2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us
Nope. Spoken like an overtired Re…
I will leave you all now to cast aspersions on me, my family history and my political beliefs. And thank you to everyone who can give me a real answer as to why they do or do not give to charities.
One last response.
I agree with this completely. I don’t donate to “buy my way into heaven”. I don’t believe in indulgences that will save me from Hell, Purgatory, Limbo or Trenton, NJ. I donate because I want to help. If there is a God and if there is a Heaven then it doesn’t matter what I do or how much I give. I give and do because I have the means to do so. Why should I have so much when so many don’t? I’m not greatly inconvenienced and I know that whatever I do is only a drop in the bucket.
And there’s more verses that say you shouldn’t boast or even speak about that giving… You just do it because it’s the right thing to do. Propping yourself up by saying that you’re better than all those evil Libs just makes you a hypocrite!
I’m interested in hearing more specifics about his argument and evidence. It’s certainly possible that conservatives are more generous to charities than liberals, but right now all I know is that he’s claiming it and selling a book on the subject.
In particular, I’m curious what definition of “charity” he uses.
Does the author separate giving to the donors’ churches from other charitable giving?
Along with that, I just think it’s tacky to discuss in much detail. It’s like talking about how big your salary is, except it’s even more egotistical because you’re propping up your own ego too. I like to simply assume that most people also do charitable work or donation when they’re able, so going out of your way to make a point of it sounds suspicious.
Yes, I’m aware this is a semi-anonymous survey, so like the liberal that I am, I’m going to decline to discuss it in much detail. In the last year, I sent money for Katrina relief, spent my time and money making needed items to give to five other charities for the US troops and for needy kids in the US and other countries, and am not going to file for tax deductions on it. That’s probably how I would have filled out the survey in question if I’d completed it at all, and it’s also probably the only time I’ve actually said in any kind of detail what I’ve done.
Matthew 5:20
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
James 2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
James 2:17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead
James 2:21-25
Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
I Peter 1:17
The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work.
I agree with Dan, donations to a church don’t count as charitable contributions in my book. Now if a church runs a food pantry, and you can donate to that, that counts, but not contributions to a general fund. My opinion, YMMV.
Did I miss in the article where he controls for unrelated variables? Conservatives likely make more money. If they give a lower percentage of their pay, it is still possible for them to be giving more, but feeling it less. In any real study, this would have to be controlled for.
Motivation for giving is important too. I’m sure a lot of relgious Conservative donations are going in the form of titheing to one’s church, which is essentially required. It would affect one’s social standing (not to mention the possibility of eternal damnation) to not give enough.
Why is this being interpreted as a comparison between liberals and conservatives, rather than one between secular people and religious people?
Wouldn’t we have to compare religious liberals to religious conservatives, and secular liberals to secular conservatives, to know what role political beliefs really play in this discrepancy, as opposed to religious beliefs?
If you keep jumping to conclusions this vigorously you’ll tear a ligament or something.
This type of talk has gone on long enough and I am going to have to call ignorance on everyone that has said something to this effect unless you can elaborate with specific examples. The term “write off” is horribly misleading and it does not mean what it implies. The everyday term is tax deduction which more people are familiar with. If you donate $100 to a charity, at tax time, you can deduct that $100 from your income so you get some tax back based on it. $30 back would be a pretty good estimate of your tax savings but you are still out $70 overall. That is the way that all charitable donations work. You can’t donate something and then get the same amount of its worth or more back for it. All you get is a nod from the feds saying that you don’t have to pay taxes on it. That is hardly self-serving and people really are donating their own money and assets no matter what form. If a rich person donates a house that he only paid $40,000 in 1960, it may be worth $1.5 million now so a donation would bet him a large tax break but keep in mind that he really did just lose an expensive house and got little back for it in the name of charity.
You’re gonna lie about your taxes? :eek:
I would interpret your actions as strong evidence that you believe in a judgmental God. If you were a true atheist, you’d happily claim the deduction and call the situation a win-win for all involved.
Have I called it right? Are you a religious liberal?
Deductions are just made from income before you calculate tax, which means the money you save in taxes is, at most, less than half of the actual donation. So nobody gives money just for the tax deduction – it makes no sense.
Also, I don’t think it invalidates a charitable gift to get recognition. You might feel it is less of an entry in the moral ledger, but the people who benefit from the gift still benefit from it, and the person who gives the gift still gives it. It seems to me the moral ledger issue is debatable, because one can still gloat about how wonderful one is for giving anonymously. I don’t think it’s wrong to give openly and receive the recognition. It’s certainly better than not giving.
Finally, the biggest issue with the smug “data” given by the OP is that many liberals have chosen careers which are basically a commitment of one’s life to a cause: social work, education, etc. So these people would have less money to give, but they’ve given much more overall. Furthermore, they may be more likely to volunteer time to a cause, even if it’s avocational, and I wonder if time is considered in the formula.
Another problem with the formula is that extremely wealthy families can skew the data. Perhaps one billionaire gives millions of dollars to a charity, raising the average for slews of middle class conservatives who begrudge any dime given to a cause. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case, but it’s possible.
However, if the OP had merely tried to make the point that conservatives are not always the heartless bastards of liberal lore and used this data to defend that position, I would heartily agree. It’s unfair to typecast that way.
Millions? That pales beside Warren Buffet’s Thirty Billion Dollar Skew Job. Averaged over 50 million conservatives, that works out to $600 apiece.
and
Religious Death Match: Calvinists versus Arminians.
I’m a liberal, and personally, I tend to think it’s the government’s responsibility to address social problems. I feel advocating for a liberal government and paying my taxes are morally equivalent to donating to charity. (Which isn’t to say I don’t donate to specific specialized groups.)
Makes no sense at all and you obviously have no idea how tax write offs work.
All donations to charities go as a write off (if you are able to itemize deductions) along with things like mortgage interest and unreimbursed business expenses. These deductions are subtracted for your income so it is as if you did not earn that money. If your average tax burden is 30% of your income, you will save $3 in taxes for every $10 that you donate to charity.
People don’t donate to charity just to get the tax write off because it still costs them money.
Even if you donate anonymously, you still get the write off. Anonymously usually just means that the charity doesn’t publish your name.
Is there a possibility conservatives pay more, but liberals do more, as in volunteer woork etc.? Is that accounted for in the study?
Unless someone can point us to the actual data itself, I’m going to call bullshit on this. Sure, rich conservatives give tons of money to their charitable foundations, but much of that doesn’t end up going to what anyone could reasonably consider a charity, even if it goes through one.
David H. Koch Charitable Foundation
Over 6 million to “Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation”, another 4 million to the “Cato Institute”, and the “Reason Foundation” got another 1.5 million. There are plenty of other grantees that have squat to do with performing good deeds or helping the less fortunate, as well as tons of other similar foundations.
There are billions of dollars given to various “Foundations” as the one above, and if that’s the sort of thing that puts the Conservatives ahead in the generosity department, then I’m less than impressed. The good news is that those poor people working for The Heritage Foundation, for instance, will now be able to afford to eat, thanks to them.
Who’s to say I’m not? You? Brooks? Fuck off the both of yiz.
Giving to charitable organizations.
Monetarily as well as of my time.
Don’t recall doing so.
Piss of or fuck off, erie774! I don’t care which. Frankly, both would be fine with me, but I understand that your time may be constrained what with having to tout Brooks’ book. As a rule, though, most people who shill for someone usually get paid. Or is this just one more way that you give?