Charity: Luxury or Necessity?
Via DarwinCatholic, Arthur Brooks has an article up at NRO exploring the poor giving record of Barach and Michelle Obama:
After Mr. and Mrs. Obama released their tax returns, the press quickly noticed that, between 2000 and 2004, they gave less than one percent of their income to charity, far lower than the national average. Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit).
According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 “was as generous as they could be at the time,” given their personal expenses. In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful.
It must be hard, making hundreds of thousands of dollars and not having anything to spare. As Michelle Obama herself recently noted, “We spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements. And summer programs… Do you know what summer camp costs?”
But one shouldn’t be too hard on the Obamas. The couple thousand bucks they gave out of their poverty is at least better than the $353 Al Gore gave out of his nearly $200,000 income three years before his Presidential run (oddly, like the Obamas the amount of his giving increased substantially as he geared up to run for President). And as Brooks notes, the Obamas’ giving patterns are consistent with the giving patterns of self-described liberals generally:
In 1996, the General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans whether they agreed that, “The government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” Those who “disagreed strongly” with this statement gave an amazing twelve times more money to charity per year, on average, than those who “agreed strongly.” People disagreeing strongly also gave nine times more to secular causes than those agreeing strongly, and even gave more to traditionally progressive causes, such as the environment and the arts.
As Brooks has noted elsewhere, this charity disparity is present not only in terms of money donations, but in everything from the number of hours volunteered to the donation of blood, and persists even when factors like income. According to Brooks, this difference in giving levels is due not primarily to the fact that it is easier to be charitable with other people’s money than it is with one’s own, but to a difference in how charitable giving is conceived:
many political liberals simply don’t believe that redistribution is very effective at the voluntary level; rather, redistribution is so important that it should be undertaken at the large-group level as a matter of law.
From this perspective, private charity, while a lovely thing, is still a dispensable extravagance. This might help explain the Obamas’ relatively meager giving before they got rich. Feeling the pinch of student loans and child-care costs, they neglected charity in much the way they might have forgone many other unnecessary luxury gewgaws. Later, with buckets of income from book royalties, they devoted some of it to giving. For many Americans, however, this view of charity as an expendable luxury is anathema. Giving is a necessity, not a luxury — a year-in and year-out necessity.
Personally, I think Brooks is a bit too quick to dismiss the idea that it’s easier to support spending other people’s money on a worthy cause than it is spending your own. But if the matter comes down to whether charity ought to be thought of as an luxury or as a necessity, then, from the Christian point of view, the answer would seem pretty clear.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
I can agree with most of this sentiment. I’ve never been comfortable with the characterization of political conservatives that they “don’t care about poor people”. It seems the difference is more a matter of philosophy. Conservatives think charity is a private matter, Liberals think its a government matter. The government has a role in administering justice, but in a pluralistic society such as ours how can we measure economic justice? To me its a delicate situation.
Still, as a matter of common good I don’t think we should be quick to dismantle the social services that provide a public safety net. The alleviation of poverty will not be a government only solution or purely individual solutions: it will take the Church, business, individuals, and government together to create a more just society.
Post Script:
I wonder also though if the national numbers are a little bit skewed because of the practice of tithing in Church. As we know, more “liberals” are secular and less frequent attenders of church while a significant portion of American “conservatives” are religious. Could the giving numbers include giving to their church, of which few actual dollars may actually be used for charity. I wonder if you broke the $ down a little more if the actual disparity between charitable giving would be different?
I don’t have access to the numbers, so I’m only asking a question.
Since BA and I danced previously, I’ll try to altar my counter to make it interesting.
Performing these surveys is a methodological nightmare. One would think charity is easily defined, but it isn’t. Is the grandmother who pays her grandchild’s tuition doing an act of charity? Most assuredly, but these surveys have difficulty even picking up on these types of things. Is giving to the Catholic radio station a form of charity? If one is a listener, I would say no, but many would say yes. There are ways to overcome this, like surveying just those who donate blood. Even there you can run into issues, because one is assuming a representative sample of charitable givers overall.
His most interesting comment is one I can completely agree with:
Health care policy immediately comes to mind here. A directly relevant example would be people’s willingness to stick a brick in their toliet tank. Those who believed strongly in regulatory changes to conserve water were less likely to take this measure than others.
Matt,
The numbers Brooks cites are for giving to secular causes: “People disagreeing strongly [with the claim that government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality] also gave nine times more to secular causes than those agreeing strongly, and even gave more to traditionally progressive causes, such as the environment and the arts.”
M.Z.,
You raise a couple of concerns about using charitable contributions as a measure of charity overall. The first is that there are certain types of charity (what you might call informal charity) that aren’t included in those numbers. In his book, Brooks tries to deal with this concern by citing the survey results showing that people who donate to charity are several times more likely to also engage in informal types of charity than are people who do not.
