Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterWombat
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
covingtondog
No freaking way...
Offline
If you really wanted to climb the ladder, you would become a conservative.
BullDawg
Gone but will never forgotten. R.I.P. Nate
Offline
Tax deductable even.>>Does the collection plate that goes to church funds count...? I wouldn't think that is charity?
Yep.
TPS
Dave
Super Forum Fanatic
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Offline
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test
"Cheap in America"
Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco
We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?
To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?
Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?
It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test
"Cheap in America"
Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco
We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?
To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?
Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?
It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
RebSaint
Lint smoker
Offline
Bingo. Technically, I don't think George W. Bush and those of his ilk in the current Republican Party are "conservative," per se--if conservative means in smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
A classic example someone wanting to prove a pre-concieved conclusion, and going out and finding the data to support that conclusion.
And although it makes sense that more people *with* money are more likely to give money, it also stands to reason there are many leftists/liberals who are successful who work in soup kitchens, donate their time in United Way, etc. It also would stand to reason that liberals or leftists are more activist-oriented, so that they would more likely be involved in community-based charities.
The study reeks does reek of someone with an underlying agenda.
Offline
Well, let me throw in my two cents. Rural Midwesterners are good people who care about others. A lot of them know members of the communities, and many of them have also at some time been down on their luck themselves. When it comes to donating, many of them probably know the people that they are helping, or they know someone who is in that situation themselves. I am sure many, many people who live on the Gulf Coast can understand this line of reasoning, just from what I hear on this board. For example, I never used to donate to the American Cancer Society until my mom faught cancer, All of a sudden, I started to because I could put a face on the cause. In other words, things you have a tangible connection with, you are more likely to support.
The authors then used San Francisco. Having known people who live in San Fran, with the cost of basic housing and such, there is probably less disposable income there than in the MidWest. Google real estate in San Fran and see what a very modest house costs there. Also, in large cities, you somewhat lose contact with other members of society and their issues.
The only thing that I can think of to support the big income, more giving thing is that my brother gets a big tax writeoff every year from his work. He doesn't really find any personal connection to it, but he sure does like the writeoff.
The authors then used San Francisco. Having known people who live in San Fran, with the cost of basic housing and such, there is probably less disposable income there than in the MidWest. Google real estate in San Fran and see what a very modest house costs there. Also, in large cities, you somewhat lose contact with other members of society and their issues.
The only thing that I can think of to support the big income, more giving thing is that my brother gets a big tax writeoff every year from his work. He doesn't really find any personal connection to it, but he sure does like the writeoff.
whiteshadowen
Millsaps TC forever
Offline
Post Katrina - initially and continuing. People are still coming from all over the USA to help in the cleanup and recovery in New orleans and the Gulf Coast. Giving of their time and their money. That's the best example of charitable giving that comes to my mind. As a group, how would you catagorize these people...conservatives or liberals?
ra
I'm happily on drugs
Offline
I smell Amway...
gumbeau
Pro-Bowler
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 0
Offline
It really is a very simple issue.
And it has everything to do with a person's core beliefs.
If you believe each individual has a responsibility: to take care of himself and those around him as well as personal responsibility for one's own actions that extends to a charitable state of mind .
If you believe individual responsibility isn't important in any form this will lead to a very self centered outlook in ALL matters.
It doesn't equate to labels like conservative or liberal, religious or non-religious.
It boils down to one's belief system regarding the role of the individual in society.
Could one argue that one political philosophy attracts more folks who believe in individual responsibility? Probably but the lines won't be crystal clear.
If I were to take a guess I would say the interior West is the most charitable region of the country because the interior West is where the highest concentration of people who hold strong beliefs in individual responsiblity live, followed by the South and Midwest. Both coasts would be at the bottom of the pile.
And it has everything to do with a person's core beliefs.
If you believe each individual has a responsibility: to take care of himself and those around him as well as personal responsibility for one's own actions that extends to a charitable state of mind .
If you believe individual responsibility isn't important in any form this will lead to a very self centered outlook in ALL matters.
It doesn't equate to labels like conservative or liberal, religious or non-religious.
