, Daniel, but I’m going to set a few ground rules. You can agree with them or not, but I think they are reasonable.

1. I’m going to dismiss Kuwait out-of-hand as irrelevant. Tax-free or not, there are enormous cultural differences there, and my impression is that we are talking about either a hypothetical Libertaria or a Libertarian America. I am not a sociologist or economist and do not feel comfortable controlling for the cultural differences.

2. We can not ignore, as Lib was trying to point out, charitable work between family members, or giving that goes on “under the table,” as it were. There are families in which there is enormous charitable giving in the form of interfamilial support, which might take the place of outside giving. (As an example , along with the handful of nonprofits I support, I send money home for my nephews and niece who are, as the polite vernacular goes, “in crisis.”) If I can come up with reasonable estimates for this kind of thing, I will find them, but if I can’t, we can’t just pretend they don’t happen.

3. We should also attempt to account for the fact that, in a Libertarian context, charitable giving would not be supplementing the work of the government, it would be replacing it. People’s impressions of the need to give to, say, poverty-relief organizations might be altered by the fact that there would be no government welfare. Or they might see a more urgent need to support schools for the mentally retarded, or whatever. If anyone has suggestions on how to account for this factor, I’d be happy to hear them.

Are these rules fair enough?

We also should look again at the statistics Ted posted. While you are correct that as HH income or AGI rises, the percentage of income given to charity falls, the percentage of households giving rises as income rises. Among households with income over $100K, a full 28% more gave to charity than among household between $20-30K, which I believe is close to the median. Don’t you think that’s significant?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

1. Ok, YOU can igore Kuwait if you want to, but I’m not going to. However, there are several small island counties, some with very democratic go’vt that aslo have not income tax for citizens. Can you show they are more giving than similar small island states? My very sketchy research said no.

2. I am not ignoring charitable giving to family members. I have discussed this already, but again: If you support a relative enough, you get to calim a deduction for him. Exempptions for “family member not a part of household” are in a INVERSE ratio to AGI, ie this kind of giving seems to be more prevelant amoung the lower middle class. Next, the very rich, when they want to “help out” aunt Toto, set up a charitable foundation, so they can deduct it, so their “giving” to family would be in the IRS stats.

3. Sure, and that’s a nice theory. But as we are talking about folks starving to death, or not getting an education, and thus turning to crime- if that theory fails, we need to see some info that would back up that theory. So far, all the info has gone against that theory. But, I must admit- I do not KNOW it won’t work, but the consequences of such a theory failing are so terrible, we cannot go there without some solid evidence.

4. No, the % of households “giving” does NOT go up. This is taxes, MY field, remember. The % of those ITEMIZING goes up, thus the % of those showing ANY deductions goes up. Besides, that membership to your local public TV station, does not really count, now does it?

So, you must show something that shows us that folks relieved of their “tax burden” will suddenly get a LOT more generous. Hell, I know I won’t, I’ll buy a new computer, or a new car. Sure, I’ll give a bit more, but not many times more.

[Kyberneticist]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**The IRS posts info on charitable deductions. AGI #15K>20K, average contibutions =$1,449, AGI 100K> 200K = 3962., ie about one fifth of what the lower AGI gives, per of AGI.
As to the nations, I went to various sites re those who have no taxes for citizens, such as Kuwait. There are reports of the poor in Kuwait hurting bad as the Kuwaitees are not as generous as their income would allow them to be.

The second is not as solid as the 1st, however, the Libt would need to show ME that the contributions in non-tax countries are way higher than those in tax countries. They were unable to. Since I am assuming the “norm”, (and have a tiny bit of info to back me up), it is up to THEM to show the “not-norm”. **

Couple of potential objections.

1. Rich people don’t give as much, not because they are being taxed, and don’t feel the need, but because even though they still have plenty to spare, when a person is rich, their empathy towards the fellow man may be reduced.
   (Rationalizations I have heard - their situation is due to their laziness/some other character flaw. Or, they don’t have it that bad, simply because you don’t know what its like)

2. This still doesn’t really deal with the fundamental problem of discrimination in private organizations. Example: Catholic hospitals which offer their help to public hospitals which have gotten funding cut (in part due to rationalizations such as those expressed in Dan’s comment) require the hospital to cease offering birth control assistance and abortions. The hospital, needing the funding, complies. And the idea of a secular nation with church and state separated is once more blurred.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Kyberneticist *

2. This still doesn’t really deal with the fundamental problem of discrimination in private organizations. Example: Catholic hospitals which offer their help to public hospitals which have gotten funding cut (in part due to rationalizations such as those expressed in Dan’s comment) require the hospital to cease offering birth control assistance and abortions. The hospital, needing the funding, complies. And the idea of a secular nation with church and state separated is once more blurred. **

good point, I had not even thought of that angle.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Kyberbneticist:

1. Rich people don’t give as much, not because they are being taxed, and don’t feel the need, but because even though they still have plenty to spare, when a person is rich, their empathy towards the fellow man may be reduced.

While this may certainly be an aspect of the rich not giving I think it’s too broad to tell the whole story.

We’re merely human and really big numbers just don’t register on us. So, while I may have $1 billion dollars to my name I can’t really grasp that. As a result when I write a check for $10 million to a charity a part of me thinks, “Damn…that is a LOT of money I just gave away and even trying to tell myself it’s only 1% of my money it still seems like a LOT! Besides, I gave $10 million! It may only be 1% to the 5% someone who makes $50,000/year donates but it is still $10 million to their $2,500! Bite me if you say it’s not enough!” (Or something like that )

To get an idea of grasping how much money is a LOT assume Bill Gates has $33 billion in cash (I think his net worth may be even more than that…not sure and I realize his net worth does not equal cash in a savings account but go with it for this demo). If we assume he will live exactly 50 more years he would have to spend over $75,000 per hour, every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to spend his money before he dies! That borders on obscene. He could give away 90% of his wealth (some $30 billion) and still be stupid rich. $30 billion could single handedly build every library this country needs and setup an endowment to support them.

Ted Turner figured (I don’t know how he figured it…you’d have to ask him) that $66 million is the number beyond which more money in your bank account won’t really be noticed. With $66 million you can pretty much live VERY large. Beyond that you’re just counting stuff but it doesn’t improve your lifestyle (i.e. having 8 houses instead of only 5). Of course, you don’t see Ted giving away his money to the point that he has only $66 million left in the bank so I’m not sure why he was spouting that pearl of wisdom.