Your second concern is some of what is considered charity for purposes of making charitable contributions really shouldn’t be considered charitable. The example you cite, where the donor gets some benefit from the service contributed to, is arguable, but I’ll go you one better. Some charitable organizations do things that are positively harmful to society. The question is, if we were somehow able to sift the true charity out from the bad, what reason do we have to think that the disparities noted by Brooks would decrease?
In comparison to the war and energy profiteering in which Bush and Cheney engage, through the secret “executively priveleged” Energy Task force and their no-bid contracts in an unjust, pre-emptive war of choice in Iraq, a land already laden with conflict and large-cale poverty, I’d say the Obamas in their finances look rather saintly.
A couple of points.
First, this is a bit rich, given that Obama took his Harvard law degree to become a community organizer in inner-city Chicago. He put himself on the line to help people in need, which tells far more about his character than a rich corporate lawyer coughing up a few percent to charity from the confines of his McMansion.
Second, and more fundamentally, this is the kind of argumentation that has me pulling out my hair. By this line of reasoning, you are a super hypocrite if you claim to care about poor people but don’t seem to do anything about it personally. It’s the same crap that was behind Al Gore’s big house and John Edwards’ fancy haircut. Of course, Republicans are immune to this kind of criticism…because they don’t profess any sympathy for the poor in the first place! A bizarre, frustrating, and counterproductive line of reasoning.
The example you cite, where the donor gets some benefit from the service contributed to, is arguable, but I’ll go you one better.
Indeed.
what reason do we have to think that the disparities noted by Brooks would decrease?
It is a fair enough question. I think it puts the cart before the horse. I’m not arguing in good faith though, because I haven’t reviewed his research. Having noted this, I would expect the disparity to lessen or not be valuable for drawing conclusions, because my own anecdotal observations are that very few people are exceptionally charitable. Among acts of charity I have observed, I rarely am able to discern an ideological basis behind the donation. Statistical findings should not be surprising.
MM I wonder how many people who complain about the lack of charity of others will be the first to collect all their charitable contributions and list it on their taxes? If they do that, is it really not an indication that they are 1) not so charitable but doing it for a personal gain and 2)in a way, paying taxes for charitable action? Of course, they are capable of determining where those contributions are going (to some extent), but that doesn’t diminish the reality.
More importantly, I wonder how much of this is an “ad hominem” the kind Jesus also went against in the Gospels. He told the Jews to follow the words of those on the “seat of Moses” while not to follow their personal lack of example.
Finally, this argument reminds me of what so many anti-Catholics say about the Church: if the Vatican wants us to be charitable, they should sell all their churches and priceless works of art. On a simple level, that seems to make sense, but when one explores the deeper concerns, things are not say easy. A politician in today’s world needs a great amount of income to become president, one way or another, and the Church often uses those priceless treasures for the spiritual benefit of humanity which transcends the monetary worth, and inspires in their presence a greater turn to charity.
Holy Obama apologetics, Batman!
But, I get it!
Obama and marxist modernists/liberation theology guerrillas believe they are uber-performing “Corporal Works of Mercy” by instituting confiscatory taxes on the evil rich and sending the money to their (dem) political power base (N.B. dependents not constituents) for their votes.
This is a common trait of liberal saints I know.
Brilliant!
After a few years of Pres. Obama, they’ll go “from apologetics to apologies” (quote from Gerald Augustinus)
“T. Shaw”
So you like misrepresentation and lies and poisoning the well as legitimate methods of dealing with others? And if people point out those problems they are “apologists”? Not just trying to be truthful to all people?
By this line of reasoning, you are a super hypocrite if you claim to care about poor people but don’t seem to do anything about it personally. It’s the same crap that was behind Al Gore’s big house and John Edwards’ fancy haircut.
How is it “crap” to point out that someone doesn’t live by their own supposed values? It seems to be relevant if a “family values” politician or preacher gets caught with a prostitute.
“Obama took his Harvard law degree to become a community organizer in inner-city Chicago.”
Actually, Obama left his job as a community organizer to go to Harvard, not the other way around.
“By this line of reasoning, you are a super hypocrite if you claim to care about poor people but don’t seem to do anything about it personally.”
I don’t know if claiming to care about the poor while not doing anything about it makes one a hypocrite, but it’s hardly an admirable quality, particularly when, as Brooks’ research shows, people who favor more government spending on the poor give less than people who do not.
He put himself on the line to help people in need, which tells far more about his character than a rich corporate lawyer coughing up a few percent to charity from the confines of his McMansion.
