Does the right give more to charity than the left?

Well, intuitively, KeyStone, it makes sense.  Most progressives want the government to solve problems, not private institutions and individuals.  Charity is inherently private action.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

I hope they will be too, LTJ.  It's very frustrating not to be able to link to old threads covering the same ground!

It makes sense because religious institutions are considered "charities".  So, if you tithe 10% of your income to your church so that they can spread the good news that god hates fags, women are second-class citizens who shouldn't have any rights over their bodies, indoctrinate your children in Sunday school, and build lots of pretty stained glass windows to look at, then that's considered "charitable giving".

Whereas, if I give a monthly donation to rabble.ca because I believe in citizen journalism and media democracy, and give money to homeless people on the streets, and donate many hours of my time to activism in order to try to change the ROOT CAUSES of the social problems that some charities try to address, that doesn't count as "charitable giving".

It only counts as "charity" if you aren't trying to do anything to actually change anything.

An oldie but a goodie:

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist" Dom Helder Camara

That completely exemplifies the problems with the charity model. But that would be thread drift.  

A reminder that charities have specific tax-exempt status in Canada. There are also many non-profits that don't have charitable status yet do extremely good and important social justice work. Would donations of time or money to such organizations "count" for this study? I don't think so.

And why am I remembering a study (posted on babble, who knows when) that as a percentage of income, lower-income earners donate more than higher income earners? Does this ring a bell for anyone else?

Maysie wrote:

And why am I remembering a study (posted on babble, who knows when) that as a percentage of income, lower-income earners donate more than higher income earners? Does this ring a bell for anyone else?

Joe Biden: Over the last ten years Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 per year to charity (or about 0.3% of their income): http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-fina...

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

  Oh noez.... well that cinches it. We have an example that runs counter to the actual study and stats...  Must be wrong!!

  Who the hell gives a flying f about Joe Bidens charity and what in the f does is that example supposed to 'prove'.  Yeesh already. 

 Does that mean that if I can google and find a single Republican that doesn't give to charity in any meaningful way that  I can use it to  'prove' that Republicans are scrooges?

 The biggest problem that I have with this is that it assumes that peoples political viewpoint is totally binary.  One side, vs the other side and sets some sort of data point on what exactly a 'liberal' is and what exactly a 'conservative' is.   That  itself is debate and very subjective. One's person 'liberal' is anothers 'conservative' and vice versa.
  For example and I expect that if anyone decides to take the time that many here would say that Joe Biden isn't even a 'liberal' but a right winger,  so that his example actually runs counter to the authors points that right wingers give more. 

 

 

 

 

ElizaQ wrote:

Who the hell gives a flying f about Joe Bidens charity and what in the f does is that example supposed to 'prove'.

I don't think it proves anything that can be extrapolated to support any general proposition.  Although, it does provide some evidence that Joe Biden, specifically, is a tight ass. 

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

[

What billions of desperately poor people need is socialism not random acts of kindness which solves nothing except to put a human face on a system that does not work for the large majority of humanity.

Rich people receive good PR for their good works. And most often its a tax write off. Meanwhile millions of ordinary people donate their time and money to charity to prop up an old world system of privilege and rule by the wealthy.

It's not guilty consciences that cause the right to donate money to charity. It's because they have a pretty good idea of how much of the national income is shovelled their way in various capitalist countries. It's in their best interests to play the Machiavellian every so often and be seen and heard doing it, too.

Michelle wrote: So, if you tithe 10% of your income to your church so that they can spread the good news that god hates fags, women are second-class citizens who shouldn't have any rights over their bodies, indoctrinate your children in Sunday school, and build lots of pretty stained glass windows to look at, then that's considered "charitable giving".

 

I tithe ten percent of my income to my congregation and I support equal marriage, am pro-choice and have never spent a cent on stain glass windows. I plead guilty to having our sons attend Sunday School.

 

Equating the support of a congregation with being right wing is overly simplistic.

ElizaQ wrote:

Giving or being chairitable, compassionate,  isn't just about money and stats.

Maysie wrote:

Hence, the factoid that conservatives gives more and therefore are more "compassionate" is also based on a flawed premise. 