It boils down to one's belief system regarding the role of the individual in society.
Could one argue that one political philosophy attracts more folks who believe in individual responsibility? Probably but the lines won't be crystal clear.
If I were to take a guess I would say the interior West is the most charitable region of the country because the interior West is where the highest concentration of people who hold strong beliefs in individual responsiblity live, followed by the South and Midwest. Both coasts would be at the bottom of the pile.
iron error
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2003
- Messages
- 3,051
- Reaction score
- 564
Offline
Anyone care to offer what they think is a typical percent of gross income given toward charitable gifts?
Maybe liberals tend to believe that the government is responsible for charity, thus the taxes we pay toward them, therefore they have no inclination toward paying any extra out of pocket.
Meanwhile, conservatives believe it is individuals responsible for charity and the believe in the individual accountability of receiving any charity, thus hate the socialist aspect of taxes used toward taxes and prefer to give to charity via charitable gifts.
Maybe liberals tend to believe that the government is responsible for charity, thus the taxes we pay toward them, therefore they have no inclination toward paying any extra out of pocket.
Meanwhile, conservatives believe it is individuals responsible for charity and the believe in the individual accountability of receiving any charity, thus hate the socialist aspect of taxes used toward taxes and prefer to give to charity via charitable gifts.
CT Saints Fan
More than 15K posts served!
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,641
- Reaction score
- 40
- Age
- 57
Offline
Typical I would estimate at 1.5% to 2%. At least I had an accountant tell me that one year for claiming charitable contributions on your tax return - that number would not raise eyebrows.
Mojomajik9
Team Gleason
Offline
Interesting article on this topic by Nicholas Kristoff from the NY Times today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
"Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."
But, as a whole, Americans are more generous individually than their European peers.
"Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent. "
Also cited in the article, is that, as a group, gays are one of the more generous groups in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
"Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."
But, as a whole, Americans are more generous individually than their European peers.
"Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent. "
Also cited in the article, is that, as a group, gays are one of the more generous groups in America.
There are some reasonably reliable methods for defining and polling liberalism (if you feel like looking up the GSS, it makes its data available online, and they provide some decent broad-based survey data on liberal/conservative attitudes). My guess is the book'll use fairly acceptable measures to peg respondents to one category or the other. It's not the sharpest instrument, but it'll do for gathering general information. My bigger concern is with the controls he's put in place in analyzing the data.
I think this is a good jumping-off point for questioning his methods. You know a lot of generous atheists in your area, social network, etc. He found that liberals (and atheists?) are less likely, on the whole, to be "generous." So, several potential problems come to mind. For one, it's not like liberals and atheists are evenly distributed across regions or social strata or cultures or education levels. Any of those factors could have a major impact on the results. Whether and how he controlled for them is crucial, here. If what we're seeing is, for example, a simple difference in where liberal and conservative population centers tend to be (e.g. urban vs. suburban), well, then the results become much less provocative ("people in cities give less than people in suburbs"). I'm also curious how he defined "generosity." If he's just looking at charitable donations, I'm not sure he's really found anything particularly interesting here.
Maybe his findings are surprising and informative. There's no way to know, though, without actually sitting down and going over how he came to his conclusions. From this blurb, all we have is the bare conclusion of the work, stripped of all qualification and explanation. That doesn't really tell us anything, regardless of how people would like to portray it.
This is an aside, but we actually do have extremely strong evidence that conservatives do tend to beget conservatives. Your parents' political affiliation is a phenomenally strong predictor of your future political affiliation. The fact that the 60s saw a great deal of social upheaval doesn't really tell you whether there was a mass shift toward the left. The vocal members of the left may simply have been (and, in point of fact, were) generally the children of left-leaning parents. The change was in publicity of political attitudes, not, for the most part, in the frequency of those attitudes. Changes in actual numbers of self-identified liberals/conservatives (and in liberal/conservative attitudes) happen much more slowly and are more greatly affected by good/bad political events than by protest movements.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 1998
- Messages
- 13,553
- Reaction score
- 21,529
- Age
- 54
Offline
Are you kidding me?
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.