The more relevant comparison — although not as convenient for the partisan ideologue — is to the “working poor” who are identified by Brooks as giving a higher percentage of income to charity than the rich do.
Henry,
Certain charitable contributions are tax deductible. Since tax rates are never higher than 100%, anyone who is making charitable contributions as a means of personal gain is operating under some very faulty assumptions. The issue is largely moot, though, as most Americans don’t itemize their tax returns (Did the Obamas itemize? One wonders).
As for the idea that paying taxes is itself a form of charitable action, I think the idea is problematic, but it’s irrelevant to the point of the article. Brooks’ research shows that people who believe in increased government spending give less than people who don’t regardless of what the actual amount of government spending is. It’s not just paying taxes that leads to less giving (though that does happen too). Simply believing that others should pay more is sufficient.
My interest in this issue isn’t that is an effective tool against anyone here at VN, but rather against those whose view of Obama is much higher… our diocese is in the midst of a pastoral planning process, and the quantitative analysis is verifying something which is apparently a commonly-known reality: the higher the income, the lesser the percentage of money given to charities. That troubles me at least as much as the political divide in charitable giving.
Could it be that people who favor less taxing and governmental regulation in taxing are also inclined to be more unscrupulous (and thus less personally fettered) in the means by which they acquire their wealth?
Having much more therefore to give, they ‘give’ at higher percentage rates of their income.
Just think of Andew Carnegie or Henry Ford.
By the way, the idea that Republicans “don’t profess any sympathy for the poor” is flat out false. Republicans favor different solutions to the problems of poverty than do Democrats (though these solutions are often not different enough for my tastes), but to say that don’t care is just plain wrong.
Mark
Or Bill “we’ve got the loot” Gates ;)
“Could it be that people who favor less taxing and governmental regulation in taxing are also inclined to be more unscrupulous (and thus less personally fettered) in the means by which they acquire their wealth? Having much more therefore to give, they ‘give’ at higher percentage rates of their income.”
An interesting theory, but no. The giving gap persists even when controlling for level of income (one should note that self-described liberals have slightly higher incomes than do self-described conservatives). In fact, as Brooks notes, the rich tend to give a lower percentage of their income than do the poor (though both give at a higher rate than do the middle class).
“In fact, as Brooks notes, the rich tend to give a lower percentage of their income than do the poor (though both give at a higher rate than do the middle class).”
When you are most under the yokes of capitalism and its failures, you taste more its abuses. Thus, you are more sensitive to other like you.
Henry,
Bill Gates is a bad example, as he is in favor of raising taxes, and as far as I can tell is center-left in his politics.
Blackadder
I don’t think you understand what he was an example of.
O-B-A-M-A D-E-R-A-N-G-E-M-E-N-T S-Y-N-D-R-O-M-E
Morons!
Henry,
What was he supposed to be an example of?
Second, and more fundamentally, this is the kind of argumentation that has me pulling out my hair. By this line of reasoning, you are a super hypocrite if you claim to care about poor people but don’t seem to do anything about it personally. It’s the same crap that was behind Al Gore’s big house and John Edwards’ fancy haircut. Of course, Republicans are immune to this kind of criticism…because they don’t profess any sympathy for the poor in the first place! A bizarre, frustrating, and counterproductive line of reasoning.
And it’s entirely possible that when the Cheney’s show on their taxes that they donated 80%+ of their income (mentioned in the article BA links to) it’s because they managed to find a non-profit which specializes in waterboarding baby harp seals…
Look, let’s all step back from the point scoring potential of this because there’s a much more interesting aspect to it.
It’s argued frequently by some that Catholic social teaching requires that the national government look after the common good by funding a wide variety of programs ranging from the fairly essential safety net programs that keep people from starving when they’re without other resources to subsidizing a wide variety of more generally “worthy” causes. I’m not sure that many people would argue that _none_ of this is the government’s job. However if, as this appears to suggest, those who are most in favor of this more interventionalist approach to government tend to then assume that they don’t need to personally contribute money to causes (since that’s the government’s job) then we really have to question if this approach to government is in keeping with a Catholic understanding of society.
Only the most shameless straw man arguer would claim that conservatives literally “don’t care about the poor”, but one thing that some conservatives have been arguing for a long time is that creating a direct dependance relationship between people and the large-scale government undermines community and people’s sense of individual responsibility for their neighbors and local institutions.
Often, we see “the government” doing something about a problem as desireable because it’s so big that it can make large-scale moves: provide welfare to everyone below the poverty line, provide foodstamps to everyone who needs them, provide universal health care, etc. But if this emphasis on large scale solutions is making people think that it doesn’t matter so much if they individually help each other, the effect of the largescale “help” may actually be negative for society in the end.