I agree that money is only one aspect of compassion.  I have worked in both non profit and charity at food banks, shelters, kitchens and other assorted places.  It seemed the larger the donation the "further away" the person was (ie very large donations means they live a lifestyle in which I would never cross paths with them).

I heard a really good quote about compassion

"Feel the pain of other. Understand their struggles and disappointments, their hardships and inadequacies and open your heart to them. Realize that everyone is doing the best they possible can. Judge no one. But rather, cradle all of humanity in your heart" - Unkown

To me the people who gave the money were only able to feel a fraction of that ( manily because of the distance from the people they were giving to ) but I have compassion for them because they are doing the best that they possibly can.

The more you get into working because of compassion the more you realize that it is not a competition and the less you work because of compassion the more competitive it is.  Money can be a very competitive way of measuring how much you give but maybe that is just the best they can do right now.

Refuge wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:

Giving or being chairitable, compassionate, isn't just about money and stats.

Maysie wrote:

Hence, the factoid that conservatives gives more and therefore are more "compassionate" is also based on a flawed premise.

I agree that money is only one aspect of compassion. I have worked in both non profit and charity at food banks, shelters, kitchens and other assorted places. It seemed the larger the donation the "further away" the person was (ie very large donations means they live a lifestyle in which I would never cross paths with them).

I heard a really good quote about compassion

"Feel the pain of other. Understand their struggles and disappointments, their hardships and inadequacies and open your heart to them. Realize that everyone is doing the best they possible can. Judge no one. But rather, cradle all of humanity in your heart" - Unkown

To me the people who gave the money were only able to feel a fraction of that ( manily because of the distance from the people they were giving to ) but I have compassion for them because they are doing the best that they possibly can.

The more you get into working because of compassion the more you realize that it is not a competition and the less you work because of compassion the more competitive it is. Money can be a very competitive way of measuring how much you give but maybe that is just the best they can do right now.

 You bring up some good points that I don't really disagree with.  Some people do just give money and there are a numerous different reasons and motives that drive that giving, everything from base level just helping out fellow humans to motivations based around getting the tax breaks. 

 My comments aren't mean't to try to argue or judge that their is some sort of moral superiority of one way over another or that my way of thinking and doing is 'better'.  They're mainly comments against making such arguements, based on a monetary figures and money giving alone and extrapolate that to make statements about the moralness  or  'hypocrisy' of people as group who are supposedly left or right.    Compassion, charity, giving, care for fellow humans,  whatever you want to call it, manifest in numerous different ways.   It's these sort of A + B = C type arguements that just bug me.  It's to simplistic. 

 While studies such as these I think are useful in terms of bring up discussion (like this one) questions  and useful from a sociological/cultural perspective they lose their usefuness when they're simply used as some sort of 'proof' that my 'side' (which defined can be totally subjective in the first place) overall is better then your side, A + B= C ipso facto, you guys suck.    That hasn't happen so much here on this board but I've seen it used exactly in this fashion and it's annoying. 

 They're also useful in a completely practical fashion I guess.  Say I'm the consumate stereotypical leftie, running a charity. One of the things I need is $$$ to run it. I have limited funds and wherewithall to fundraise. Looking at demographics, who am I going to target to get that $$$?  To me that really speaks to the irony of trying to use this sort of as some sort of political dividing talking point and making it all about 'sides' being better then the other.   That of course is if one chooses to buy into a binary worldview where everything, at all times is, just about two competing 'sides.' 

I think the amount of money you give to charity is in proportion to your compassion level. For example, I give very little to charity and I'm an asshole.

Come to think of it, I don't even have what you might call an 'income' so I guess whatever I give counts as, like, a million percent. Maybe more.

I would suggest that the left does give and certainly those with lower incomes give a higher precentage of their income - antidotal thought based on person experience.

I run a chairty and when I look at the United Way campaigns in organized workplaces it's massive.

So what if people get a tax break?  I'll take that donation and affect change with it.  I'm not questioning anyone's motivation.

Making a donation needs to be a win-win for both the giver and the receiver.

 

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

I hate to say it, but Sven's right - even in Canada, there is no case where a charitable contribution puts you ahead financially.

A contribution may be made far less onerous due to tax deduction, but it always has a cost. 

ok.  I'm no tax accountant or lawyer so I will take both your words for it!.  Thanks.