Overlooked here is the very cultural atmosphere that is created and sustained by governmental policies of low taxation, little market regulation, and decreased governmental intervention, in matters such as health care, education, a social safety-net and its other obligation’s in regards to the preferential option for the poor.
Such atmosphere is very much wanting, in terms of a true culture of life.
When you are most under the yokes of capitalism and its failures, you taste more its abuses. Thus, you are more sensitive to other like you.
That’s getting desperate.
“That’s getting desperate?
Do you know their desperation?
Henry,
It’s certainly the case that Gates has made his money via unscrupulous means, and thus has plenty to donate. However, he can’t fit Mark’s theoretical group of people in favor of less taxes and regulation who thus are unscrupulous and have more money because he doesn’t favor less taxes and regulation — he favors more taxes and regulation.
That would reverse Mark’s argument and suggest (if wanted to claim this was somehow a trend) that those in favor of higher taxes and more regulation are less ethical, make more money, and thus have more to donate.
Also, on the profiting by writing donations off on your taxes argument — using TurboTax is actually a very good way of showing how this really works. You enter your income first, and it estimates your refund (or amount owed). Then as you enter your deductions it shows how much your refund increases. My experience was that for each $1000 worth of donations I entered I showed an increase of about $200 in my refund. It’s nice to get some of what the Feds took back, but no one is going to get rich by paying $1000 to get $200.
Your argument is desperate; do you have any serious theory for why poorer people would be more generous?
“When you are most under the yokes of capitalism and its failures, you taste more its abuses. Thus, you are more sensitive to other like you.”
I’d say that to a certain extent, those closer to poverty and deprivation (or those who have known it themselves) are probably more likely to be sensitive to it than people for whom it’s all primarily an abstraction. That’s true regardless of the source of the deprivation.
“Giving to charity” is not an act of charity in any case.
An act of charity is an act of love.
An act of love is personal.
Of course conservatives can be charitable in this sense. I know many who are. They give of themselves personally in their relationships, and try to establish new relationships with those in need.
This is also possible, though exceedingly difficult, in the world of politics and high finance, which functions on the presumption that I win by defeating others.
Many Republicans seem to thrive in this political/economic realm. Thus the idea has developed that “politics” is a term of approbation and insult.
It is Republicans who frequently accuse someone of injecting “politics” into an otherwise “civil” conversation. In this usage, “politics” means greedy, cut-throat, motivated only by self-interest. Someone like Karl Rove quite obviously delights in this conception of the political.
The fact that Obama began his career as a community organizer suggests that he may have a different understanding of “politics” — perhaps politics can itself be opened to the solicitations of charity, which is love.
I wonder how many people who complain about the lack of charity of others will be the first to collect all their charitable contributions and list it on their taxes? If they do that, is it really not an indication that they are 1) not so charitable but doing it for a personal gain
Do you understand the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit? The tax deduction for charitable donations just means that when I give away $80, the charity receives $100. It doesn’t mean that I have any personal gain.
“If power had a body, it would be forced to abdicate. It is because it is fleshless that it fails to feel the misery that it inflicts. What blunts the senses (amongst other depravities) is surplus of material property. If it has no body of its own, it nevertheless has a kind of surrogate flesh, a thick fat-like swaddling of material possessions, which insulate it against compassion:
Let the superfluous and lust-dieted man
That slaves your ordinance, that dose not see
Because he does not feel, feel your power quickly:
so distribution should undo excess,
And each man have enough.
King Lear
If our sympathy for others were not so sensuously depleted, we would be moved by their deprivation to share with them the very goods which prevent us from feeling their wretchedness. The problem would thus become the solution.’
Terry Eagleton, 2003
I think Obama’s record of service speaks volumes about his disposition.
The problem with Arthur Brooks:
http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml
The data is ambiguous. While Brooks says that conservatives tend to give more than liberals, he completely omits the fact that according to his own analysis liberals are more likely to give in the first place.
Also, conservatives are more likely to report their charitable giving.
From my own limited personal experience, it seems as though conservatives do tend to give more financially while liberals tend to give more physically. Compare Obama’s employment history to Bush’s.
G. Alkon,
Elections operate on the presumption that one person wins by defeating others. Business generally does not do so, at least outside of the movies. The foundation for commerce, after all, is the mutually beneficial exchange.
Overlooked here is the very cultural atmosphere that is created and sustained by governmental policies of low taxation, little market regulation, and decreased governmental intervention, in matters such as health care, education, a social safety-net and its other obligation’s in regards to the preferential option for the poor.
Such atmosphere is very much wanting, in terms of a true culture of life.
Well, it would seem that’s the question, though. If people who favor decreased intervention generally give far more direct help to their neighbors than those who favor increased government intervention — then how exactly are to to conclude that less regulation would be inimical to a true culture of life? Perhaps, a society which expects each person to care for his neighbor himself (rather than waiting for “the government” to do it) actually foster’s a culture of life.