LTJ, it's true that no one is ahead in mere dollars when they make a charitable contribution to something.  But the net payout is more than compensated by the social capital and/or advertising and power they get in exchange for the donation.

At churches, the big donors are the powerbrokers at church.  They become the elders, the deacons, the ones who are listened to at church council meetings, the ones that no one can ever offend in case they leave.  Even the ones who are "modest" and try to give "quietly" are known by the few people in administrative positions in church and so the people who run the place know who they have to tiptoe around and consult more than others. 

When you give to your church, even if your church does do the occasional progressive thing, what you are mostly giving to is the perpetuation of your social club.  The vast majority of church budgets go towards the salaries of their religious leaders, upkeep of their buildings and assets, and running the various self-perpetuation functions of the church like religious indoctrination (like Sunday School) and stuff like that.  Not to mention huge membership payments to the denomination, money to missions, etc.  My former church was involved in a good number of progressive "causes" but the vast majority of the budget was simply self-perpetuation - pastor and administrative salaries, church building maintenance and upkeep and utilities, church supplies, etc.

I don't get a tax receipt for paying for swimming lessons and art lessons and such for my son, but churchgoers get tax receipts when they pay for their kids' religious indoctrination in Sunday school.  I don't get a tax receipt if I pay to attend a concert every week or pay for music lessons for my son, but churchgoers get tax receipts when they pay for their church choirs to perform every week simply for their own amusement and for music leaders to teach adults and children at church how to sing and play.  I don't get a tax receipt when I hold a dinner party or drop-in at my place, but I get one if I donate to my church and then that money goes towards church suppers or coffee hour after church.

In hospitals and universities, the big donors get their names (or the names of their businesses) on plaques, on wings, on buildings.  They're buying advertising and getting a charitable receipt for it. 

Other charities like the illness charities give people the opportunity to buy influence with their charitable donations, by throwing exclusive events for their rich donors to rub elbows with each other.  

Your people?  That's kind of problematic, don't you think?  Just because you give money to someone, that doesn't make them "yours".

Except that, often it does.  I have experienced this in past work I've done at church.  One person in particular used to collect people with her money.  She'd give money to help a family or person in crisis or whatever, and forever afterwards, that family or person was "hers" and nothing about their life was off-limits to her nosy-parkering.

I'm not saying that you do this, Francesca, and I know you do good work.  I know what you mean.  But they're not "your people".   And the truth is, they shouldn't even be your clients.  And if people donated even a FRACTION of the money they give to charities like food banks and shelters to organizations that actually put pressure on governments to change the root causes of homelessness and hunger, you can be sure that governments WOULD raise social assistance rates and change eligibility criteria to be more fair, and those people wouldn't have to be "your people" any longer.

Michelle wrote:

...if people donated even a FRACTION of the money they give to charities like food banks and shelters to organizations that actually put pressure on governments to change the root causes of homelessness and hunger, you can be sure that governments WOULD raise social assistance rates and change eligibility criteria to be more fair, and those people wouldn't have to be "your people" any longer.

Quite right. I came to the same conclusion a couple of years ago, and now my occasional generosity goes towards generating political action. Donations to the NDP provide enhanced tax relief; donations to rabble.ca provide none, but are more effective in my mind than yet another food bank donation.

The rich create the need for food banks through corporate hijinks that cause layoffs and their constant demands for tax cuts. They [b]should[/b] be the ones to fund the food banks.

BTW, I'm still on the call lists for a dozen or more charities, and I've come to realize how self-perpetuating even the best of them are - with apologies to Francesca and others like her simply doing their best to help in a fucked-up world. 

KeyStone wrote:

Interesting Responses.

I had thought that this information would do one of two things:

1) Either we would dismiss the information as inaccurate
or
2) We would do a little soul-searching.

But it appears that the preferred response is to tear down those that give, rather than build ourselves up. Much easier.

I know that I have been guilty of delaying my charitable work in the past. First I wanted to wait until I finished school, then I wanted to wait until I bought a condo. Next it will be a worry about the children and then their college education. In other words, it isn't going to end, there will always be an excuse as to why I should wait.