“Perhaps, a society which expects each person to care for his neighbor himself (rather than waiting for “the government” to do it) actually foster’s a culture of life.”
And such a track record those society’s have had…
At this point charity seems to be being confused with justice. It is not an act of charity for someone to receive what is justly owed them. I gave the example of Target the other day. Target gives 5% of their gross to local charities while many of their employees are receiving welfare benefits from the State. It wouldn’t be an act of charity to pay them justly and offering the 5% to charity is just obstinance in the face of injjustice.
Blackadder – in a democracy, can’t the government be one tool of the people to express charity, and a means they can use to construct a more equitable society, in addition to private charity? Is it really either/or?
M.Z.,
You’ve given some version of the Target example a couple of times now. I have to say that I don’t really understand its force. Target has employees that, in addition to being employed by Target and receiving a wage for their work, also receive welfare benefits of one form or another. Target also donates 5% of its proceeds to charity. What is supposed to be the connection between the one and the other? Is it that if Target took the 5% it spends on charity and used the money to pay its employees higher wages, its employees wouldn’t need welfare, or is it something else?
Mark,
What societies do you have in mind?
Matt,
In theory, yes. In practice it often doesn’t work that way.
BA,
Correct.
MZ,
But if the disparity in giving is between those in favor and against government redistributionism even when you control for income band, I’m not sure how that’s relevant. If it’s the case that Target is paying its employees less than the true (assuming that to be distinct from “market”) value of their wages, then that is an injustice. That injustice is clearly not wiped away by doing something else that might be good.
I will say, however, arguing against my own position: It may be that what we’re simply seeing is a reflection of “it’s my duty” versus “it’s someone else’s duty” mentalities. If many advocates of a generous government safety net and redistribution of income are people who wouldn’t give much to charity regardless of what sort of government was in existence, and if those who are against such government programs would give generously regardless as well, then one could argue it’s best to have a redistributive government in order to get the most out of both.
However, that doesn’t seem to pass the common sense test, at least from my point of view. It seems like, at least to some extent, making large government programs the means of helping those in need sends the message to people that it is not primarily their responsibility. Which in turn serves to undermine the very social networks and institutions that would tend to cause us to give.
BA — “the foundation for commerce is mutually beneficial exchange”
That is the foundation for good commerce, yes.
But that is not the way things work in capitalism, all too often. Think of the advertising industry, which functions on spin and on the manufacturing of cheap desire. Think of the market in fuels, which functions on cornering and exploiting limited resources. Think of the entire enterprise of cutting costs so as to increase profit.
If it was simply a matter of mutually beneficial exchange, we’d be living in an idealized version of the middle ages.
I’ve said this before, but capitalism is a particular form of commerce that can be defined not by exchange, but by the accumulation of profit. That introduces a whole new set of factors.
Generally those who receive wages shouldn’t need charity. The Lord asks us to make provision for widows, not low skilled workers. If “charity” is required to make a wage earner whole, that generally indicates an injustice is present.
19th century Industrial England; late 19th -early 20th century monopoly capitalism; U.S; and the present U.S., in which the % of a fully-working poor is scandalously high(read: Barbara Ehrenreich (sic?))
MZ,
If “charity” is required to make a wage earner whole, that generally indicates a injustice is present.
In general, I’d agree with you. But I’m still unclear how that speaks against the topic under discussion.
Is your argument that if those who agree with the “The government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” statement got their way then there would be much less need for charity, and so the fact that those who disagree give 10x as much to non-profits doesn’t outweight some inherent injustice in their sentiments?
1. Since I’m not clear on what we are truly measuring, I’m not going to agree the measurement is indicative of anything.
2. I’m entirely unclear on how non-profits address income inequality. A few charities address hunger and homelessness. In other words, I’m unclear how my $100 donation to Emily’s List (kidding!) is related to Target underpaying their workers.
3. Many people give for many reasons. I don’t give Target any credit for their donations to charity because they act injustly to their employees. Too many people place charity before justice.
4. I do tend to be cynical towards charities overall. There is a lot of money to be made in non-profits.
2. I’m entirely unclear on how non-profits address income inequality. A few charities address hunger and homelessness. In other words, I’m unclear how my $100 donation to Emily’s List (kidding!) is related to Target underpaying their workers.
Okay, I guess maybe I get this a little more now.
At least from my point of view, I don’t think the point of the statistic was to argue that those against government solutions to income inequality were specifically doing more to end income inequality via their donations but rather to underline a more general apparent tendency of those who believe that government should take primary responsibility for solving social problems to not do very much about it themselves (other than voting liberal).
Government solutions tend to be highly impersonal, and in that sense it seems to me that they lead to exactly the sort of dissolution of community that you find so unattractive.
Giving to non-profits can also be impersonal (how much more impersonal could you get than United Way?) but overall it seems to me that in that sort of situation (especially when we’re talking local organizations like one’s parish, diocese, St. Vincent de Paul, etc.) there is much more of a relationship between the giver and the work being done.
Thus, by giving to non-profits we participate much more in a cause (good or bad) than simply by advocating that the government tax somebody more and pay for it — something which is generally invisible to us.
I came to this one a bit late – Hahahahahaha
This one is too rich…
“By this line of reasoning, you are a super hypocrite if you claim to care about poor people but don’t seem to do anything about it personally.”
WHAT???? Saying you want to “help” people with OTHER PEOPLES money doesn’t make you a hypocrite? Where’s the typical “the rich are bad” tripe in this conversation???
Edwards and Obama are MORE than better able to provide to charity and global causes than most of us here, and certainly Obama (even when they were making 244000) yet their giving is a completely different story than the lines they use on poor saps who actually think they care.
I wish the “other people’s money” cliche would come to an end. When the bishops’ appeal comes around, you don’t hear people saying he just wants to spend other people’s money. Why not just claim that God makes a claim to other people’s money with the tithe?
It’s no different than the kids being mine when they do good and hers when they do bad. If a person doesn’t like a particular piece of spending, just say it. Let’s not pretend it is inappropriate to have the government collect taxes.
M.Z.,
I don’t know whether the 5% Target gives in charity, if diverted to wages, would be sufficient to keep its employees from being eligible for welfare benefits, and even if it were sufficient, it’s not clear that this would be a good thing. To see why, consider the following example. Let’s say that a position at Target starts at $7 an hour, and that if the money now spent on charity were diverted to charity, the starting wage would be $12 an hour. Now distinguish between several different groups of people. Group A consists of people who work for Target now plus people who don’t yet work at Target (perhaps they’ve yet to even be born), but who would work for them for $7 an hour if that’s what it paid. Group B consists of people who won’t work at Target for $7 an hour, but who would work there for $12 an hour (perhaps they already have a job paying $11 dollars an hour). Group C consists of the people benefited by the money Target spends on charity.
Now when the wage hike goes into effect, the members of Group A already working at Target will immediately benefit. Soon, however, the higher wages paid by Target will attract members of Group B to apply for jobs at Target. Since these workers were already able to fetch a higher wage than the members of Group A, then are likely to be more productive, and given the choice Target will tend to hire members of Group B instead of members of Group A. Thus, whereas these members of Group A would have had a job paying $7 an hour absent Target’s policy, with the policy they will be unemployed, or will have to find another job paying even less than Target. Even those members of Group A who already worked at Target may find it harder to advance thanks to the new competition from Group B. Thus, there is no guarantee that the people this new wage policy was designed to help (that is, the members of Group A) will actually be better off than they would have been under the old policy. Some of them will be better off in the short run, But in the long run many of them will be worse off, and the overall effect on society (which must consider not only the negative effects on Group A, but also the negative effects on Group C of not receiving Target’s charity, and the lost productivity that comes from drawing Group B away from what it otherwise would have been doing) is likely to be negative.
It’s not the collective nature of the spending that’s being objected to in the “other people’s money” complaint, MZ. It’s who’s usually doing the suggesting.
So for instance, it’s pretty common for people (who generally are not in the top 10% of earners) to say that if we only increased taxes on the top 10% we could pay for XYZ. Now, I don’t have a problem with a progressive income tax, within certain sane limits, but this basically boils down to: I’m not actually willing to pay for any of this myself — I don’t want my taxes raised — but I’m perfectly happy for you to go take money from that guy (whom my demographic outnumbers) and use it to fund the project that I want but don’t actually want to contribute to.
Now, for the diocesan appeal: One big difference is that it’s voluntary.
However, at the parish level at least, I can assure you from being on Parish Council that there is constant talk of, “Well, that’s a great idea, but do we all want to chip in a couple hundred extra dollars for that? Is that where we should put our money?” And I think it would be a pretty valid question if someone came to the pastor and demanded that something be built around the parish for him to respond: “Well, would you be willing to help pay for it?” (Yes, our pastor says “well” a lot…)
“I wish the “other people’s money” cliche would come to an end. “
The people who go on crusades to “help” those in need, and don’t do a damn thing about it themselves, while expecting to tax the living crap out of me (while the have offshore accounts, tax shelters, etc.) is just more than a little bit annoying. THEY are the ones preaching as to what we should do, yet they don’t seem to think they are one of the ones who need to help. Typical elitism.
What ever happened to leading by example?