I think that there are a number of reasons why the right gives more than the left. From excerpts that I have read from the study, it all comes down to religion. Those that are religious give considerable more than those that aren't. The study also said that those that even factoring out religious donations, they still give more. And, they volunteer more as well. The study also said that the left makes more, but the right gives more which I found particularly interesting.

As much as religions has its faults, most religions also teach a certain level of compassion. I know many religious people and they are very generous - they give to the humane society, to the food banks - they volunteer.

Go and join up with an organization dedicated in helping the poor (that gathers food and clothing etc), and I think you will find that the majority of the people involved are religious.

On the other hand, I think that groups that focus more on effecting government change through lobbying the government etc, are less likely to be filled with religious people. OCAP would be a good example. Does anyone have experience with them?

I think that both advocating for change, and directly helping those in need as a temporary measure are needed. It's fine to say if we help the poor, then the government won't need to change, but go and explain to the unemployed single mother of three why we shouldn't help her out until these reforms are made.

The difficulty in only advocating for change, is that the left has always been accused of wanting to spend other people's money. If we don't walk the walk, and put our money and time where our mouth is, it really undermines our credibility.

I, for one, don't intend to increase the suffering of the poor, to use as a bargaining chip, to bring about permanent change.

 

 

 

 

 Keystone, I really don't see much tearing down going on here and neither do I see that only two options available. What I actually see and have participated in is a discussion about the information that is available, problems that could come up with the actual study data and conclusions that there author has come too with the data that he collected as well as some comments about the whole idea of charity itself.  That's not tearing down, that's looking at it more indepth and it's prudent.  I personally don't see the authors conclusions as something that should be dimissed outright without thinking about it and I personally am not.

 The one fact that I don't think has been really addressed is that this book or study was done in the US context and within the US socio/political context of left and right ' as well as the US context of relgiousity which is different the Canada.  Whether the authors conclusions would extrapolate to a Canadian socio/political context wholeheartedly or to another country is a question.  I know personally I'm not about to make some whole hearted conclusion about 'left' vs 'right' across the board just by going on a USian example.  We don't even define 'liberal' in the same way that the US tends to define a 'liberal' for a start.  

I heard on the radio that the Daily Bread food bank generated way, way more than their target this year through their Christmas fundraising drive with the CBC.  Plus they have a bunch of corporate food sponsors, etc.

I think OCAP needs our help more than the Daily Bread Food Bank does.  I think OCAP does better work, frankly.  They helped poor people across Ontario get access to more social assistance through the special diet allowance.  While of course this doesn't mean that those people had enough to live on yet, it certainly means that it reduces to some degree their need to go to food banks and soup kitchens and beg for their supper.  And OCAP almost always has food available at their political actions too.  I have no problem with providing food to people who need it.  What I have a problem with is doing that while sucking up to governments and corporations who perpetuate the disparity, comforting the rich, perpetuating poverty, and not speaking any truth to power.

I just received a call from MADD. Serendipitous, given that I was just talking about the 'self-perpetuating' nature of charities. 

MADD in particular has been noted for spending 80+ percent of their revenues on fundraising. However, they claim that as public awareness is their goal, fundraising is a legitimate function for raising awareness - so that the more they are given, the more they will fundraise. 

I dislike the term "charity" - but I am not going stop making monetary contributions because of my distaste for the term. I think Billy Bragg said it best in his song "I Don't Need This Pressure Ron":

Neither in the name of conscience/
Nor the name of charity/
Money is put where mouths are/
In the name of solidarity

While I fully acknowledge the validity of some of the posts here about problems with many charitable groups (I am thinking here specifically of Michelle's post #32 -- and I think I have a few first hand horror stories about some large charities that would surprise even the most cynical) this does not mean I am convinced that the answer is to stop making monetary contributions -- the only thing that I am convinced of is that I have to critically examine the operations of a group before making any contribution. I also have to bear in mind that making monetary contributions in no way lessens my responsibility to be actively involved and volunteer -- monetary contributions and volunteering are not mutually exclusive things and being able to do one does not absolve me of the responsibility to do the other within my means and ability.