DC: Show me the alternative, private solution that would make sure every American had affordable health care, and would help the same number of people as soon and as certainly as a Single Payer scheme, and I would be happy to support it.
Show me the alternative, private solution that would reduce childhood poverty to the levels that obtained in 2005 in Sweden (4.2%), France (7.5%), or Germany (10.2%). In the US, the rate was almost 22%.
DC: Show me the alternative, private solution that would make sure every American had affordable health care, and would help the same number of people as soon and as certainly as a Single Payer scheme, and I would be happy to support it.
Last I checked, considering only the end and not the means is called consequentialism, and it’s frowned upon in these parts. But, I did take a shot at describing such a system.
Show me the alternative, private solution that would reduce childhood poverty to the levels that obtained in 2005 in Sweden (4.2%), France (7.5%), or Germany (10.2%). In the US, the rate was almost 22%.
Ummmm. That’s in part because the poor have the temerity to have children in this country — whereas they generally do not in Germany and Sweden.
Also note, we have a pretty constant stream of poor people coming across our border. (Something I, for one, would like to see be made more easy to do legally rather than illegally.) However, the tricky thing about letting the poor in is that then you… have poor people around for a while till they got on their feet.
Last I checked, considering only the end and not the means is called consequentialism, and it’s frowned upon in these parts.
DC, the means – a single payer system – is not intrinsically evil. If I were proposing, say, that the sick be euthanized so no one ever has to pay doctor bills? Yeah, that would have a tinge of consequentialism to it. Using the government we’ve chartered to ensure that no one ever has to choose between health care and paying the rent ever again? Not so much…
That’s in part because the poor have the temerity to have children in this country — whereas they generally do not in Germany and Sweden.
Also note, we have a pretty constant stream of poor people coming across our border.
France has large numbers of immigrants itself – it just takes care of them better. And arguing that the poor ought not to have children, in order to prevent them from being burdens on society… actually, that does have a tinge of consequentialism to it…
Matt,
Your numbers are off. In 2005, the poverty rate in the U.S. was 12.7%, not 22%:
It’s true that the official poverty rate figures for some European countries are significantly lower than the U.S. Partly, though, this is due not to the fact that people in those countries have a higher standard of living, but to the fact that different countries set different threshold levels for poverty, and the U.S.’s threshold is higher than most. When you use a constant standard, what you find is that the bottom 10% of people in the U.S. are actually a tiny bit better off financially than are the bottom 10% of Swedes, and that they are only slightly worse off than the bottom 10% in France and Germany.
In terms of health care, we could get everyone health insurance tomorrow if we didn’t care about what happened next week, next year, or in 30 years from now. In fact, we could probably provide universal care pretty easily just by limiting health care to any treatment or medicine available prior to 1978. I think that’s a suckers bet, but if someone is willing to forego all the medical advances of the next 30 years just to get everyone covered now, I don’t see why he should balk at also foregoing the the advances of the last 30.
I’m not sure of the statistical value of your second link. (I’m sounding like a broken record on statistics today.) There is no particular value in comparing the data to median US income. To give the briefest of examples, my cost of living would be significantly lower on the northside of Milwaukee than it would be in Duluth, MN. One has public transit in the former and doesn’t in the latter. This comparison is a relatively short distance. Comparing the U.S. to France would introduce any number of complications given how different the public infranstructures are in the countries. To give a non-poor example, a friend of mine was telling of a friend of his who has lived abroad. He estimated he could enjoy a middle class existance in Thailand for a $1000 month there. He obviously couldn’t do that here. If we were to follow the proposed statistical model, we would conclude he would be living like the bottom 10% in the U.S.
From my own limited personal experience, it seems as though conservatives do tend to give more financially while liberals tend to give more physically. Compare Obama’s employment history to Bush’s.
According to Brooks, for whatever that’s worth, conservatives donate blood at a higher rate and also devote more time to charitable activities. You can’t explain away blood donations by claiming it’s all about tax deductions. Anyone wanting a good laugh should read the readers’ comments following George Will’s WaPo article on Brooks’s research. The notion that conservatives can be more generous in anything apparently comes as a great insult to many people.
Also, it’s only fair that Obama’s community activities, not to mention any pro bono work he might have done as a lawyer, should be considered when by anyone who wants to get into the messy business of judging such matters. But even those contributions pale in comparison to the sacrifice that John McCain or Bob Dole (not to mention JFK) made and then had to deal with on a daily basis thereafter, so I don’t envy anyone that task.
Lastly, it’s especially interesting that Morning’s Minion, who regresses abortion rates on presidential terms and pretends to have something that isn’t garbage, suddenly becomes a scientific-rigor queen when the research skews in a direction he doesn’t like.