To me, it is vital to be both informed and pragmatic about monetary contributions.  If the group I am considering contributing to uses an excessively high percentage to maintain itself (usually salaries and advertising, something frequently found with the large illness/organ medical charities) there is no way I am going to make a contribution. If the money that is received is used to proselytize or make political interventions that I think damaging (most religious charities) I would also refrain from making a contribution. There are, however, still a wide range of groups with charitable status, engaged in what I consider to be valuable "solidarity" activities, that I can contribute to without compromising my ability to "speak truth to power". So, I make the contributions and accept (and in some cases insist) on the tax receipt. 

Why the emphasis on the tax receipt? Because it means more capital (in the form of a tax refund) coming my way that I can direct toward future contributions. I consider the groups I support worth being bloody minded about. If I am involved in a group on a volunteer basis and am putting a lot of kilometres on my car when doing things for the group, I am most definitely going to charge mileage (kilometrage?) at the same rate as the federal government pays for use of a personal vehicle (approx. 50 cents per kilometre). Then, I immediately donate back the full amount I have received to the group I have charged, which leave me with a tax credit of approx. 1/3 the amount of the donation. When I get my tax refund I have that amount of money to donate again - either to this group or another one. Trust me, this can quickly add up, and I consider it the pragmatic way of dealing with volunteer donations "in kind". (As a side note, it is possible to do this when dealing with political parties [NDP, Greens, etc.] and any charitiable group --- BUT, political parties (and their financial agents) are prohibited by law from "soliciting" such donations (exchanges) and it is the responsibility of the volunteer to make such a proposal -- if it is the volunteer who suggests it, it is totally legal and, in fact, makes for a more accurate and complete report from the riding association to Elections Canada if the volunteer does, in fact, bill for value of their volunteer services. Those of you who are actively involved in electoral politics should keep this in mind.)

I think part of the discussion should be about the need for different categories of charitable contributions and how they are dealt with under tax policy. Going back to Michelle's examples in post #32 -- the churches who use the donations they receive to sponsor indoctrination sessions (whoops, I meant hold Sunday Schools), should not be treated the same way something like the Stephen Lewis Foundation is -- donations to support people (at a distance) affected by the AIDS pandemic is of greater societal value. This greater value should be reflected by more favourable tax credits. We need reform of the laws governing charities and, while I have some sympathy for the idea of stripping some groups of their status entirely that would be an almost impossible sell. Pragmatically, we should be working for a tiered structure for crediting donations.

 

Why equality of opportunity in a social democracy works better than the charitable impulse of pity in an inequitable society:

 

"Kishiyama, Knight, Boyce and their colleagues selected 26 children ages 9 and 10 from a group of children in the WINKS study. Half were from families with low incomes and half from families with high incomes. For each child, the researchers measured brain activity while he or she was engaged in a simple task: watching a sequence of triangles projected on a screen. The subjects were instructed to click a button when a slightly skewed triangle flashed on the screen.The researchers were interested in the brain's very early response - within as little as 200 milliseconds, or a fifth of a second - after a novel picture was flashed on the screen, such as a photo of a puppy or of Mickey and Minnie Mouse."An EEG allows us to measure very fast brain responses with millisecond accuracy," Kishiyama said.The researchers discovered a dramatic difference in the response of the prefrontal cortex not only when an unexpected image flashed on the screen, but also when children were merely watching the upright triangles waiting for a skewed triangle to appear. Those from low socioeconomic environments showed a lower response to the unexpected novel stimuli in the prefrontal cortex that was similar, Kishiyama said, to the response of people who have had a portion of their frontal lobe destroyed by a stroke."

Your conclusions are pretty much right on but its not because they are more charitable its just that its all part of the belief system as its what food banks and homeless shelters are made of along with stale bread.  And when it comes to charity did you know the wealthy neighborhoods get the same amount from United Way, etc?  Although clearly these neighborhoods are not lacking in anything but its the way things go around here as money has a way of working itself right back to the pockets of the rich.  Its really their whole belief system is eliminate social programs and leave the needy on the streets to die while they receive recognition for the few dollars they threw their way.  And money that was put into the social safety net well has all but disappeared as the money now finds its way into the pockets of big business.  They then say communities and charitable donations will assist these people using the trickle down theory.  And that charity dollar for the different drives ends up being little money as most ends up in the pockets of its organizations leaving little for the cause.