Let’s not misunderstand consequentialism, which one form of denying that there is such a thing as intrinsically evil acts, claiming that moral actions can be judged solely by consequences– classic “ends justifies the means”. But if an act is not intrinsically evil– such as the provision of single payer health care, then it is perfectly licit to assess the consequences in terms of greater coverage, lower costs, less rationing, greater equity— all of which are empirically-shown benefits of single payer over the current US system.
On the poverty comparson that Blackadder quoted– this has been on the backburner for a post for some time– here is Paul Krugman, who has the uncanny sense of being right on economics nearly all of the time:
“Lane Kenworthy asks whether the United States has the highest poverty rate when you calculate it in absolute rather than relative terms — that is, by asking whether families are above the US poverty line rather than above half of median income.
The answer is, yes, probably — at best we’re number 2 among rich countries, after Britain.
The US does look a little better on absolute poverty, because we have somewhat higher average income than other rich countries (largely due to longer work hours, but that’s another issue.) But even so, the same Smeeding paper I cited earlier finds that in 2000 we placed second on average poverty rates, behind only Britain. And it’s a reasonable guess that the Blair-Brown government’s anti-poverty efforts since then have reversed our positions.
Two more points. First, this doesn’t take into account the fact that despite Medicaid and S-chip, many of the poor and near-poor in America lack health insurance – this is especially relevant for the 125% of poverty line calculations. Second, the US does fairly well in fighting poverty among the elderly — but very badly among children.”
Darwin, I read your health care proposal, and I commend you. It has some flaws, but the principle is pretty good. Ironically, though, your community associations have a lot in common with the “purchasing pools” under Clinton’s plan, which have the same goal– sharing the risks through social insurance. And you have in the indivodual mandate, which is also important (are you listening, Obama? :)) The other thing you need is some variation of community rating to avoid adverse selection.
Blackadder – My numbers were rates of Childhood Poverty: Link here (PDF File):
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard6e.pdf
France has large numbers of immigrants itself – it just takes care of them better. And arguing that the poor ought not to have children, in order to prevent them from being burdens on society… actually, that does have a tinge of consequentialism to it…
Just to be clear, though my tone was a bit ironic, my point was actually that it’s a _good_ thing that the poor in our country have children at a much higher rate than they do in Europe. But because we don’t contracept as much as Europe, we have more children living among poor families.
MM,
As I wrote that, I recognized that there were some elements that were in American political terms rather “liberal”. (Such as requiring that everyone belong to one.)
The key difference however (and what strikes me as potentially very socially destructive about a single payer system, though so many think it would be an instant cure-all) is that this would involve people caring for each other in a direct and knowlable way. When that’s all done through the national government, it becomes a black box, and it’s nobody’s business but the feds. There’s no faster say, so far as I can tell, to destroy any sense of communal responsibility.
Matt,
You’re right. You did say childhood poverty. My apologies.
Blackadder – thanks :)
Well, outside of a few prodigies and child actors, no children are earning their own way in the world. Children’s poverty status depends on the status of their parents, right? So if the childhood poverty rate exceeds the average poverty rate, that by necessity means that 1) rich people don’t have enough children proportionally; or put another way, 2) poor people have too many children proportionally.
I would say “have less” and “have more” rather than “don’t have enough” and “have too many,” but the general point sounds about right.
True . . . but the point is that if someone thinks the childhood poverty rate ought to equal the average poverty rate, then he is required to believe that someone’s childbearing practices are too high or too low.
I’d say there is a direction of fit issue here. One might as well say that if someone thinks the childhood poverty rate ought to equal the average poverty rate, then he is required to believe that there ought to be more childless poor people.
True — if rich people started having more children, that would equalize the childhood and average poverty rate, but the same number of actual children would still be in poverty.
I haven’t read all the comments here, and I can’t imagine how anyone with a clean conscience could support the vile formal cooperator with murder B. Obama; but I strongly object to using tax returns as a judge of how much someone is giving to charity. Tax law only allows you to deduct certain kinds of giving to certain ‘approved’ charities. If you try to give too much money directly to a poor person on an individual basis, not only do you not get a tax deduction, you get hit with a gift tax on top of the income tax you have already paid. (Sometimes you can get the cooperation of the local St. Vincent de Paul society, for example, to act as an intermediary to pay the person’s rent; or you can pay the person’s medical or tuition bills directly and at least avoid the gift tax hit. But why should you have to do that?)
The whole structure of government-approved ‘charitable’ giving is, frankly, a train wreck; and appealing to a structural train wreck is not credible here.
We have a much smaller income than the Obamas but our charitable donations our larger not only in percentage terms but in absolute terms. However, that’s probably just because our four children (so far) aren’t old enough to require tens of thousands of dollars in music lessons and sports camps.